Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the New Testament

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Hi ya,

 

  This book is great. I am a third or so of the way through on a Kindle (so someone has an e-text) and there is a wealth of information in it. It's replete with references so my reading list is filling up.

 

Advances in the Study of Greek: New Insights for Reading the New Testament

Constantine R. Campbell

published by Zondervan.

 

A link to Amazon in case anyone wants to check it out : https://www.amazon.com/Advances-Study-Greek-Insights-Testament/dp/0310515955/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1513199528&sr=1-1&keywords=Advances+in+the+Study+of+Greek%3A+New+Insights+for+Reading+the+New+Testament

 

Thx

D

[Λύχνις Δαν]

I've just finished reading this and I must say it's worth the price of admission. Well worth it.

 

It is a very readable account of a number of issues of concern to current scholarship. It begins with some history, very useful history in fact, orienting one in what is an almost unnavigable sea of linguistics schools and topics. I read this after completing Robins (https://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Linguistics-Longman-Library/dp/0582249945) which is also helpful but rather dated. Campbell footnotes like a scholar (which he is) and so one is given much help in following up various topics. Conveniently he gives a nice summary of a couple of major linguistic approaches. I say conveniently because I'm about to dive into Halliday and Porter. Perhaps one of the most interesting topics was that of the issue of whether deponency really exists in Koine or not. But other interesting topics include pronunciation - pleased to see Buth's reconstructed Koine pronunciation covered here. 

 

I recommend this volume highly. There are many things here, accessibly presented, that one might follow up according to ones interests.

 

Thx

D

[rwrobinson88]

Thought a little hard on Campbell, this is a review of the book in Themelios by Mike Aubrey and Nick Ellis. They affirm chapters 3-10. They critique chapter two a good amount. Not surprisingly since Aubrey considers himself a linguist rather than involved in NT studies. 

 

Campell responded online somewhere.

 

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/advances-in-the-study-of-greek-constantine-campbell-insights-reading-new-te

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Thanx Ryan.

 

It's an interesting review, with a couple of works mentioned that are probably worth looking into. I don't have a linguistics background but have been developing some knowledge of it because I think it is helpful in handling the Greek.

 

I suppose, as you say, that it is not surprising that a linguist would have issues with the second chapter. It is necessarily short given the overall size of the book and the foundation that Campbell seeks to lay no doubt induces some of it's shape. (That said, his quote from Silva in section 2.2.1 is priceless. And I should probably get Silva's book too) In any case, diving deeply into linguistics in a book that is trying to introduce such concepts to the uninitiated would probably be counterproductive to its goals. Campbell in his response does acknowledge his error with respect to his description of Chomsky's deep structure. As he points out though, hardly an utter disaster, incorrect though it is.

 

His full response can be read http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2015/12/con-campbell-responds-to-criticism-of-his-advances-in-the-study-of-greek/

 

Thx

D

Edited December 27, 2017 by דָנִיאֶל

[rwrobinson88]

If you want to do some more reading on linguistics from people that have a context for biblical studies, I think this is the best/most-up-to-date read on the topic.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Linguistics-Biblical-Exegesis-Lexham-Methods/dp/157799664X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1514394364&sr=8-1&keywords=lexham+methods+series+linguistics+%26+biblical+exegesis

 

I've read it. I strongly encourage it.

Edited December 27, 2017 by rwrobinson88

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Thanx Ryan. That looks interesting. Unfortunately I cannot find any extended remarks on the book anywhere - the logos page is brief and Amazon offers no great insight. But I'll add it to my ever-growing list.

 

Thx

D

[rwrobinson88]

I could personally message you some content if you are more interested. It is well written and covers a lot of good contents. Herer is the TOC:

Series Preface

Abbreviations

Wendy Widder

1 Introduction to Linguistics and the Bible

1.1 Understanding Language

1.2 Understanding Linguistics

1.3 Linguistic Analysis Explained

1.4 Studying the Biblical Languages

1.5 Overview

1.6 Resources for Further Study

Wendy Widder

2 Linguistic Fundamentals

2.1 Phonology

2.2 Morphology

2.3 Semantics

2.4 Syntax

Jeremy Thompson & Wendy Widder

3 Language in Use

3.1 Pragmatics

3.2 Sociolinguistics

3.3 Resources for Further Study

Daniel Wilson & Michael Aubrey

4 Language Universals, Typology, and Markedness

4.1 Language Universals and Typology

4.2 Markedness

4.3 Resources for Further Study

Jeremy Thompson & Wendy Widder

5 Major Approaches to Linguistics

5.1 Comparative Philology

5.2 Structural Linguistics

5.3 Functionalism

5.4 Generative Grammar

5.5 Discourse Analysis

5.6 Cognitive Linguistics

Wendy Widder

6 Linguistic Issues in Biblical Hebrew

6.1 Problems with the Data

6.2 Verbal System

6.3 Semantics and Lexicography

6.4 Word Order

6.5 The Chronology and Typology Debate

6.6 Resources for Further Study

Michael Aubrey

7 Linguistic Issues in Biblical Greek

7.1 Problems with the Data

7.2 Verbal System

7.3 Semantics and Lexicography

7.4 Word Order

7.5 Resources for Further Study

Michael Aubrey

8 The Value of Linguistically Informed Exegesis

8.1 Greater Precision and Explanatory Power

8.2 Discourse Features

8.3 Language Typology

8.4 Resources for Further Study

Bibliography

 

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Thanx for that Ryan - certainly some interesting stuff there. The typology and markedness stuff caught my eye initially - any small excerpt from that would be interesting to me, whenever you have a minute. As would any comment you have on the extensiveness, or not, of the various "Resources for Further Study" sections.

 

Many thanx

D

[rwrobinson88]

4.1 Language Universals and Typology

4.1.1 Generative Universal Grammar

In the framework of generative grammar, spearheaded by Noam Chomsky, the notion of language universals has to do with “universal grammar,” a theory developed to explain how it is that children acquire language so efficiently. Chomsky argues that humans possess innate internal linguistic abilities and constraints that facilitate their rapid and effortless learning of language.³ The central argument used to support this hypothesis is referred to as “the poverty of the stimulus.”⁴ This argument states that a child’s limited and unstructured exposure to language is insufficient for the complex and limitless expressions that the child generates. Children produce grammatical sentences that they have never heard even after being raised in environments with broken, idiomatic, and incomplete communication. Therefore, the child must bring an innate set of principles, a “universal grammar,” to bear on the limited amount of language input she has received. The child’s universal grammar, together with the linguistic input received from other people, allows the child to extrapolate the correct patterns and rules that make up the adult grammar. The generative approach to the study of language universals is largely deductive—that is, abstract principles of universal grammar are derived through the close study of a particular language, from which parameters are proposed in order to explain the syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic diversity of the languages of the world.⁵

4.1.2 Crosslinguistic Universals

In contrast to the deductive generative approach, many linguists approach the study of language universals inductively—that is, by analyzing and comparing data drawn from many languages and from many diverse language families. Where generative linguists begin with language-internal generalizations (universal grammar) and then use empirical constraints as well as crosslinguistic data to verify or falsify those generalizations, the inductive approach begins with a search for linguistic patterns across languages in pursuit of more precise categorization.

One of the main advantages of this crosslinguistic research is the ability to uncover different types of universals in language. Some universals can be framed in terms of frequency and probability. For example, 95 percent of languages show a preference for the grammatical subject of a clause to appear in front of the grammatical object (regardless of the position of the verb).⁶ Other universals are called implicational universals. These are properties of languages that “must, or can only be, present if some other property is also present.”⁷ That is, if X exists in a language, then probably Y exists also. These types of universals are especially common with issues of word order. A quite striking instance of an implicational universal involves verbs and objects in relationship to prepositions/postpositions (adpositions).⁸ Matthew Dryer provides the following information for the relationship between these elements.⁹

 

 

The information in this chart essentially says that if a language has the word order verb before object, then in turn it is highly probable that the language will also have a preposition (i.e., adposition before noun). Similarly, if a language has the word order object before verb, then it is quite likely that the language will have postpositions (i.e., noun before adposition). Both of these are implicational universals: if one word order exists, then the implication is that the other word order exists. Since languages that have the verb-object order almost always also have the preposition-noun order, this becomes a significant guide for language research. Implicational universals like these are helpful for demonstrating the finite ways languages can vary and that there is a nonarbitrary organization to an individual language’s structure. The value of this type of study for an analysis of the biblical languages is discussed below.

4.1.3 Linguistic Typology

The study of linguistic typology complements the search for language universals. Where the latter seeks to determine what all languages do and to describe the nature of how languages differ, the former attempts to organize all of that information in a way that is meaningful. No two languages are the same. Despite that, variation between languages is constrained. No two trees are identical, but there are defining features that nevertheless separate an oak tree from a maple tree or a Douglas fir. The variation we find in language is of the same kind. It is regular and predictable and can be classified into types. When languages are compared based on the presence or absence of identical features—finding the “types” of languages that exist for a certain study—linguistic typology is being performed. Bernard Comrie summarizes the complementary relationship between these approaches:

We can thus say that, over all, the study of language universals aims to establish limits on variation within human language. Typology is concerned directly with the study of this variation, and this makes it clearer why the two studies run so close together, since both are concerned with variation across languages, the only difference being that language universals research is concerned primarily with limits on this variation, whereas typological research is concerned more directly with possible variation.¹⁰

The discipline of linguistic typology assumes and utilizes language universals. Drawing on the discussion of implicational universals above, the conclusion is that, broadly speaking, there are two major language types, each following one of the two universals. There are VO-preposition languages, and there are OV-postposition languages. Of course, there are still twenty-four languages represented in the chart above that diverge from these two types. These are the platypuses and penguins of the linguistic world; they do not fit into the class of either mammal or bird, not quite. While rare, these sorts of divergences, where languages break from expected norms, are normal and expected in both the biological world and in linguistics (see the discussion of important concepts in cognitive linguistics in chapter 5). They represent important points of research for the field.

4.1.4 Universals, Typology, and Biblical Languages

This type of research is valuable for understanding the biblical languages better. Ancient Greek and Biblical Hebrew manifest certain patterns that are similar to many contemporary languages. Historically few scholars have used the insights of typology and universals to inform their conclusions about Greek and Hebrew. This underutilization is due largely to the different jargon used in biblical studies versus linguistics. The typological studies that have been done by linguists are unintelligible to the average Hebrew or Greek student. Nevertheless, a few scholars have learned the technical language of both disciplines and demonstrated the explanatory power of typological research.

One work that utilizes research in typology and universals is a recent volume on the subject of time and aspect in the Hebrew verb. In Time and the Biblical Hebrew Verb, John Cook draws from a typological study done by linguist Leon Stassen.¹¹ Stassen observes what he calls the “Tensedness Parameter.” One aspect of this parameter reveals that languages can be predominantly tense based or aspect based in their verbal system. One implicational universal he discovered reveals that tense-based languages encode their adjectival predicates (such as John is tall) in a way that resembles their nominal strategy (how noun predicates are encoded). Aspect-prominent languages, however, tend to encode their adjectival predicates according to the verbal strategy (with verbs). In his study, Cook reflects on the stative adjective in Biblical Hebrew and notices a gradual shift happening in the development of Hebrew away from the verb-like stative adjective to a more noun-like encoding of adjectival predicates. This change is ascribed to the drift of Hebrew from a more aspect-based to a more tense-based language in the verbal system. In other words, Biblical Hebrew is a snapshot of a language whose verbal system is in a state of transition from aspect prominence to tense prominence.¹² This drift is also reflected in other languages of the world, as recorded by Stassen’s typological research.

As Cook’s work shows, using data from modern spoken languages of the world can reveal patterns that help our knowledge of so-called dead or unspoken languages, such as Biblical Greek and Hebrew. If a language universal is true in a certain type of language, and Biblical Hebrew, for example, falls into that category, it would be unexpected for that language universal not to hold true for Biblical Hebrew.¹³ Conversely, if a scholar were to make a suggestion at the grammatical, syntactic, or discourse level of Biblical Greek, and that suggestion were unattested in all other languages similar to Biblical Greek, there would be good reason to rethink that suggestion. In short, linguistic typology and language universals give us stronger probability in making claims about how Biblical Hebrew and Greek work, and they prevent idiosyncratic suggestions from receiving undue influence.

 

Widder, Wendy, Michael Aubrey, et al. Linguistics & Biblical Exegesis. Ed. Douglas Mangum and Josh Westbury. Vol. 2. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016. Print. Lexham Methods Series.
Page . 

Edited December 27, 2017 by rwrobinson88

[Λύχνις Δαν]

Many thanx - that helps. Very interesting.

 

Thx

D

[Steve King]

Just finished reading this. Very useful to get an overview of some of the current issues in Greek scholarship. I have already changed to the modern Greek pronunciation, but it was useful to get and overview on the pronunciation issue. He mentions the fact that pronunciation has an effect on textual criticism and interestingly enough about two days before I read that chapter I was reading 2 Corinthians 8 which has a textual issue in 2 Cor 8:7. I don't normally get hooked on the textual issues but reading it in the ESV it seemed to not say what I expected so did some investigation and found this in the New American Commentary:

 

The evidence is divided. Some texts read, “your love in (among) us” (literally, “the from you in us love”); others read “our love in (among) you.” The two variants would have been pronounced exactly the same: hymōn (your) / hēmōn (our), hēmin (in us) / hymin (in you). Scribes making copies of the text at the same time may have heard different words as someone read from an exemplar and caused the variants.

David E. Garland, 2 Corinthians, NAC 29; ed. E. Ray Clendenen; Accordance electronic ed. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), 373.

https://accordance.bible/link/read/NAC-42#144608

 

Apparently the 'harder reading' (our love for you) is the one chosen by ESV/NIV 2011/NRSV. If they don't sound the same (like the Erasmian pronunciation) then there has to be a specific scribal reason to 'correct' it. However without that particular pronunciation maybe just a mishearing which may alter how you view the variants. Shows how difficult the art/science of textual criticism is.

[bpkantor]

It should also be noted that ὑμῶν and ἡμῶν would not have been pronounced the same during the Koine period in Palestinian Greek. ὑμῶν would have been pronounced as [ymon]/[ümon] and ἡμῶν would have been pronounced as [emon]. It was only in the Byzantine period that both of these initial vowels came to be pronounced like iota and thus the words pronounced as [imon].