Re: An ancient conversation

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.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Sep 18 23:19:43 2003