Reviewed Work: Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax by Elliot C. Maloney
Review by: R. A. Martin
_The Jewish Quarterly Review_ New Series, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Jan., 1983), pp. 288-290
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1454012
Reviewed Work: Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 10) by Raymond Martin
Review by: Elliott C. Maloney
_The Catholic Biblical Quarterly_ Vol. 51, No. 2 (April, 1989), pp. 378-380
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43717810
"A Note on the Statistical Analysis of Septuagintal Syntax" by Benjamin G. Wright III
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 104, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 111-114
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3260598
Reviewed Work: _Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums im Licht der hellenistischen Volksliteratur_ by Marius Reiser
Review by: Robert L. Mowery
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 106, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 138-139
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3260574
===============================================
_Syntax Criticism of Johannine Literature, the Catholic Epistles, and the Gospel Passion Accounts_ (1989), 187pp., on 7-8 with light edits
https://www.amazon.com/Criticism-Johanni...004QB9GTU/
https://books.google.com/books?id=rGYXAQAAIAAJ&
John's gospel has a total of 1756 lines and a net translation Greek frequency according to Syntax Criticism of -3. As will be seen from Charts 1A and 1B below, this net frequency lies just at the edge of the range of translation Greek for documents of more than 50 lines in length (-4 to -14) and is radically different than the net frequencies of documents known to have been written originally in Greek (+9 to +17).
This indicates that the Fourth Gospel as a whole is most likely translated from a Semitic document, but may have a small number of subsections which were not, but were originally composed in Greek.
....of the 118 subunits in the Gospel, only 10 fall outside the area of translation Greek units of the same size....
On 95, 97:
As Charts XVI and XIX below show, while both 1 John and 2 John fall deeply into the translation Greek area, 3 John falls just as deeply into the original Greek area (Chart XIX).
On 104:
Chart XVI reveals that the net frequencies of the Letter of James fall nearly into the clear translation Greek area and are widely separated from the original Greek documents studied. This suggests that most of the subsections when analyzed will be found to have net translation Greek frequencies as well. This is the case, as can be seen from the classification in Chart XXI below, where only one subsection shows up with clear original Greek net frequencies (no. 9) [i.e. James 2.5-13].
On 109:
The net frequencies of 1 Peter as a whole fall into the clear original Greek area as Chart XVI shows. However, if the net frequencies of each chapter and of the subsections are considered, as can be seen in Chart XXIII below, a significant fact appears: the net frequencies of chapter 5 are more Semitic than any of the others and so are the net frequencies of 4:12-19, the end of chapter 4. When these are combined 4:12-5:14..., the net frequencies become clear translation Greek,
and those of the first part 1:1-4:11 remain clear original Greek (cf. Chart XXIII). One subsection of this larger unit (4:12-5:14) has, however, clear original Greek net frequencies-- 5:1-5.
On 111:
When Jude is analyzed by the criteria of Syntax Criticism, the net frequencies of it as a whole are found to be in the area of clear original Greek (62 lines, +10) as can be seen in Chart XVI. When the individual subsections are studied, they are seen to be conformable to the pattern of such subsections in documents that are known to be original Greek as Charts XIX and XX show, and radically different from the pattern of such subsections in translated writings of the Greek Old Testament.
On 112:
....2 Peter
....from Chart XXIV which follows it will be seen that a number of subsections do show up clearly as original Greek (nos. 2, 6, 8, 9) but none show up clearly as translation Greek.
....thus it is most likely that 2 Peter is, in its entirety and in its subsections, original Greek.
===============================================
_Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels_ (1987), 220pp.
https://books.google.com/books?id=yRAlAAAAMAAJ&
https://www.amazon.com/Syntax-Criticism-...004QBBCEC/
On 74, information from "Passages in Mark 1-10 Evidencing Translation Greek":
passage; net frequency; verdict
Mark 1.16-20; -1; Translated from Semitic Sources
2.1-12 +1 translated
2.13-17 0 probably translated
2.23-28 0 probably translated
3.7-12 0 probably translated
3.13-19 0 probably translated
3.20-30 +1 translated
4.1-9 +2 probably translated
4.13-20 +2 probably translated
4.21-25 -1 translated
4.26-29 -2 translated
4.30-32 -2 translated
5.24b-34 0 translated
5.35-43 +1 translated
5.21-43 0 translated
6.1-6a 0 probably translated
6.14-29 0 translated
8.1-10 -1 translated
8.31-9.1 -1 translated
9.33-37 0 probably translated
10.35-45 -3 translated
On 95, information from "Q Passages Evidencing Translation Greek in Luke and/or Matthew":
passage; net frequency; verdict
Luke 4.1-13; -1; Translated from Semitic Sources
Luke 6.27-31 +1 probably translated
Luke 6.32-36 -2 translated
Matthew 5.43-48 -5 translated
Luke 6.37-38, 41-42 -1 translated
Matthew 8.5-13 -2 translated
Luke 7.18-23 -1 translated
Luke 10.13-15 +1 probably translated
Luke 10.21-24 0 probably translated
Matthew 11.25-27; 13.16-17 -1 translated
Matthew 6.9-13 0 probably translated
Luke 11.9-13 0 probably translated
Matthew 7.7-11 -1 translated
Luke 11.29-32 0 probably translated
Matthew 12.39-42 -1 translated
Luke 11.33-35 +1 probably translated
Matthew 5.15; 6.22-23 -1 translated
Luke 11.39-44 -2 translated
Luke 11.45-51 +1 translated
Matthew 23.4, 29-36 -4 translated
Luke 12.2-9 -2 translated
Matthew 10.26-33 -4 translated
Luke 12.33-34 +1 probably translated
Matthew 6.19-21 -1 translated
Luke 12.42-46 -3 translated
Luke 14.15-24 -1 translated
Luke 14.26-27 +2 probably translated
Luke 15.4-7 +1 probably translated
Luke 19.11-27 +1 translated
=================================================
Stephen C. Farris, "On Discerning Semitic Sources in Luke 1-2" in _Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels_, Volume 2 (1981), 375pp., on 207, 210, 213-214 with a little reformatting
https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Perspectiv...592442889/
https://books.google.com/books?id=4HavCw...=PA214&
a later version of which appears in
_The Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning and Significance_ by Stephen Farris
https://books.google.com/books?id=GyidBQ...g=PA59&
On 207:
Once more a table may be useful in summarizing the results of such a study.^17
The table shows the range of net results when the criteria are applied to the shorter units of original and translation Greek.
Unit Length ; Original Greek ; Translation Greek
31-50 lines ; +13 to +7 ; +1 to -8
16-30 lines ; +12 to +3 ; +4 to -9
4-15 lines ; +12 to 0 ; +7 to -6
On 210:
When we turn to the infancy narratives and apply Martin's criteria, we find that Luke 1-2 as a whole and also in its various parts consistently displays translation Greek frequencies as the following chart makes clear.^27
Section ; Lines ; Net
Chapter 1 without hymns ; 107 ; -12
Hymns of Chapter 1 ; 30 ; -4
Chapter 2.1-40 without hymns ; 57 ; -5
Hymns of Chapter 2 ; 5 ; -2
2.41ff. ; 23 ; -2
Chapter 1 total ; 137 ; -14
Chapter 2 total ; 80 ; -5
Hymns total ; 35 ; -4
Grand total ; 217 ; -16
Every one of these units, even Luke 2.41ff.,^28 is safely within the translation Greek frequency range.
On 213-214:
....Romans and Galatians... From these books I have chosen a passage of doctrinal exposition, Romans 5, and a passage which contains biographical narrative, Galatians 1-2.5.^34 Finally, there are two texts of somewhat different character, Revelation 3 and 4-5.10. The former is the concluding section of the letter to the seven churches, while the latter forms the beginning of the apocalyptic vision itself. This latter section contains narrative, direct discourse, and hymnic materials, as do the infancy narratives of Luke. Of the author of Revelation R.H. Charles wrote, 'while he writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew'.^35
Revelation, it appears, may serve as our example of 'poor quality Greek influenced by Semitic idiom'.
The results of the analysis are as follows:
Text ; Lines ; Net Result
Luke 5.12-6.11 ; 91 ; 0
Mark 1.40-3.6 ; 89 ; +2
Luke 12.13-13.9 ; 109 ; -2
Lukan passages (total) ; 200 ; 0
Romans 5 ; 50.5 ; +2
Galatians 1-2.5 ; 56 ; +3
Paul (total) ; 106.5 ; +3
Revelation 3 ; 59 ; -2
Revelation 4-5.10 ; 61 ; -5
Revelation (total) ; 120 ; -5
Review by: R. A. Martin
_The Jewish Quarterly Review_ New Series, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Jan., 1983), pp. 288-290
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1454012
Reviewed Work: Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 10) by Raymond Martin
Review by: Elliott C. Maloney
_The Catholic Biblical Quarterly_ Vol. 51, No. 2 (April, 1989), pp. 378-380
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43717810
"A Note on the Statistical Analysis of Septuagintal Syntax" by Benjamin G. Wright III
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 104, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), pp. 111-114
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3260598
Reviewed Work: _Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums im Licht der hellenistischen Volksliteratur_ by Marius Reiser
Review by: Robert L. Mowery
_Journal of Biblical Literature_ Vol. 106, No. 1 (Mar., 1987), pp. 138-139
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3260574
===============================================
_Syntax Criticism of Johannine Literature, the Catholic Epistles, and the Gospel Passion Accounts_ (1989), 187pp., on 7-8 with light edits
https://www.amazon.com/Criticism-Johanni...004QB9GTU/
https://books.google.com/books?id=rGYXAQAAIAAJ&
John's gospel has a total of 1756 lines and a net translation Greek frequency according to Syntax Criticism of -3. As will be seen from Charts 1A and 1B below, this net frequency lies just at the edge of the range of translation Greek for documents of more than 50 lines in length (-4 to -14) and is radically different than the net frequencies of documents known to have been written originally in Greek (+9 to +17).
This indicates that the Fourth Gospel as a whole is most likely translated from a Semitic document, but may have a small number of subsections which were not, but were originally composed in Greek.
....of the 118 subunits in the Gospel, only 10 fall outside the area of translation Greek units of the same size....
On 95, 97:
As Charts XVI and XIX below show, while both 1 John and 2 John fall deeply into the translation Greek area, 3 John falls just as deeply into the original Greek area (Chart XIX).
On 104:
Chart XVI reveals that the net frequencies of the Letter of James fall nearly into the clear translation Greek area and are widely separated from the original Greek documents studied. This suggests that most of the subsections when analyzed will be found to have net translation Greek frequencies as well. This is the case, as can be seen from the classification in Chart XXI below, where only one subsection shows up with clear original Greek net frequencies (no. 9) [i.e. James 2.5-13].
On 109:
The net frequencies of 1 Peter as a whole fall into the clear original Greek area as Chart XVI shows. However, if the net frequencies of each chapter and of the subsections are considered, as can be seen in Chart XXIII below, a significant fact appears: the net frequencies of chapter 5 are more Semitic than any of the others and so are the net frequencies of 4:12-19, the end of chapter 4. When these are combined 4:12-5:14..., the net frequencies become clear translation Greek,
and those of the first part 1:1-4:11 remain clear original Greek (cf. Chart XXIII). One subsection of this larger unit (4:12-5:14) has, however, clear original Greek net frequencies-- 5:1-5.
On 111:
When Jude is analyzed by the criteria of Syntax Criticism, the net frequencies of it as a whole are found to be in the area of clear original Greek (62 lines, +10) as can be seen in Chart XVI. When the individual subsections are studied, they are seen to be conformable to the pattern of such subsections in documents that are known to be original Greek as Charts XIX and XX show, and radically different from the pattern of such subsections in translated writings of the Greek Old Testament.
On 112:
....2 Peter
....from Chart XXIV which follows it will be seen that a number of subsections do show up clearly as original Greek (nos. 2, 6, 8, 9) but none show up clearly as translation Greek.
....thus it is most likely that 2 Peter is, in its entirety and in its subsections, original Greek.
===============================================
_Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels_ (1987), 220pp.
https://books.google.com/books?id=yRAlAAAAMAAJ&
https://www.amazon.com/Syntax-Criticism-...004QBBCEC/
On 74, information from "Passages in Mark 1-10 Evidencing Translation Greek":
passage; net frequency; verdict
Mark 1.16-20; -1; Translated from Semitic Sources
2.1-12 +1 translated
2.13-17 0 probably translated
2.23-28 0 probably translated
3.7-12 0 probably translated
3.13-19 0 probably translated
3.20-30 +1 translated
4.1-9 +2 probably translated
4.13-20 +2 probably translated
4.21-25 -1 translated
4.26-29 -2 translated
4.30-32 -2 translated
5.24b-34 0 translated
5.35-43 +1 translated
5.21-43 0 translated
6.1-6a 0 probably translated
6.14-29 0 translated
8.1-10 -1 translated
8.31-9.1 -1 translated
9.33-37 0 probably translated
10.35-45 -3 translated
On 95, information from "Q Passages Evidencing Translation Greek in Luke and/or Matthew":
passage; net frequency; verdict
Luke 4.1-13; -1; Translated from Semitic Sources
Luke 6.27-31 +1 probably translated
Luke 6.32-36 -2 translated
Matthew 5.43-48 -5 translated
Luke 6.37-38, 41-42 -1 translated
Matthew 8.5-13 -2 translated
Luke 7.18-23 -1 translated
Luke 10.13-15 +1 probably translated
Luke 10.21-24 0 probably translated
Matthew 11.25-27; 13.16-17 -1 translated
Matthew 6.9-13 0 probably translated
Luke 11.9-13 0 probably translated
Matthew 7.7-11 -1 translated
Luke 11.29-32 0 probably translated
Matthew 12.39-42 -1 translated
Luke 11.33-35 +1 probably translated
Matthew 5.15; 6.22-23 -1 translated
Luke 11.39-44 -2 translated
Luke 11.45-51 +1 translated
Matthew 23.4, 29-36 -4 translated
Luke 12.2-9 -2 translated
Matthew 10.26-33 -4 translated
Luke 12.33-34 +1 probably translated
Matthew 6.19-21 -1 translated
Luke 12.42-46 -3 translated
Luke 14.15-24 -1 translated
Luke 14.26-27 +2 probably translated
Luke 15.4-7 +1 probably translated
Luke 19.11-27 +1 translated
=================================================
Stephen C. Farris, "On Discerning Semitic Sources in Luke 1-2" in _Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels_, Volume 2 (1981), 375pp., on 207, 210, 213-214 with a little reformatting
https://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Perspectiv...592442889/
https://books.google.com/books?id=4HavCw...=PA214&
a later version of which appears in
_The Hymns of Luke's Infancy Narratives: Their Origin, Meaning and Significance_ by Stephen Farris
https://books.google.com/books?id=GyidBQ...g=PA59&
On 207:
Once more a table may be useful in summarizing the results of such a study.^17
The table shows the range of net results when the criteria are applied to the shorter units of original and translation Greek.
Unit Length ; Original Greek ; Translation Greek
31-50 lines ; +13 to +7 ; +1 to -8
16-30 lines ; +12 to +3 ; +4 to -9
4-15 lines ; +12 to 0 ; +7 to -6
On 210:
When we turn to the infancy narratives and apply Martin's criteria, we find that Luke 1-2 as a whole and also in its various parts consistently displays translation Greek frequencies as the following chart makes clear.^27
Section ; Lines ; Net
Chapter 1 without hymns ; 107 ; -12
Hymns of Chapter 1 ; 30 ; -4
Chapter 2.1-40 without hymns ; 57 ; -5
Hymns of Chapter 2 ; 5 ; -2
2.41ff. ; 23 ; -2
Chapter 1 total ; 137 ; -14
Chapter 2 total ; 80 ; -5
Hymns total ; 35 ; -4
Grand total ; 217 ; -16
Every one of these units, even Luke 2.41ff.,^28 is safely within the translation Greek frequency range.
On 213-214:
....Romans and Galatians... From these books I have chosen a passage of doctrinal exposition, Romans 5, and a passage which contains biographical narrative, Galatians 1-2.5.^34 Finally, there are two texts of somewhat different character, Revelation 3 and 4-5.10. The former is the concluding section of the letter to the seven churches, while the latter forms the beginning of the apocalyptic vision itself. This latter section contains narrative, direct discourse, and hymnic materials, as do the infancy narratives of Luke. Of the author of Revelation R.H. Charles wrote, 'while he writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew'.^35
Revelation, it appears, may serve as our example of 'poor quality Greek influenced by Semitic idiom'.
The results of the analysis are as follows:
Text ; Lines ; Net Result
Luke 5.12-6.11 ; 91 ; 0
Mark 1.40-3.6 ; 89 ; +2
Luke 12.13-13.9 ; 109 ; -2
Lukan passages (total) ; 200 ; 0
Romans 5 ; 50.5 ; +2
Galatians 1-2.5 ; 56 ; +3
Paul (total) ; 106.5 ; +3
Revelation 3 ; 59 ; -2
Revelation 4-5.10 ; 61 ; -5
Revelation (total) ; 120 ; -5