Grammar Mistakes

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
Post Reply
nizohio
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:48 pm

Grammar Mistakes

Post by nizohio »

I've heard that the NT contains numerous grammar mistakes and that 1 Peter and Hebrews were written in advanced Greek. The question is, does the NT really contain grammar mistakes. Thank you.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Grammar Mistakes

Post by jeidsath »

Before the printing press, there was not the level of language standardization (grammar and spelling) that there is now in written materials. It is not really true to think of ancient texts as phonetic transcriptions of a person's speech -- but it is not entirely false either.

Some very limited parts of the New Testament (especially Revelation) contain a number of language mistakes that only a speaker of Greek as a second language would make. Since the author of Revelation is held by the church to speak Greek as a second language, this is not surprising. Mark is written by a less uneducated man. Paul was often in a rush to get his thoughts out -- and may not have proofread himself thoroughly -- and some of his letters may be compilations of documents that were is a state of decay when they were first collected back in the second century.

Reading the text in the original is not like like reading the King James. But it is glorious.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Markos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2966
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Re: Grammar Mistakes

Post by Markos »

nizohio wrote:I've heard that the NT contains numerous grammar mistakes and that 1 Peter and Hebrews were written in advanced Greek. The question is, does the NT really contain grammar mistakes. Thank you.
The various critical editions as they now stand certainly do not contain "numerous" grammar mistakes. As Joel said, nearly all of the alleged errors are found in Revelation, and most of these that I have seen discussed can be defended on various grounds.

Whether the original autographs (all lost) contained more or less (or no) errors is of course impossible to say.

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Grammar Mistakes

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

The Apocalypse of John is an easy text to read. The author took liberties with things like concord (agreement gender|number|case). Some syntax irregularities are intentional:

Rev. 1:4 Ἰωάννης ταῖς ἑπτὰ ἐκκλησίαις ταῖς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑπτὰ πνευμάτων ἃ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου αὐτοῦ

Rev. 1:8 Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ, λέγει κύριος ὁ θεός, ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, ὁ παντοκράτωρ.

Rev. 1:4 (NRSV)   John to the seven churches that are in Asia:

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne,

Rev. 1:8 (NRSV)   “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

Recent scholarship on Revelation doesn't get worked up about the grammatical irregularities. The book as whole is a work of art which inspired many other works of art. There are no other ancient apocalyptic texts that even come close in terms of structural craftsmanship. Those who quibble about the so called errors would also find fault with Miles Davis trumpet playing. What amounts to is lack of appreciation for the genre.

On the other hand, Paul's letters are riddled with syntactical difficulties and often less than perfectly lucid. Paul's sentence structure is often "broken" with missing elements, unfinished clauses and so forth.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

nizohio
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:48 pm

Re: Grammar Mistakes

Post by nizohio »

Greetings everyone and thank you all so much for replying to my post.

From what I understand of your replies, there are not many, or even AT ALL, grammar mistakes in the Greek manuscripts of the NT. However, I did some digging and read some excerpts of this book called A Ready Reply by Michael T. Griffith, and it refers to some people as saying that the grammar of the Greek NT manuscripts is so bad that many believed it is a specimen of Koine Greek spoken by Hellenistic Jews. It also refers to William F. Bright who says that Koine was "the vulgar Greek of the time". It even cites John Rovers who says that the Romans told Constantius that the biblical Greek is so barbarous that nobody would ever want to read it unless they were Christian.

The question here is, what are those people that are cited in that book talking about? Or are they all lies? Thank you.

P/S: The excepts can be found here https://books.google.com.my/books?id=KL ... &q&f=false

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Grammar Mistakes

Post by jeidsath »

I can't see the page from your book, but none of that sounds inaccurate.

The Greek of the NT was the Koine Greek spoken by Hellenistic Jews. It was the vulgar (a word that means "common") Greek of the time. I'm sure that people did tell Constantius that only someone who is already a Christian could be impressed by the New Testament. They say the same thing today. The first Christians that we know of in historical records were slaves.

Paul meant his words in 1 Corinthians 1:27 seriously, not as a joke or metaphor.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Grammar Mistakes

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

nizohio wrote: The question here is, what are those people that are cited in that book talking about? Or are they all lies?
The people you are citing are simply taking advantage of folks who are uninformed regarding the history of the greek language. Koine (Hellenistic) Greek was the language of the street in the Hellenistic world hundreds of years before the NT was written. It's like faulting a 20th century north american author for not writing in Elizabethan English. In other words the complaint is ridiculous. There were literary language snobs in the Hellenistic period who intentionally imitated Attic spelling and grammar. This would be like poetry written in Elizabethan English long after it was no longer in use. This artificial Elizabethan English is still used in contemporary literature, particularly historical novels The imitation of Attic Greek in later authors is a well documented fact. The claims made by your authors are simply irrelevant.

The epistle of 2nd Peter is often criticized for this sort of language snob style.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Re: Grammar Mistakes

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

... furthermore

The literary register of the Greek New Testament is by no means uniform. Matthew isn't the same as Luke or John. Mark isn't like any other gospel. Paul is not consistent, the opening of Ephesians is a flowery literary run on sentence which has led many Pauline scholars to doubt its authenticity. Luke isn't the same in the Gospel as in Acts. The apocalypse is all alone, one of a kind. Johns Gospel isn't like any other gospel. 2Peter isn't like 1Peter. Hebrews is poetic, but were talking about Hebrew poetry not greek.

For this reason, It is pointless to make general claims about the language and style of the New Testament.
C. Stirling Bartholomew

DavidC
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:49 pm

Re: Grammar Mistakes

Post by DavidC »

Is it legitimate to argue that the presence of some grammatical mistakes is a cause for confidence that the scribes who copied the books of the Bible were making accurate copies of the originals. Or are people saying that the mistakes don't really exist in the first place?

i.e. the authors of the New Testament were often fishermen and from other lowly backgrounds, so an imperfect Greek is not that surprising. We might have expected scribes making later copies to have tidied up the Greek, the fact that they did not shows that they cared more about accurately copying the words of the original writers than they cared about perfect grammar.

User avatar
brainout
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:47 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Grammar Mistakes

Post by brainout »

Well, what one 'scholar' considers a grammar mistake, another realizes is creative use of the language. Paul used a lot of unusual constructions, as does Peter. One of the surprising things I learned last year, is that the NT writers METER their text in sevens, and that has a lot to do with word order.

(I'm new to the forum so am not allowed to post links, but you can look me up in vimeo to see what I'm talking about, all examples are from Bibleworks' BGT, with variants as needed from the CNTTS apparatus.)

So try counting syllables and see if it sevens. That might account for what seems 'mistaken' grammar.

LeslieD
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:27 pm

Re: Grammar Mistakes

Post by LeslieD »

Their exegesis of John 1.1 should tell you all you need to know about a Mormon's knowledge of Greek grammar.

Post Reply