What are some Greek textual abnormalities in the Gospel of John?
Look in your technical commentaries and journals.
Screen shot shows New Testament Text and Translation Commentary & A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament have a number of textual comments about the Gospel of John.
Keep Smiling [:)]
If you’ve got a base package you should have Metzger’s Textual Commentary (and the Lexham one). Go to John in there and it’ll explain why they made the textual decisions they did.
Check out the following ....
1. The Lexham Textual Notes on the Bible is simple, and deals with verses in NT order.
2. Philip Comfort's NEW TESTAMENT TEXT AND TRANSLATION COMMENTARY is well set out.
3. His ENCOUNTERING NT MSS has a couple of very informative chapters of on several passages in FG.
Stephen
Australia
Greek textual abnormalities
suggestion: instead of looking for "abnormalities" (which some would see as negative) consider phrasing this as "evidences of the Johannine voice". One of your other posts mentions "Biblical Theology" Instead of looking at John's voice as "abnormal" You may wish to identify style and vocabulary that sets John apart from the other Human Evangelists and NT Authors.
Greek textual abnormalities suggestion: instead of looking for "abnormalities" (which some would see as negative)
suggestion: instead of looking for "abnormalities" (which some would see as negative)
Know you're trying to make things nice, but if he hopes to find it (Johannine style) it'd be versus some other standard. As in:
https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/johannine-anomalies-and-the-synoptics
Which Logos doesn't carry, but Logos does have the author's contribution on early Christianity and stoicism.
suggestion: instead of looking for "abnormalities" (which some would see as negative) consider phrasing this as "evidences of the Johannine voice".
Ah, I see we took the question differently. I see "grammar" as solely a descriptive framework scholars impose on a language - in which case, "abnormalities" are simply the forms used that the framework does not explain - often, idioms, dialectal variations, historical remnants ... I didn't take the question to be one of stylistics. I suspect you may be closer to what the OP intended.
