Re: An ancient conversation

Jim wrote (forgive me for quoting in full, but it's not long and is probably
half-forgotten):

<< Running this down is going to be like looking for a needle in a haystack.
The looking around I've done, though, tells me that if I'm confusing
anything, I'm probably confusing statements by Origen or Eusebius with
statements from later scholars.

<< I did find this in Donald Guthrie's _New Testament Introduction_ (IVP
1970):

<< "The author of this Gospel writes in a form of Greek which is stamped
with his own individuality. The range of his vocabulary is severely limited
and yet the effect that he produces is dignified and compelling. He is
given to repetition of words and phrases, which nevertheless is never
monotonous. He does not contrive to acheive elegance of expression by
classical standards, but what he does acheive is a simple impressiveness of
presentation. In spite of his simple style, his Greek never becomes
inaccurate. C.K. Barrett says, 'It is neither bad Greek nor (according to
classical standards) good Greek.'" (316-17).

<< He goes on to cite another scholar who says the guy was very cultured but
whose mother tongue was not Greek.

<< It's not what I said before -- that some asserted it was indeed bad
Greek -- so this wasn't my source. From the above, though, it seems that
those who do say John's Greek is bad Greek are probably comparing him to
classical Greek writers.

<< I probably won't be able to dig anymore until after Monday, though. >>

Thank you, Jim. Could you give the name of the scholar who says that the
author of John was very cultured but not a native speaker of Greek? Any
others? I would like to find their books or articles.

The quotation of Barrett is from his "The Gospel According to St. John: An
Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text."

To quote more extensively, he says:

"The Greek style of the fourth gospel [. . . .] is neither bad Greek nor
(according to classical standards) good Greek. Solecisms are avoided; and
so are all the fine and characteristic subtleties of the Greek language. In
spite of the absence of these niceties the style remains not only clear but
very impressive, charged with a repetitive emphasis and solemn dignity which
are felt even in translation. John's vocabulary is very small, but even so
many of his most frequently used words occur comparatively rarely in the
synoptic gospels. [. . .]

"John's Greek moves slowly and within narrow limits, which clearly
distinguish it from the other gospels; but it must be acknowledged to be an
adequate instrument for the author's purpose. In spite of the small
vocabulary the reader never receives the impression of an ill-equipped
writer at a loss for the right word; rather that of a teacher who is
confident that his message can be summed up in a few fundamental
propositions which he has learnt to express with studied economy of
diction."

Barrett then goes on to list in detail many "characteristic expressions and
usages" of John that differ from classical Greek, and the Hebraist
immediately recognizes most of them as familiar, noble Semiticisms. Less
immediately, but at length and in detail, Barrett acknowledges and describes
them as such. Finally, he says:

"It does [. . .] seem probable that John [. . .] was accustomed to think and
speak in Aramaic as well as in Greek. [. . .] John, though he may not have
had a formal Greek education, was not an uncultivated writer. [. . .]
Perhaps it is safest to say that in language as in thought John treads,
perhaps not unconsciously, the boundary between the Hellenic and Semitic; he
avoids the worst kind of Semitism, but retains precisely that slow and
impressive feature of Aramaic which was calculated to produce the effect of
solemn, religious Greek, and may perhaps have influenced already the
liturgical language of the Church."

I spent a few hours today in the library perusing some other scholarship on
John, and didn't find any estimation of his language that was more negative
than this. Some of them, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries,
seemed even reluctant to assert plainly whether they took the author to have
been essentially Hellenic or a Jew writing in Greek.

This, of course, is not exhaustive, but if you come up with any more names,
my interest is unlikely to wane.

-Robbie
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Oct 14 20:36:01 2003