Rijksbaron and the Greek New Testament

[Jonathan Robie]

I see also one big problem. This would easily lead to pressing Koine into the same mold than Classical Greek. It would be easy to neglect counter-examples. It would be easy to loose different nuances. This requires highly competent project leaders.

I agree. We should definitely seek out and debate counter-examples. Also, I think we should consult BDF or BDR at every point.

Makes sense. I have BDR, but not BDF.

[Stephen Carlson]

Makes sense. I have BDR, but not BDF.

They're very similar. BDR is better formatted and sometimes fuller. Oh, and it's auf deutsch.

[Jonathan Robie]

Makes sense. I have BDR, but not BDF.

They're very similar. BDR is better formatted and sometimes fuller. Oh, and it's auf deutsch.

The section numbers seem to correspond, at least sometimes. Do they always? Yeah, I noticed the German bit, I bought this grammar in Germany when I thought I could use it to learn NT Greek as a beginner. Snort. German wasn't the barrier.

[Stephen Carlson]

The section numbers seem to correspond, at least sometimes. Do they always? Yeah, I noticed the German bit, I bought this grammar in Germany when I thought I could use it to learn NT Greek as a beginner. Snort. German wasn't the barrier.

I used both in my dissertation. The section numbers usually corresponded, but there were some differences. There were more citations in BDR, as I recall.

[Alex Hopkins]

I've been snowed under by work commitments over the last few days, and I see that the discussion of R has already begun, but I wonder if I might revive this earlier thread for a moment.

Last week I was reading C M J Sicking's 'The Distribution of Aorist and Present Tense Stem Forms in Greek...' (Glotta, 69, 1991 pp14-43), which deals with matters similar to those that concern Rijksbaron (and indeed he refers to R); I was having a hard enough time getting (that's a conative use) my head around it, and was thinking, I'll have an even harder time reflecting on it in the light of R and reflecting on R in the light of Sicking, and then this suggestion was raised. So I think the project's interesting and worthwhile.

I'd like to underscore a couple of matters raised in the above discussion, particularly in a couple of posts by Eeli.

This would easily lead to pressing Koine into the same mold than Classical Greek. It would be easy to neglect counter-examples. It would be easy to loose different nuances. This requires highly competent project leaders.

A long time ago my Greek was slipping. That is, I was for a time a research assistant to the Horsley-Lee revision of MM that, sadly, has never come to fruition; I was writing (iterative use), on slips of paper, extracts from papyrological texts which illustrated NT vocabulary. Greg indicated to me that they found that the information provided by some voluntary slippers was inaccurate. Greg and John were "highly competent project leaders". I agree with Eeli that this project needs such, though it also raises the question as to whether the benefit is mainly seen in the process or the product of the project.

In a later post, Eeli commented,

Many people would have only little time for such a project, maybe a couple of hours per week, I guess. If it's too fast, people will drop off rather than read everything through and research and comment it.

I think this is right. In another discussion on the list last week, the importance of reading was stressed. The type of reading required for this project is analytical, and the time required considerable. I think it would be good, as Ken did with his project, to set out a time-line, and to give plenty of time to it, maybe with breaks so those interested can catch their breath to attend to other projects and commitments.

I'd also suggest a glossary of terms be made as part of the project, including, where necessary, discussion of different usages of the same term.

Another suggestion is that before the discussion kicks off in earnest time be given to allow interested B-Greekers to get hold of R.

Another thought is that B-Greek members number 850+. Of these, the great majority are silent. To my mind, it would be great if more members posted to the forum; but perhaps it would be worthwhile to ask members to indicate if they would be interested to follow such a project, and, beyond that, to ask which of us might have the time and interest to contribute to it, even if only to be more active in asking for clarification of the discussion. I'm aware, too, that B-Greek discussions are read by plenty who aren't members (that is evident from quotations from B-Greek discussions which can be seen elsewhere on the web), so the more helpful to ourselves, the more helpful the discussion would be to others as well, I'm sure.

Finally, is the assumption that R's view of the verb is fundamentally the correct one?

Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia

[Jonathan Robie]

Finally, is the assumption that R's view of the verb is fundamentally the correct one?

This is a discussion of Rijksbaron's book, which a lot of people here seem to appreciate it. People are free to assume whatever they want. As we discuss it, we should also point out any flaws in his account, or discrepancies between Classical Greek and Hellenistic Greek, and propose alternatives if need be.

We should also look for Koine examples.

I'd like to underscore a couple of matters raised in the above discussion, particularly in a couple of posts by Eeli.

This would easily lead to pressing Koine into the same mold than Classical Greek. It would be easy to neglect counter-examples. It would be easy to lose different nuances. This requires highly competent project leaders.

A long time ago my Greek was slipping. That is, I was for a time a research assistant to the Horsley-Lee revision of MM that, sadly, has never come to fruition; I was writing (iterative use), on slips of paper, extracts from papyrological texts which illustrated NT vocabulary. Greg indicated to me that they found that the information provided by some voluntary slippers was inaccurate. Greg and John were "highly competent project leaders". I agree with Eeli that this project needs such, though it also raises the question as to whether the benefit is mainly seen in the process or the product of the project.

I would hope that this discussion might result in material that people could use to write other things, but it's not the goal of this project per se. If anyone wants to use material posted here to write anything, they will have to sort out the wheat from the chaff, this is a discussion on a discussion board.

Many people would have only little time for such a project, maybe a couple of hours per week, I guess. If it's too fast, people will drop off rather than read everything through and research and comment it.

I think this is right. In another discussion on the list last week, the importance of reading was stressed. The type of reading required for this project is analytical, and the time required considerable. I think it would be good, as Ken did with his project, to set out a time-line, and to give plenty of time to it, maybe with breaks so those interested can catch their breath to attend to other projects and commitments.

Pace matters. My best guess, based on the first section, is that aiming for one section a week is probably about right. I hope that people will feel very to revisit earlier sections long after we've started new sections. There's a time for first impressions, and a time for consideration and reconsideration.

Too slow can be as bad as too fast. Different people will go at different rates. Some people will be filling in more depth on earlier sections while others are still trying to figure out what Rijksbaron was saying in newer sections.

I'd also suggest a glossary of terms be made as part of the project, including, where necessary, discussion of different usages of the same term.

Again, right now we're discussing Rijksbaron, so the glossary that matters is the one in Rijksbaron. If anyone wants to maintain a glossary, feel free. Actually, a glossary that gives all the usages of these terms might be a project in its own right.

Another suggestion is that before the discussion kicks off in earnest time be given to allow interested B-Greekers to get hold of R.

Your concern is that people may feel left in the dust? We're still on the first section, moving on to the second some time in the next week maybe. I assume people can get Rijksbaron in a week or so? These are very short sections.

[Alex Hopkins]

Your concern is that people may feel left in the dust? We're still on the first section, moving on to the second some time in the next week maybe. I assume people can get Rijksbaron in a week or so? These are very short sections.

Thanks for the responses to my different points. As to the last, yes, I was thinking that there may well be some who have followed different B-Greek discussions in which Rijksbaron has been favourably mentioned in the past, and who might be prompted to get the text now that it's proposed to work through it. There is one Australian friend on the list to whom I'd thought of writing (in case the recent posts had gone unnoticed) to suggest considering the project. My copy of R lies open in front of me on my desk, and I can't remember exactly how long it took to get to the Antipodes, but it was probably more than a fortnight.

Alex Hopkins
Melbourne, Australia

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

I hope that people will feel very to revisit earlier sections long after we've started new sections.

I hope that, too. Every past section is as good and important to comment upon than the current one!

Your concern is that people may feel left in the dust? We're still on the first section, moving on to the second some time in the next week maybe. I assume people can get Rijksbaron in a week or so? These are very short sections.

I think one week for one section is a minimum.

Here in Finland it may take from two to four weeks to get a book from the cheapest place (often UK or USA). Lets elaborate on the first section one extra week for the slow starters...

[Jonathan Robie]

I think one week for one section is a minimum.

Here in Finland it may take from two to four weeks to get a book from the cheapest place (often UK or USA). Lets elaborate on the first section one extra week for the slow starters...

We seem to be running out of steam on the first section, 2 1/2 pages, after 1 week. If nobody objects by tomorrow morning, I'd like to start the second section, which is 1/2 page, I think people will still be able to catch up.

I also found section 2 rather surprising. It's bound to spawn some interesting discussion.

[Louis L Sorenson]

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:I think one week for one section is a minimum.

Here in Finland it may take from two to four weeks to get a book from the cheapest place (often UK or USA). Lets elaborate on the first section one extra week for the slow starters...

If slowing down is a reason because of access to the print book, note that the TOC to page 15, can be viewed on Google Books http://books.google.com/books?id=ELh-Ui ... ek&f=false