OT: Biblical greek style (was Re: [sword-devel] Evidence Bible...)

[David's Mailing-list and Spam Receiver]

On Thursday 01 May 2003 12:01 pm, Dave Washburn wrote:
> I frequently wonder where people get ideas like this.  Was it only the rich
> and scholars who wrote all those Koine letters and other prosaic documents
> that taught us that there *was* such a thing as Koine?  If you're talking
> about education as a philosopher or statesman or playwright or something a
> la Seneca or Epictetus, then perhaps this statement approaches some sort of
> accuracy.  But particularly in a Jewish setting, most everybody learned to
> read and write at an early age, because the foundation-stone of Jewish
> education, both in Palestine and in the Diaspora, was the ability to read
> and understand Torah.  It was common practice in the Synagogue to pass the
> scroll around and let different men take a turn at reading the scrolls of
> the Law and Prophets (see Luke 4:16-17 to give just one example); how could
> this be done if everybody but the local scholar was illiterate?  In the
> Roman empire, literacy was quite widespread, as the papyri and other
> preserved documents show us.  It would be nice if the myth of first-century
> illiteracy could be put to rest once and for all.

Very true. I'd forgotten about the religious angle, but even still reading in 
the Synagogue was in Hebrew and not Greek as far as I know, it is quite 
possible I imagine that some Synagogues used the Septuagint, but from what I 
understand of Jewish culture, this seems unlikely. Not that I'm saying that 
people didn't speak, read, and write Greek anyway. I mean you would have to 
since from my understanding Greek at the time was similar in function to 
"common" or "standard" in many fantasy and sci-fi fictional settings. Also, 
not that I'm questioning the accuracy of your statements, but are there any 
historians who have published papers agreeing with you. I'm not asking to try 
to discredit you, but when I attempt to talk about such things with people I 
like to have my facts and evidences straight.

> This is nonsense.  What historical basis is there for such a notion?  Jesus
> grew up as a carpenter, one of "the working class," and we know he could
> read and write (see the same passage above).  You need to get some newer
> sources. For one thing, your definition of "formal education" as regards a
> good Jewish boy in first-century Palestine (Galilee in this case) needs a
> LOT of work. Basically, you're taking either an older Greek idea or a MUCH
> later medieval/Latin idea, and imposing it on a completely different
> culture.  Once upon a time, a couple of centuries ago, it was chic to
> proclaim the illiteracy rate in order to discredit the gospels, but the
> discovery of the papyri and Koine Greek shot that to pieces.  John's
> vocation had nothing to do with whether he could read and write.  In fact,
> evidence is starting to apepar that most every Jewish boy could read, write
> and speak THREE languages: Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.  For a nice summary
> of the evidence, see the essay in the back of the NASV harmony of the
> Gospels by Thomas and Gundry, and the sources listed there.


Here's a question for you then. Assuming that the literacy rate was decent if 
not high, in the area at the time. What was the cost of writing materials? I 
mean, this isn't my area of main study in history (I can talk much more 
accurately about Puritans and early American evangelicalism, though even 
there I've only gotten a few perspectives) but it seems to me that the cost 
of ink and whatnot would be at least moderately high. Though if that's wrong, 
I'd be more than happy to change that way of thinking.

> > >And since he was writing Koine, it really doesn't matter
> > > what classical Greek scholars think of it.  That's a little like
> > > comparing Shakespearean English to Brooklyn colloquial.
> > Actually, that's kinda the point ^_~
>
> In a word, huh?  Since Attic/Classic Greek had passed off the scene at
> least a century before (except in the world of nostalgic scholars such as
> Zenodotus), the point is that most of the NT writings are reasonably decent
> Koine when judged by Koine standards and not by Classical.  I'm not sure
> what you mean.

Well, I wasn't arguing that it wasn't decent Koine. I only know just enough 
Greek of either Attic or Koine variates to get myself in trouble. I was 
merely stating that John's Gospel gives Greek grammarians (mostly Classical 
Greek scholars afaict) fits ^_~

-- 
--David's Mailing List and Spam Receiver
   Keeping me relatively spam free since 2002