Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [John_Lit] Re: Eucharistic eating in John 6:51-58

Expand Messages
  • Stephen C. Carlson
    ... Popular as in colloquial . ... I m not sure what you mean, but the New Testament corpus of Greek does show quite a range of stylistic variation, from
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 3, 2003
      Bob Schacht <bobschacht@...> wrote:
      >I certainly would not want to argue with Blass-Debrunner-Funk, but I am
      >puzzled about why TRWGEIN can be considered the "popular" substitute for
      >ESQIEN if there are so few examples of it in this usage? Or, by "popular"
      >do they mean "vulgar" rather than "most frequent in the known literature"?

      "Popular" as in "colloquial".

      >Isn't it true that ESQIEN and its derivatives are much more common in the
      >NT than TRWGEIN and its derivatives?

      I'm not sure what you mean, but the New Testament corpus of
      Greek does show quite a range of stylistic variation, from
      the barely grammatical (Revelation), to the simple (Mark and
      John), to the elegant and refined (e.g. Luke, Acts, Hebrews).
      Thus, when popular/colloquial vs. refined uses are concerned,
      statistics from the NT are not so helpful as they would be
      for a word whose usage is more stable in the first century.

      >Also, I notice that there is no mention of any difference in usage by verb
      >tense, so McGrath's argument, which requires a shift in verb choice
      >depending on verb tense?

      ESQIEIN is a suppletive verb, in that some of its tenses are
      supplied by different roots. In Greek, this verb is particularly
      affected, because its future and perfect tenses are supplied
      by EDEIN, and its aorist by FAGEIN. In Ionic and Hellenistic
      Greek, from which the Koine developed, the future was supplied
      by FAGEIN, while the perfect was supplied by BIBRWSKEIN. Then,
      in later Greek, TRWGEIN came to supply the present tense.

      English, too, has suppletive verbs; one example, is GO-WENT-GONE,
      where the past tense of GO is supplied by the past from of
      WEND. The substitution of ESQIEIN by TRWGEIN is a substitution
      of roots in particular tenses, not a wholesale replacement.

      >Also, for what period is the Blass-Debrunner-Funk grammar intended as
      >normative? I assume that it must include first century Judea and Galilee,
      >or you wouldn't have used it.

      BDF is the grammar for the Greek of New Testament and early
      Christian literature, covering its first two centuries. Hermas
      and Barnabas, also cited in the entry I quoted, are difficult
      to date but were probably composed in the early second century,
      not much later than the traditional date for the Fourth Gospel.

      Stephen Carlson

      --
      Stephen C. Carlson,
      mailto:scarlson@...
      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
    • Mike Grondin
      ... Stephen- I m somewhat confused by the last three statements above. Since you say that in Greek EDEIN supplies the future tense for ESQIEIN, but yet that
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 4, 2003
        --- Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
        > ESQIEIN is a suppletive verb, in that some of its tenses are
        > supplied by different roots. In Greek, this verb is particularly
        > affected, because its future and perfect tenses are supplied
        > by EDEIN, and its aorist by FAGEIN. In Ionic and Hellenistic
        > Greek, from which the Koine developed, the future was supplied
        > by FAGEIN, while the perfect was supplied by BIBRWSKEIN. Then,
        > in later Greek, TRWGEIN came to supply the present tense.

        Stephen-

        I'm somewhat confused by the last three statements above. Since
        you say that "in Greek" EDEIN supplies the future tense for ESQIEIN,
        but yet that "in Ionic and Hellenistic Greek" FAGEIN supplies the
        future, I get the impression that your first "in Greek" may be a
        reference to modern Greek. Does the following capture your
        historical breakdown?

        1. Ionic & Hellenistic Greek: future-FAGEIN
        2. "later Greek" (incl Koine?): present-TRWGEIN, perfect-BIBRWSKEIN
        3. modern Greek?: future & perfect-EDEIN, aorist-FAGEIN

        So that, between stages 1 and 3, the future form of ESQIEIN
        differed, and between stages 2 and 3, the perfect form differed?
        But also, if stage 3 really is modern Greek, then it may safely be
        ignored for our purposes? Or have I misunderstood your breakdown?

        The second question I have is how this relates to the usage in GJn
        (both in general, and specifically in 6.51-58) of the forms of
        FAGEIN and TRWGEIN. You've concentrated on the usage of FAGEIN as
        suppletive to ESQIEIN, but doesn't GJn use FAGEIN in ways other
        than as a future-tense suppletive to ESQIEIN? In particular, if
        it's used in the present-tense, wouldn't that show that when
        TRWGEIN *is* used, there must have been a reason for so doing?

        > English, too, has suppletive verbs; one example, is GO-WENT-GONE,
        > where the past tense of GO is supplied by the past from of
        > WEND. The substitution of ESQIEIN by TRWGEIN is a substitution
        > of roots in particular tenses, not a wholesale replacement.

        No doubt, but then there's that (embarrasingly?) unqualified
        statement in BDF that "TRWGEIN is the popular substitution for
        ESQIEIN." (I do have a copy of BDF, BTW, though it's a bit of
        an odd duck within my limited collection of accessible, but
        pedestrian, sources.)

        Now for something completely different:
        Did 'goed' go against the goad from the get-go, or did 'went'
        go to 'go' only when 'wend' went astray? <g>

        Respects,
        Mike Grondin
      • Tobias Hägerland
        ... ESQIEIN, ... Although I am not Stephen Carlson, I think I am able to clarify the matter. Stephen s in Greek is hardly a reference to modern Greek, but to
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 6, 2003
          Mike Grondin wrote:

          > Stephen-
          >
          > I'm somewhat confused by the last three statements above. Since
          > you say that "in Greek" EDEIN supplies the future tense for
          ESQIEIN,
          > but yet that "in Ionic and Hellenistic Greek" FAGEIN supplies the
          > future, I get the impression that your first "in Greek" may be a
          > reference to modern Greek. Does the following capture your
          > historical breakdown?
          >
          > 1. Ionic & Hellenistic Greek: future-FAGEIN
          > 2. "later Greek" (incl Koine?): present-TRWGEIN, perfect-BIBRWSKEIN
          > 3. modern Greek?: future & perfect-EDEIN, aorist-FAGEIN
          >
          > So that, between stages 1 and 3, the future form of ESQIEIN
          > differed, and between stages 2 and 3, the perfect form differed?
          > But also, if stage 3 really is modern Greek, then it may safely be
          > ignored for our purposes? Or have I misunderstood your breakdown?

          Although I am not Stephen Carlson, I think I am able to clarify the
          matter. Stephen's 'in Greek' is hardly a reference to modern Greek,
          but to classical Attic (which is THE Greek language to most classical
          scholars). EDEIN is an old epic (Homeric) verb which in Attic
          supplies some forms for ESQIEIN.

          > The second question I have is how this relates to the usage in GJn
          > (both in general, and specifically in 6.51-58) of the forms of
          > FAGEIN and TRWGEIN. You've concentrated on the usage of FAGEIN as
          > suppletive to ESQIEIN, but doesn't GJn use FAGEIN in ways other
          > than as a future-tense suppletive to ESQIEIN? In particular, if
          > it's used in the present-tense, wouldn't that show that when
          > TRWGEIN *is* used, there must have been a reason for so doing?

          FAGEIN is not used in the present. It occurs in the future (1st sg.
          fagomai) and aorist (1st sg. efagon) tenses as a suppletive to
          ESQIEIN. Or, if you prefer, ESQIEIN supplies the present tense for
          FAGEIN!

          Tobias Hägerland M.Th.
          Göteborg University
          Department of Religious Studies and Theology
        • Mike Grondin
          ... You have indeed. Many thanks for taking the time to do so. As I now understand it, the change of verb-forms in 6.51-58 is in itself explained, but it s
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 7, 2003
            --- Tobias Hägerland wrote:
            > Although I am not Stephen Carlson, I think I am able to clarify
            > the matter.

            You have indeed. Many thanks for taking the time to do so. As I
            now understand it, the change of verb-forms in 6.51-58 is in itself
            explained, but it's still open that the authorial decision to use
            the present tense in 6.54-58, in the phrase hO TRWGWN, may be seen
            as an intentional parallel to 13.18 - given the similarity of
            subject-matter.

            Mike G.
          • Stephen C. Carlson
            ... I ve been away for a few days, so I d just like to confirm Tobias s clarification as essentially correct. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 9, 2003
              At 10:55 AM 9/6/03 -0000, Tobias Hägerland wrote:
              >Although I am not Stephen Carlson, I think I am able to clarify the
              >matter. Stephen's 'in Greek' is hardly a reference to modern Greek,
              >but to classical Attic (which is THE Greek language to most classical
              >scholars). EDEIN is an old epic (Homeric) verb which in Attic
              >supplies some forms for ESQIEIN.

              I've been away for a few days, so I'd just like to confirm Tobias's
              clarification as essentially correct.

              Stephen Carlson
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
              Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
              "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.