Years ago (70’s) seminaries I was familiar with used A.T. Robertson’s New Testament Greek in Light of Historical Research and James Moulton’s Grammar of New Testament Greek. Anyone know what’s being used today, given these are out of print? Is there anything comparable in print? Although I found a recent boxed set reprint of Moulton with a new introduction by Stanley Porter:
keywords=stanley+porter+moulton&qid=1683495751&s=books&sprefix=stanley+portor+moulton%2Cstripbooks%2C166&sr=1-1
I’m also interested in any comments on how Robertson and Moulton compare and value of. Moulton also had (with Milligan) a Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament.
Thanks.
“overly Semitic origen theories of Moulton et al.”
When Rev 21:27 was originally written, do you think it ended with:
“except for those written in the Lamb’s book of life”?
“only those written in the Lamb’s book of life”?
The Aramaic can be understood either way, and is best translated as “only those written.”
The Greek mistranslated the Aramaic to get “except for those written.”
When Rev 21:27 was originally written, do you think it had the double negative “no not shall”?
Greek “And no not shall enter into it” vs. Aramaic “And not will be there”
Rev 21:27 (APNT)
** you do not have permission to see this link **…ons-search
And there will not be there any[one] unclean,
nor he who practices corruption and falsehood,
but only those who are written in the book of the Lamb.
_A Grammar of New Testament Greek by James Hope Moulton, Vol. IV Style_ by Nigel Turner (1976), 174pp., on 150
There is a clear Aramaism in the confusion of _ei me_ and _alla_ (Black^3 114; _Grammar_ III 330; cf. pp. 13, 92, 150). Aramaic _illa_ was sufficiently like Greek _alla_, to become a homonym, and that must have resulted in a blurring of distinctions in Greek. _But_ adversative is required in 21^27, not _except_, for “those written in the Lamb’s Book of Life” are not “unclean.”
_A Grammar of New Testament Greek by James Hope Moulton, Vol. III Syntax_ by Nigel Turner (1963), 417pp., on 330
It is clear from Mk 4^22 that ἀλλά must sometimes have the meaning of εἰ μή _except_ (so Mt 20^23, and
ἀλλ’ η in Lk 12^51 2 Co 1^13), just as εἰ μή serves for ἀλλά (Luke 4^26.27)– a confusion which may be traceable to Aramaic influence.
Revelation 21:27
** you do not have permission to see this link **
And
ou/ οὐ/ no
mē/ μὴ/ not
shall enter into it
pan/ πᾶν/ anything
defiling and those practicing abomination and
pseudos/ ψεῦδος/ a lie
1487 ei/ εἰ/ if
3361 mē/ μὴ/ not
those
gegrammenoi/ γεγραμμένοι/ having been written
in the
bibliō/ βιβλίῳ/ book
tēs/ τῆς/ the
zōēs/ ζωῆς/ of life
of the
Arniou/ Ἀρνίου/ Lamb
Revelation 21:27 (based on Glaser)
u-L-a And not
will be there any impure/unclean
and of working pollution/defilement/corruption
and of falsity
a-L-a only/except
a-n if
those
d’k-th-i-b-n of written
b’k-th-b-h in his book/writing
d’-a-m-r-a of the Lamb/contract.
Mark 4:22
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Nothing
gar/ γάρ/ for
there is which [is]
krypton/ κρυπτὸν/ hidden
ean/ ἐὰν/ if
mē/ μὴ/ not
that
phanerōthē/ φανερωθῇ/ it should be made manifest
oude/ οὐδὲ/ nor
has taken place
apokryphon/ ἀπόκρυφον/ a secret thing
all’/ ἀλλ’/ but
that it should come to
phaneron/ φανερόν/ light
Matthew 20:23
** you do not have permission to see this link **
you shall be baptized [with]
to/ τὸ/ the
de/ δὲ/ but
to sit
ek/ ἐκ/ on
[the] right hand of Me and on [the] left
ouk/ οὐκ/ not
is Mine this to give
235 all’/ ἀλλ’/ but [to those]
for whom it has been prepared
hypo/ ὑπὸ/ by
the
Patros/ Πατρός/ Father
of Me
Luke 4:26
** you do not have permission to see this link **
and to none of them was sent Elijah
1487 ei/ εἰ/ if
3361 mē/ μὴ/ not
to Zarephath
tēs/ τῆς/ the
of Sidon to a woman– a widow
Luke 4:27
** you do not have permission to see this link **
and none of them
ekatharisthē/ ἐκαθαρίσθη/ was cleansed
1487 ei/ εἰ/ if
3361 mē/ μὴ/ not
Naaman the Syrian
Luke 12:51
** you do not have permission to see this link **
…. No, I say to you,
235 all’/ ἀλλ’/ but
2228 ē/ ἢ/ rather
diamerismon/ διαμερισμόν/ division.
Do you think that when the passages below were originally composed, they had a pronoun right before its associated noun?
(looking at a 1975 Zondervan interlinear of the Greek)
Mt 3:4 Now himself– John– had
Mt 17:8 except himself– Jesus– only.
Mark 2:21 fullness from itself– the new
Mark 6:17 For himself– Herod– sending seized John
Mark 6:22 the daughter [of] herself– of Herodias– dancing
Mark 12:36 himself– David– said
Mark 12:37 himself– David– says
Mt 3:4 he Now Yukhanan (looking at Younan’s interlinear of the Aramaic)
Mt 17:8 l-a [not] kh-z-u [did they see] a-l-a [except/only] a-n [if] l’Y-sh-u-ai [to Yeshua] alone (looking at Younan + Magiera + Glaser)
Mark 2:21 d’l-a [lest/ that-not] n-s-b-a [take away] m-l-y-u-th-h [its patch] that new from the old
Mark 6:17 he For Herodus sent
Mark 6:22 a’ai-l-th [and entered] b-r-th-h [her daughter] d’H-r-u-d-i-a [of Herodia]
Mark 12:36 he For Dawid spoke
Mark 12:37 he Since Dawid calls (incidentally, note the Greek mistranslation there: “himself– David– says him Lord”)
_A Grammar of New Testament Greek by James Hope Moulton, Vol. III Syntax_ by Nigel Turner (1963), 417pp., on 41
The proleptic pronoun followed by resumptive noun is an Aramaic peculiarity^1 [1: C.F. Burney, _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_, Oxford 1922, 85ff. Moulton-Howard 43] :
Mt 3^4… Mk 2^21… 6^17… 22 AC…
Jn 9^13…
Probably also:
Mk 6^17.18.22 …
12^36. 37. ….
It appears particularly in Codex Bezae^2:
[2: M. Black, _An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts_^2, Oxford 1953, 70-74]
Matthew 12^45 D…
Mk 5^15f D …
6^18 D …
Ac 3^2 D (but mistake for …?).
This hypothesis of Aramaic influence could explain the apparent use of αὐτος = οὐτος in a demonstrative sense: see p. 194.
_Scribal Habits and Singular Readings in Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi, Bezae, and Washingtonianus in the Gospel of Matthew_ by Gregory S. Paulson (2018), 345pp., on 38, 39-40
amazon.com/Sinaiticus-Vaticanus-Washingtonianus-GlossaHouse-Dissertation/dp/1942697457/
The Singular Readings of Scribe D in Sinaiticus in Matthew….
There are only two singular transpositions in the text transcribed by scribe D (16:13;^155 17:8),^156….
156 The Aramaic proleptic pronoun construction is altered here (Zerwick, _Grammatical Analysis_, 55). The Aramaic proleptic pronoun construction is also found in Matt 3:4; Mark 2:21; 6:17, (18), 22; (12:36, 37); John 9:13. Cf. Nigel G. Turner, _Syntax_, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James Hope Moulton (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963), 41. The pronoun is no longer rendered proleptic (as in B* Θ 700) but as an antecedent pronoun, which is a common grammatical construction in the NT. Zerwick states: “The proleptic use of pronouns, i.e. their use to ‘introduce’ a noun which follows… is a pure Aramaism, and has been almost entirely eliminated from the usual text” (_Biblical Greek_, §204; cf. §205). Cf. McNeile, _Matthew_, 251.
“imagine that Turner, Black, Burney, Black… were Peshitta primacists?”
No.
Torrey thought Matthew – Acts 15 (15:35?), and Revelation, was originally in Aramaic.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Charles Cutler Torrey, (born Dec. 20, 1863, East Hardwick, Vt., U.S.—died Nov. 12, 1956, Chicago), U.S. Semitic scholar who held independent and stimulating views on certain biblical problems.
Born: December 20, 1863 Vermont
Died: November 12, 1956 (aged 92) Chicago Illinois
Subjects Of Study: Bible Islam Semitic languages
Torrey studied at Bowdoin (Maine) College and Andover (Mass.) Theological Seminary and in Europe. He taught Semitic languages at Andover (1892–1900) and Yale (1900–32), and was founder and first director (1900–01) of the American School of Archaeology (later renamed the American School of Oriental Research) at Jerusalem.
…. In The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels (1912), The Four Gospels: A New Translation (1933), and Our Translated Gospels (1936), Torrey held that the four Gospels were Greek translations from Aramaic originals. The posthumous Apocalypse of John (1958) argues that Revelation was a translation of an Aramaic original written in AD 68.
“look at more translations of the Greek”
Do you think Revelation 2:22 originally had about an adulterer:
“I will cast her into a bed”?
“I cast her upon a bier”? (the Crawford ms. contains that)
“her deeds”?
“their deeds”? (the Crawford ms. contains that)
Revelation 2:22
(Literal Standard Version) behold, I will cast her into a bed,
and those committing adultery with her into great tribulation–
if they may not convert from her works,
(King James) Behold, I will cast her into a bed,
and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation,
except they repent of their deeds.
Aramaic–> Dutch; via google translate–> English
Revelation 2:22 – Behold, I cast her upon a bier,
and those who commit adultery with her I bring into great tribulation,
unless they repent of their deeds.
on a bier – this is the bed on which a dead person lies. The Aramaic word can certainly also mean “bed” or “sickbed”, but in Lk. 7:14 the same word is used in Aramaic Peshitta for the bier on which the dead young man from Nain lies. In the reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR it says “bed”, sometimes interpreted as “sick bed”. But the question is whether it might be more correct to see a bier in this, because we read in the next verse of her children that they are being put to death. Would God judge the children more severely than their mother, who is apparently the cause of evil?
their deeds – this is the reading of the Aramaic Peshitta and of the Greek TR, but the reading of the Greek NA28 and MHT reads: “her deeds”. Despite this, many translations opt for “their deeds”.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)