Mon Apr 8 03:05:09 1996

From majordom  Mon Apr  8 03:05:09 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA09645; Mon, 8 Apr 1996 03:05:09 +0500
Message-Id: <31684BEA.314E@ucr.campus.mci.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 1996 23:12:42 +0000
From: Don Wilkins 
Organization: UC Riverside
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Subject: Re: Luke 12,58
References: <960406203050_370486175@emout07.mail.aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2327
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

HuldrychZ@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Don,
> 
> In a message dated 96-04-06 19:56:00 EST, you write:
> 
> >I suspect what we have is a clause of fearing using the future
> >indicative in the sense of warning as was typical of "future
> >emotional" conditions in classical Greek. Perhaps this is why Heb
> >3.12 apparently passed muster with the scribes
> 
> I don't know about Xenophon; but I would suggest that the grammar of the
> Greek NT follows much looser rules than you are intimating.  If there is one
> thing that can be counted on, it is that the rules of grammar will be broken
> by the writers of the NT.  You are liable to find anything grammatically (for
> instance the grammatically dreadful book of Revelation).  Thus it is somewhat
> hazardous to press grammatical rules too far- they are guidelines, not stone
> inscribed dictum.
> 
> Jim

Jim, there are two points I'd like to make in response. First, my 
original comment was mainly intended to point out that the future 
indicative in a clause of fearing/caution was not unknown in 
classical texts (Xenophon is an important example because he uses 
good Attic Greek), and therefore it would be short-sighted to say 
that the NT passages in question cry out for the subjunctive. After 
all, the "rule" being appealed to is taken from classical Greek in the 
first place. Second, I am of course aware of the exceptions and 
apparent violations of classical Greek (I assume that we are talking 
about Attic Greek when we speak of rules, as is usually the case), 
but I think we generally fail to give the NT writers credit for what 
they do right. In fact, in the vast majority of passages the writers 
hold to classical grammar--note that I do not say classical *style*, as 
one finds exceptionally in Luke's prologue--, which suggests the 
possibility that the "errors" are intentional departures from more or 
less standard style. On the other side of the coin, we should 
naturally expect to see some differences and some degeneration of 
the language due to time and colloquial usage; but my experience is 
that the NT writers are remarkably close to classical standards, 
except when they choose not to be (e.g. in translational Greek). I 
certainly do agree with you, though, that the rules are guidelines, 
even in classical Greek.

Don Wilkins
UC Riverside

Back