[B-Greek] NT Greek Paedogogy redux

Bert de Haan b_dehaan at sympatico.ca
Fri Aug 10 21:42:08 EDT 2007


I am one of the small Greeks of this list and maybe not qualified to say 
much on this topic.  I would like to make one comment:  There have been 
quite a few times when I knew the answer to questions asked on this forum 
only because I have spent some time with Homeric Greek. My guess is that 
studying Attic Greek would have an even greater benefit.

Bert de Haan.
==================

   jmlineb at comcast.net (John M. Linebarger) wrote
>
>I'm following the discussion of NT Greek paedogogy with great interest but 
>with an increasing sense of frustration.  In a theoretical sense I can 
>understand that learning Attic Greek provides a good foundation for reading 
>the simpler Koine Greek of the New Testament.  I can also understand the 
>approach that inhales large amounts of text at one sitting, and attempts to 
>induce meaning from context instead of looking up everything in a 
>dictionary.  After all, that's how many of us learned to read our first 
>language.
>
>But surely this can be done within the New Testament itself to some degree, 
>without having to take a 1-2 year detour to learn Attic Greek?  Many of us 
>barely have the time to maintain our Koine Greek, much less the much richer 
>and more difficult world of Attic Greek.  And speaking from experience, it 
>is hard enough to convince a church Sunday School class to devote at least 
>an hour a day to learning Koine Greek; if I were to suggest learning Attic 
>Greek first, I'd have nobody left in my class.  They (and me too) want to 
>get into the New Testament as quickly as possible, and desire to devote 
>their energies to the study of God's word.
>
>So within the corpus of the New Testament itself, how would you sculpt a 
>paedogogy that achieves the goals of Greek fluency?  Focus one's study 
>efforts on Luke-Acts and Hebrews and one's devotional efforts on the 
>Johannine corpus and Revelation, with the middle area being the epistles of 
>Paul?  Inhale large chunks of the other Synoptic gospels (Mark and Matthew) 
>on a daily basis to develop and maintain reading proficiency?
>
>You see where I'm going with this -- how does one achieve (or approach) 
>proficiency within the confines of the NT corpus itself?  Any thoughts from 
>the group?
>
>Thanks!  Enjoy!
>
>John M. Linebarger
>Albuquerque, New Mexico
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
>From: "Eric S. Weiss" <papaweiss1 at yahoo.com>
>Subject: [B-Greek]  NT Greek Paedogogy redux
>To: b-greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Message-ID: <670154.18751.qm at web61011.mail.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> > I'm following the discussion of NT Greek paedogogy with great interest 
>but with an
>   > increasing sense of frustration.  In a theoretical sense I can 
>understand that learning Attic
>   > Greek provides a good foundation for reading the simpler Koine Greek 
>of the New
>   > Testament.  I can also understand the approach that inhales large 
>amounts of text at one
>   > sitting, and attempts to induce meaning from context instead of 
>looking up everything in a
>   > dictionary.  After all, that's how many of us learned to read our 
>first language.
>   >
>   > But surely this can be done within the New Testament itself to some 
>degree, without
>   > having to take a 1-2 year detour to learn Attic Greek?  Many of us 
>barely have the time to
>   > maintain our Koine Greek, much less the much richer and more difficult 
>world of Attic
>   > Greek.  And speaking from experience, it is hard enough to convince a 
>church Sunday
>   > School class to devote at least an hour a day to learning Koine Greek; 
>if I were to suggest
>   > learning Attic Greek first, I'd have nobody left in my class.  They 
>(and me too) want to get
>   > into the New Testament as quickly as possible, and desire to devote 
>their energies to the
>   > study of God's word.
>   >
>   > So within the corpus of the New Testament itself, how would you sculpt 
>a paedogogy that
>   > achieves the goals of Greek fluency?  Focus one's study efforts on 
>Luke-Acts and
>   > Hebrews and one's devotional efforts on the Johannine corpus and 
>Revelation, with the
>   > middle area being the epistles of Paul?  Inhale large chunks of the 
>other Synoptic gospels
>   > (Mark and Matthew) on a daily basis to develop and maintain reading 
>proficiency?
>   >
>   > You see where I'm going with this -- how does one achieve (or 
>approach) proficiency within
>   > the confines of the NT corpus itself?  Any thoughts from the group?
>   >
>   > Thanks!  Enjoy!
>   > John M. Linebarger
> > Albuquerque, New Mexico
>
>   Hi, John. You probably won't like my answer, and I don't like it, 
>either. I took a couple years
>   of NT Greek and have taught it off and on at church(es) over the past 10 
>years or so. In fact,
>   I'm currently teaching a small class, using Croy's A PRIMER OF BIBLICAL 
>GREEK (and
>   have already experienced the usual 40% or so dropout rate - even if you 
>just teach NT
>   Greek, a lot of students will quit). But I am seeing that I don't know 
>Greek, even though I
>   know NT Greek better than all the pastors I've had, and better than most 
>of the Dallas
>   Theological Seminary students and grads I went to church with for a 
>period of several years.
>
>   Every time I start reading an Attic Greek textbook, I realize and learn 
>things about Greek
>   that I wasn't taught or didn't learn from my NT Greek textbooks. This 
>time I hope I maintain
>   the effort and will to complete a 1st-year Attic course (I am not good 
>at self-study, but it's
>   my only option). I have decided that this is the last time I will teach 
>a NT Greek class,
>   though. I don't think it's right to teach people simply NT Greek without 
>starting with Attic
>   Greek, both because of everything I've read here at B-Greek, and because 
>of the little bit I've
>   experienced myself.
>
>   Sure, someone who takes a NT Greek class will likely make fewer Greek 
>errors from the
>   pulpit or in their studies than your typical pastor/teacher armed with 
>e-sword and Vine's and
>   Strong's Concordance. But I am no longer sure that someone who only 
>knows NT Greek is
>   adequately prepared to read the Greek NT. Maybe I'm just being 
>pessimistic.
>
>   FWIW, I learned a marvelous principle about accents in Mastronarde's 
>INTRODUCTION TO
>   ATTIC GREEK that I had never heard or read in any of my many NT Greek 
>grammars.
>   Maybe it only applies to Attic Greek (Mastronarde and/or Carson say that 
>the accent rules
>   changed a bit for Koine, but I don't know how much).
>
>   From Unit Two, Section 4, p. 17 of Introduction to Attic Greek, by 
>Donald J. Mastronarde:
>
>   CONTONATION AND MORA. The apparently complex "rules" of Greek 
>accentuation can be
>   understood in terms of a single general principle involving the concepts 
>of contonation and
>   mora. CONTONATION is the combination of the rise of pitch generally 
>thought of as the
>   accent with the necessary return or fall to standard pitch which follows 
>it. In the case of an
>   acute accent, the contonation includes both the syllable on which the 
>accent is written (and
>   on which the pitch rises) and the entire following syllable (on which 
>the pitch falls), if any,
>   whether it counts as long or short. In the case of the circumflex 
>accent, the contonation
>   occurs on the one syllable on which the accent is written, for there are 
>both a rise in pitch
>   and a return to standard pitch on that syllable. A MORA is the 
>(theoretically assigned)
>   "standard" length of a short vowel (A, E, I, O, U, and final AI and OI 
>in most cases). A long
>   vowel (A, EI, H, I, OU, W, U) or a diphthong* (except for final AI and 
>OI in most cases)
>   occupies (theoretically) a time span equivalent to two morai.
>
>The general principle of Greek accentuation is that the contonation may be 
>followed by no
>   more than one mora before the end of a word (or phrase pronounced as one 
>word unit). This
>   principle is in many respects similar to rules in other languages (e.g., 
>Latin) which constrain
>   the position of the accent according to the nature of the final 
>syllables of a word. In Greek
>   this principle limits the position of the acute and circumflex accents 
>and requires the
>   addition of an extra accent in some phrases consisting of word + 
>enclitic.
>
>My additional comments:
>
>* So-called "improper" or "long" diphthongs (A, H, and W with subscripted 
>I) are also always
>   long. I am not sure why Mastronarde omits mention of AU, EU, and HU.
>
>By convention there are a couple exceptions to this principle when it comes 
>to the enclitics
>   ESTI(N) and TIS/TI:
>   1) ESTI(N) following a word with a circumflex on the ultima is not 
>accented; one would
>   normally expect an acute on the ultima of ESTI(N); and
>   2) TINWN (the genitive plural) following a word with an acute on the 
>penult has a circumflex
>   accent on its ultima; normally a disyllabic enclitic following such a 
>word receives an acute
>   accent on its second syllable.
>
>
>   Eric S. Weiss
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Building a website is a piece of cake.
>Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>B-Greek mailing list
>B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>End of B-Greek Digest, Vol 56, Issue 10
>***************************************





More information about the B-Greek mailing list