spin

cx:
----
Let's dispense with the invective shall we?
----

After you, cx.

cx:
----
Are you truly ignorant of the history of Koine Greek?
----

As I said, cx, after you. When you stop the invective, I'll consider treating you like a human being, until then, I see no reason to consider you as anything but a nasty piece religious aggression, as your rhetorical question here displays.

cx:
----
It is not attested to solely in the Xian New Testament. Koine was establish by Alexander the Great around 300 BCE as a universal Greek for the common people (Koine means common). Koine enjoyed widespread popularity from roughly 300BCE to 300CE and is found in not only the New Testament, but also the histories of Polybius and the discourses of Epictetus. Not only that, but some of the best lexical evidence for Koine comes not from literary sources, but from notes and household letters and records from the excavations at Oxyrhynchus in Egypt. There were literally found thousands of papyri and fragments covering all manner of subjects from lists of weights and measures to financial documents etc. Where on earth did you get the notion that Koine is only found in the NT?
----

Thanks for telling me stuff I already know, cx. You're good at that. Now, tell me, what were the sources for the Koine information you use? How much of the Oxyrhynchus or Tebtunis texts have made it into materials provided for NT study?

Alexis Comnenus

Spin, as I told Pandora, I'm not going to get into a silly 'did Jesus exist?' argument. Why should Tert quote Tacitus's hostile text when the facts were clearly set out in the Gospels? He would not and did not. You claiming that the Tacitus passage is fake simply on that basis sadly means you are not worth speaking to.

Regards

Alex

CX

On the contrary. It is a legitimate question. Your previous statements implied that the only basis for knowing Koine Greek comes from the NT itself. This is not so. It was the lingua franca for the period in question. The P.Oxy manuscripts of the NT cited heavily in NA27 were found along side other literary and non-religious works in the rubbish heaps excavated at Oxyrhynchus. Paloegraphers and linguists including Nestle & Aland used the finds to great advantage in compiling a critical text of the Greek NT. Is it your claim that because such texts aren't actually used in the GNT that they are not used as a framework for understanding Koine? Your original statement that we have little basis for establishing a baseline for Koine Greek is simply false. Given that what else could I conclude but that you don't know what you're talking about?

Secondly I fail to see how you read "religious aggression" into my posts. I'm not religious. I'm not even a theist. I am simply frustrated because you seem to regularly write whereof you do not know and that with authority and arrogance.

Whatever. For someone who professes to know so much, you offer very little in the way of evidence to support it. Here is a list of Oxyrhynchus texts cited in NA27:

P.Oxy 2
P.Oxy 208
P.Oxy 402
P.Oxy 209
P.Oxy 657
P.Oxy 1008
P.Oxy 1009
P.Oxy 1078
P.Oxy 1170
P.Oxy 1171
P.Oxy 1227
P.Oxy 1228
P.Oxy 1229
P.Oxy 1230
P.Oxy 1354
P.Oxy 1355

And on and on. This list is far from exhaustive. But "Oh!" you say, "These are all NT texts." Well what would be the purpose of citing non NT texts in a critical edition of the NT? The point is these texts were all discovered alongside non-biblical texts all of which are used by linguists and paleographers to develop a proper understanding of Koine. You clearly implied that there were no sources for Koine Greek aside from the NT and that could not be more wrong. Even so you pretend as though you knew this all along and refuse to admit when you have made an honest error.

CX

Not that there is much point in rebutting you further, but the original statement I made was that PILETAS is not a word in Koine Greek. This is further attested by the fact that the word is not listed in Liddell & Scott which, I'm sure you know, is THE greek lexicon. It draws upon EVERY greek text discovered up to 1940 (thereby including the Oxyrhynchus finds).

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: CX ]</p>

spin

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
Spin, as I told Pandora, I'm not going to get into a silly 'did Jesus exist?' argument. Why should Tert quote Tacitus's hostile text when the facts were clearly set out in the Gospels? He would not and did not. You claiming that the Tacitus passage is fake simply on that basis sadly means you are not worth speaking to.
----------------

I love value judgments like these. Someone who cannot live up to his own responsibilities, passes the buck.

There is no better testimony for Jesus in classical literature than that found in Tacitus. So, Alexis Comnenus finds no problem in the fact that Tertullian who knew Tacitus didn't cite such a testimony. Fine. Go away and sulk.

spin

This is what I said of cx:
--------------------------
what does he use as his authority for Koine Greek? The collection of words in the NT?? There are not enough words in that collection to be able to draw such a conclusion, so what is his authority for what is and is not Koine Greek?
--------------------------

This is his interpretation:
--------------------------
Your previous statements implied that the only basis for knowing Koine Greek comes from the NT itself.
--------------------------

Hopefully, cx can see that it is unrelated to my statement, which was about his knowledge of Koine Greek, and not about Koine Greek itself.

Citing from Oxyrhynchus papyri of NT documents achieves little with regard to the problem I posed to him, ie that one doesn't have a sufficient body of Koine in NT sources so say much about the language [and note, I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that NT is all that there is in Koine, clear?]. That NA27 does use these sources is good for the standard of textual representation, yet irrelevant to the discussion.

cx asks:
--------------------------
Is it your claim that because such texts aren't actually used in the GNT that they are not used as a framework for understanding Koine?
--------------------------

No, it is not my claim. I was asking about what sources you were using for your knowledge of Koine Greek.

cx:
--------------------------
Given that what else could I conclude but that you don't know what you're talking about?
--------------------------

That you are partially alexic.

cx:
--------------------------
Secondly I fail to see how you read "religious aggression" into my posts. I'm not religious. I'm not even a theist.
--------------------------

I was being hopeful, cx, that there was some reason for your general belligerence.

cx:
--------------------------
I am simply frustrated because you seem to regularly write whereof you do not know and that with authority and arrogance.
--------------------------

Pot calling kettle black.

First I recommend that you learn to read what people say rather than consistently going off half-cocked. Your overlong post would not have been necessary had you read with a little perception.

cx:
--------------------------
This list [of Ox.Rh. NT texts] is far from exhaustive. But "Oh!" you say, "These are all NT texts."
--------------------------

Naturally. They are irrelevant to passing comment I made, which you have decided to make a big affair out of. What are your sources of knowledge of Koine Greek outside NT sources? Is that so difficult for you to understand?

cx:
--------------------------
Well what would be the purpose of citing non NT texts in a critical edition of the NT?
--------------------------

So you can now see the irrelevance to citing them.

cx:
--------------------------
The point is these texts were all discovered alongside non-biblical texts all of which are used by linguists and paleographers to develop a proper understanding of Koine. You clearly implied that there were no sources for Koine Greek aside from the NT and that could not be more wrong.
--------------------------

More demostration of alexia.

cx:
--------------------------
Even so you pretend as though you knew this all along and refuse to admit when you have made an honest error.
--------------------------

cx, when you get over your reading problems, please reread your stuff before posting, so that you don't waste your and other people's time.

Now can you answer the question: what are your sources for Koine Greek other than materials prepared for and based on NT? This material is usually not readily available to dilletantes as you admit yourself to be.

CX

Nonsense. I don't believe that was your original point, based on other statements you have made here and I submit that you are backpedaling. In any case if YOU know anything about Greek period, then you might have surmised that I would make use of Liddell and Scott in addition to NT sources. The notion that other sources "[aren't] readily available to dilletantes" is absurd. At this point there is almost no source that isn't available to anyone who's looking for it. You continually make pronouncements regarding Koine texts as if you actually know what you are talking about and yet is abundantly clear that you know very little about it. Whatever "work" you've been doing in the OT is irrelevant (not that I buy that line either).

spin

CX:
----
Nonsense. I don't believe that was your original point, based on other statements you have made here and I submit that you are backpedaling.
----
Don't you love these geniuses who can mindread over the internet?

I cited the text you are trying to interpret. As you have problems interpreting it, I even gave you the inside understanding, ie what I intended. Here it is again for you:

-------------------------
what does he use as his authority for Koine Greek? The collection of words in the NT?? There are not enough words in that collection to be able to draw such a conclusion, so what is his authority for what is and is not Koine Greek?
-------------------------

Why do you persist in your erroneous interpretation of my words? Please cite from what I said, instead of simply insisting you know better about what I intended.

CX:
----
In any case if YOU know anything about Greek period, then you might have surmised that I would make use of Liddell and Scott in addition to NT sources.
----

Strangely enough I have an old copy of Liddell and Scott (Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon). Would you like to tell me an entry which gives you any information about Koine forms or collocations?

CX:
----
The notion that other sources "[aren't] readily available to dilletantes" is absurd. At this point there is almost no source that isn't available to anyone who's looking for it.
----

I gather you refuse to answer my question again. Not surprizing. Is it so difficult to explain what your sources are for Koine Greek? Let's try again: where does the data for your knowledge of Koine Greek come from besides the NT?

CX:
----
You continually make pronouncements regarding Koine texts as if you actually know what you are talking about and yet is abundantly clear that you know very little about it.
----

Which "pronouncements regarding Koine texts" are you referring to? Are you talking about what I have cited above? What are you talking about?

CX:
----
Whatever "work" you've been doing in the OT is irrelevant (not that I buy that line either).
----

I don't really care what you buy. You have shown so little qualification to talk about anything, that you wouldn't expect your opinion to be given much value, would you?

cx, your belligerence is quite amusing. I understand that you know a little about the Greek in the NT, but that doesn't give you licence to attack anyone that doesn't agree with your pearls of wisdom.

I came into this thread because I noted that once again you were being downright rude and I wanted to draw your attention to the fact. Your response was to attempt to deflect the post you were responding to by clutching at straws, claiming I said something which you cannot demonstrate, even when I cite the words to you to help you make your point. I asked what "[you] use as [your] authority for Koine Greek". If, as I guess, you won't answer the question, is there any point in your responding at all?

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

CX

Are you trying to be cute or pedantic? If you truly do have the abridged version and have used it then you know that it is a comprehensive lexicon covering Greek from the pre-classical period through the Hellenic. It is not a specifically Koine lexicon. I freely admit that I have to go to a local college library to use it or else use the online version at the Perseus project. But you, as usual are shifting the argument. According to Strong's and Thayer's and a searchable version of WH there is no greek word PILETAS. This is corroborated by Liddell and Scott. Lidell and Scott covers the entire LXX and NT. Consequently if the word in question is not found there nor in any of the NT specific lexica it isn't a word. Why do you persist in this tiresome pedantry?

spin

I'm pretty sure this cx person is just a troll. He is off the wall.

spin:
------
Strangely enough I have an old copy of Liddell and Scott (Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon). Would you like to tell me an entry which gives you any information about Koine forms or collocations?
------

cx:
----
Are you trying to be cute or pedantic?
----

No, I asked you a simple question and you duck yet another one. You're a master of not answering any questions.

cx:
----
If...
----

Here's one of his dubious ifs.

cx:
-----
...you truly do have the abridged version and have used it then you know that it is a comprehensive lexicon covering Greek from the pre-classical period through the Hellenic.
-----

If I quote the text, matey, why should you doubt it? I asked you to cite an entry which makes reference to Koine Greek. Can you show me where L&S make space for Koine? I see lots of references to Ionian, Doric and Attic. But Koine? You can't get any idea at all about Koine from that dictionary. You're just trying to pull everyone's leg.

cx:
-----
It is not a specifically Koine lexicon.
-----

In fact, it makes no reference to Koine at all.

cx:
-----
I freely admit that I have to go to a local college library to use it or else use the online version at the Perseus project. But you, as usual are shifting the argument.
-----

From what to what?

cx:
-----
According to Strong's and Thayer's and a searchable version of WH there is no greek word PILETAS.

Here is what I said in my first post:
--------------------------------------
Incidentally, here is one of cx's dicta:

"Lastly there is no word PILETOS in Koine Greek."

He may be right, but what does he use as his authority for Koine Greek?
--------------------------------------

I wouldn't expect, cx, that you read what is written. I didn't bother to look the word up. I didn't really care, hence "he may be right". I was more interested in you taking a mechete to iasion. I asked what your authority for Koine Greek was. You still haven't answered except maybe by saying that you have to go to the local college library or whatever as an indication that you have no authority for Koine Greek.

cx:
----
This is corroborated by Liddell and Scott. Lidell and Scott covers the entire LXX and NT. Consequently if the word in question is not found there nor in any of the NT specific lexica it isn't a word. Why do you persist in this tiresome pedantry?
----

I guess you're too old to start learning to read carefully.

If you get rude responses, I think it's because you are just plain rude yourself, so don't take it to heart, change tack.

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>