Continuing from Review 1 . . .
Thomas Schmidt attempts to argue that Josephus used a belittling word to describe the teaching of Jesus that attracted his disciples. At best, Schmidt claims, the word he uses is ambiguous, but that the weight of evidence should lead us to read Josephus as depicting the followers of Jesus loving trite banalities. I demonstrate in this post that Schmidt is simply flat wrong. The word Josephus uses cannot be translated the way Schmidt claims.
Josephus’s words about Jesus, the Testimonium Flavianum (TF), begin thus:
And in this time there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a doer of incredible deeds, a teacher of men who receive truisms with pleasure. . . . (Schmidt’s translation, p. 6 – my highlighting in all quotations)
Truisms?
A truism is “a statement that is obviously true and says nothing new or interesting”, “a self-evident, obvious truth”, “a statement that is so obviously true that it is almost not worth saying”, “a statement that is generally accepted as obviously true and is repeated so often that it has become boring”, “a statement the truth of which is obvious or well known; commonplace”. All those meanings come up with a general internet search.
And that is indeed what Thomas Schmidt believes Josephus most likely means to convey to his readers. He explains:
The term τἀληθῆ in the TF should . . . be taken to be fairly general or run-of-the-mill truths, as with the English terms ‘facts at hand’, ‘maxims’, ‘pithy sayings’, or especially ‘truisms’. (Schmidt 2025, 78)
The term ‘truisms’ (τἀληθῆ) . . . suggests basic, run-of-the-mill facts, observations, and the like. (Schmidt 2025, 207)
Here are some examples of truisms:
| “It is what it is.” | “Money doesn’t buy happiness.” | “You win some, you lose some.” |
| “Life isn’t fair.” | “Prevention is better than cure.” | “What goes up must come down.” |
| “No one is perfect.” | “Actions speak louder than words.” | “Actions speak louder than words.” |
| “People change.” | “Success doesn’t happen overnight.” | “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” |
| “Hard work pays off.” | “Practice makes perfect.” | “You don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone.” |
| “Patience is a virtue.” | “You can’t win them all!” | “Time heals all wounds.” |
| “We all make mistakes.” | “You reap what you sow.” | “You can’t please everyone.” |
It is almost the definition of a truism that it is a saying that cannot be received “with pleasure”. A truism may offer some small consolation, or a mild laugh, but hardly “pleasure”.
Schmidt argues that the word for “pleasure” in association with what he translates as “truisms” casts a negative connotation. I will reserve my response to that particular argument for another time. Meanwhile, anyone who has any acquaintance at all with ancient moralistic or philosophical writings knows full well that taking joy, delight, even pleasure, in “good things” is noble and right; what is deemed a negative is when pleasure is taken in “less than good” things. Schmidt does point out that some later Christian copyists seemed to be uncomfortable with Josephus using the word “pleasure”, but that is a problem for much later Christian ethical viewpoints.
To be fair, Schmidt does in one place acknowledge that his word for truisms is “ambiguous” (p. 31) and that it could be read as a positive content of what he taught. But his main stress is on insisting that it refers to something negative and poor in content.
Schmidt’s attempt to persuade readers that this particular word means “run of the mill”, “prosaic” bromides is misguided. The word means “truths” or “true things” or “true matters” and such.
There is no ambiguity with the TF’s use of this word. There is no reason at all to think Josephus was being sarcastic or in any way hinting that the teachings of Jesus were shallow trivialities.
talēthē — τἀληθῆ — true things or truisms?
The word Schmidt translates as “truisms” is τἀληθῆ. This is actually a contraction of two words: τά and ἀληθῆ. (The technical term for this kind of combination word form is “crasis”.) τά most simply means “the”: it is the plural neuter form of “the”; ἀληθῆ is normally an adjective meaning “true” (as in true facts, true statements, or indicating the truth of a matter). When the two words come together ἀληθῆ becomes as much a noun as an adjective. The two together mean “the truth”, “truths” or “true things”. (Luschnig and Mitchell 2007, 42, 51, 52, 78, 121, 286)
Some text books introduce the word with quotations from the fourth century BC Greek dramatist, Menander:
It is the sign of a free man that he speaks the truth.
ἐλευθέρου γάρ ἐστι τἀληθῆ λέγειν. (Luschnig and Mitchell 2007, 131)
‘Tis always best to tell the truth. At every crisis I recommend this as a chief contribution to security in life.
ἀεὶ κράτιστόν ἐστι τἀληθῆ λέγειν. ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ τοῦτ᾿ ἐγὼ παρεγγυῶ· εἰς ἀσφάλειαν τῷ βίῳ πλεῖστον μέρος. (Menander 1921, 454f)
It’s the truth I’m telling you.
τἀληθῆ λέγω (Menander 1990, 291)
Οne would be hard pressed to translate τἀληθῆ as “truisms” in any of the above instances.
But what about in the time of Josephus? How was the word used in the first and early second centuries?
I will first of all list examples of how the word was used by authors from around the time of Josephus and then quote examples from Josephus himself. Like Schmidt, I limit myself to the crasis form τἀληθῆ even though other appearances of ἀληθῆ can convey the same meaning.
Dio Chrysostom, ca 40 – 115 CE
Here are translations of every instance I found where Dio Chrysostom uses τἀληθῆ. They are from Orationes. Not a single one could be translated as “truisms”. For the Greek text click on this link to the Perseus site.
Speech 3, section 13:
…at that time I risked my life for the sake of my soul, but now, when it is permitted for everyone to speak the truth, I lie, though no danger is present…
Speech 3, section 23:
…it does not receive any great favor. For what kind of favor is it thought to be, to speak the truth?
Speech 4, section 2:
…because of the greatest authority and power, so that they not only recount true things about such matters, but even exaggerate by inventing them themselves.
Speech 4, section 10:
But he flattered none of mankind, rather speaking the truth to all, and possessing not a single drachma, just as he wished.
Speech 4, section 59:
…strike with your spear into the illusion; for you will hear the truth from me alone among men, and from no one else could you learn it.
Speech 11, section 3:
…just as, I think, it is difficult to take away from those who have raised foster children the one who tells the truth—namely what someone said to them in the beginning…
Speech 11, section 4:
…you deemed Homer more trustworthy—even though he told the gravest lies about you—than me, who speaks the truth, and you believed him to be a divine and wise man…
Speech 11, section 16:
…to begin from a madman, and they are more inclined to think that those who then condemned him judged rightly that he spoke the truth rather than that he was lying.
Speech 11, section 18:
…did he say that in such a way? For the one who does not openly state the truth about the goddesses, but rather in the opposite manner so that falsehoods are more likely to be assumed…
Speech 11, section 22:
…he had no less confidence and pride in lying than in speaking the truth.
Speech 11, section 42:
…they have no need of wine, but water suffices them to drink—just so, those who wish to know the truth have no need of measures…
Speech 11, section 80:
…and Homer agrees to this: for he could not have hidden all the truth;
Speech 11, section 83:
…giving gifts to each other like friends. After this, he finally tells the truth: …
Speech 7, section 99:
…nor did they praise them as being wise and good and speaking the truth.
Speech 34, section 30:
…and as a true guardian of his own fatherland, both thinking and speaking the truth, and through whom the city is better governed and has enjoyed some good.
Speech 21, section 3:
…I shall make corrections for them, treating each part in turn, if I am believed while speaking the truth about the more important matters.
Speech 23, section 22:
…a kind of honor and power, if they are sensible. For you must listen to the truth and not take it badly, if someone, wishing to praise others…
Speech 53, section 2:
…tender and especially resembling women—how could you suppose that he speaks the truth or is fit for anything involving hunting? — Not at all.
Epictetus, ca 50 – 135 CE.
For the Greek click on this link.
Discourses, Book 1, Chapter 7
Question and answer. For what is promised in discourse? To assert what is true, to eliminate what is false, and to suspend judgment concerning what is unclear.
Discourses, Book 2, Chapter 6
Hades? All roads to it are equal. But if you wish to hear the truth: the shorter one is the one sent by the tyrant.
Discourses, Book 3, Chapter 1
Am I such a person? How so? Are you such a person as to be able to hear the truth? Would that you were!
Discourses, Book 3, Chapter 22
…what kind of enemies. And he must come back, having examined things carefully, to report the truth, not being struck dumb by fear, such that he declares enemies where there are none.
Discourses, Book 3, Chapter 23
Come, are we fulfilling their promise? Tell me the truth. But if you lie, I will tell you: …
Plutarch, ca 40 – 120 CE
Plutarch, Pompey, chapter 13
…to offer himself and stand firm even in the utmost dangers; but upon learning the truth, and perceiving that all men were welcoming and escorting Pompey…
Plutarch, Apophthegmata Laconica, chapter 69
He replied, “We are free men; but others—if they do not speak the truth—will groan.
Plutarch, De genio Socratis, section 18
I do not know,” he said, “O Caphisias; for it is necessary to speak the truth to you.
Plutarch, Adversus Colotem, section 15
…the place, namely the class of propositions, in which all true things are included; for although these exist, there is no actual thing corresponding to them…
Plutarch, De liberis educandis, section 14
And all these things—most fittingly—should accustom children to speak the truth; for lying is slavish and worthy of hatred from all mankind.
Plutarch, Cimon, chapter 2
When the general wrote to Lucullus, he bore witness to the truth, and thus the city, which was in danger, escaped judgment. . . .
We shall resume in the written Parallel Lives the deeds of the man, setting forth the truth.
I submit that not a single use of τἀληθῆ by the above contemporaries of Josephus can reasonably be translated as “truisms”. In every case “truisms” would be jarringly out of context and make a nonsense of the point being made.
Flavius Josephus, ca 37 – 100 CE
Now for the instances in the works of Josephus. Schmidt says
Τἀληθῆ is also Josephan and is used by him thirty-nine times in its crasis form, eight of which occur in the same case and number as in the TF. Of these eight, five appear in the Antiquities. (Schmidt 2025, 77)
I have not been able to find the 39 uses Schmidt reports. I suspect there has been a misunderstanding at some point there, given that the Perseus site lists 39 instances of all forms of the word (not just the crasis form that Schmidt is speaking about).
Jewish Antiquities
The Greek text is at this link.
book 3, section 74
…he wrote as one who had found the aforementioned arrangement, considering it fitting to bear witness to the truth for those who deserve it, even if it was likely to bring fame to the one being inscribed.
book 3, section 308
…to neither condemn God with falsehood nor trust those who, having been struck with astonishment, have spoken what is not true concerning the Canaanites, but rather (to trust) those who…
book 4, section 219
…not one witness, but three, or at the very least two, whose testimony will be made true by their past conduct. But let there not be testimony of women because of … immaturity, whom it is likely either for gain or out of fear not to bear true witness. But if someone who has given false testimony [= testimony that is not true = μὴ τἀληθῆ μαρτυρῆσαι] is believed, let him suffer these things, once convicted.
book 8, section 23
…Master, (grant) sound mind and good judgment, by which I may judge the people, having received what is true and just.
book 14, section 3
…but above all, historians ought to aim at accuracy, and not claim to speak the truth about things of which they themselves are ignorant, nor trust those who do.
book 18, section 63 — our passage in question
…for he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of men who receive the truth with pleasure, and he won over many Jews, and also many of the…
The Jewish War
book 1, section 16
…mouth and tongue are loosened, but when it comes to history—where it is necessary to speak the truth and to gather the facts with great effort—they are silenced… from writing about rulers. Let truth in history [same word, ῆς ἱστορίας ἀληθές, though not in crasis form] be honored among us, since among the Greeks it has been neglected.
book 1, section 594
…(over the) corpse, he asked for what reason she had thrown herself down, swearing that if she spoke the truth, he would release her from all punishment; but if she held back, he would punish her severely.
book 3, section 438
…as the truth was uncovered with time, both what happened at Jotapata…
Life of Josephus
section 262
…that they might repent and, having gone back to their homeland, report to those who had sent them the truth about the way I have conducted myself.
Schmidt’s misleading interpretation
When Schmidt writes of this particular word that . . .
it could also be understood positively as referring to an avid pursuit of certain ideals or hard and fast facts (Schmidt 2025, 137)
. . . surely he is not fairly summing up the evidence that he himself has alluded to. In every case of the above quotations, including those from Josephus, there is no question of the word “also” being understood positively. Just look at them: in every case it is understood positively as referring to “an avid pursuit of certain ideals or hard and fast facts”. There are no exceptions.
One could imagine the word well being applied to Jesus teaching about the law, about the truth of the sabbath, about the truth of prophecy, about the truth of the Pharisees and those who take up their cross and follow him.
Schmidt appeals to context:
Schmidt writes that Josephus “often used” the word for “teacher” negatively and that Josephus uses the word τἀληθῆ to refer to “fairly mundane” things. Most importantly though is that these terms do not indicate a positive estimation of Jesus, for ‘teacher’ (διδάσκαλος) is often used by Josephus negatively, ‘receive with pleasure’ (τῶν ἡδονῇ . . . δεχομένων) is often negative, and ‘truisms’ (τἀληθῆ) is again fairly mundane in Josephus’ writings. (Schmidt 2025, 79)
Again it is quite misleading to tell readers that “Josephus ‘often used’ the word for ‘teacher’ negatively”. He has repeated the claim:
This phrase is thoroughly Josephan. Διδάσκαλος (teacher) is used sixteen other times by Josephus, often quite negatively.101
101 For further discussion on the negative aspects of διδάσκαλος in Josephus, see Bermejo-Rubio, ‘Hypothetical Vorlage’, 354. (Schmidt 2025, 76)
So I turn to Bermejo-Rubio and this is what I see:
The phrase διδάσκαλος ανθρώπων τών ηδονή τάληθη δεχόμενων seems at first sight positive. Yet, the fact that in the sixteen occurrences of διδάσκαλος in Josephus almost half of them the word has a negative meaning by referring to false teachers . . . (Bermejo-Rubio 2014, 354 – my highlighting)
So Josephus uses the word positively more often than negatively! But if Schmidt pointed that fact out it would have undermined the impression he was trying to lead readers into embracing.
Finally, Schmidt says a Christian interpolater would have used another word for “truth”:
Turning to the word ‘truths’ (τἀληθῆ), it appears at first to signal a positive meaning, but when examined in the context of Josephus’ usage pattern a more neutral implication of τἀληθῆ can be sensed. Of the thirty-nine times that Josephus makes use of the term in the crasis form, as it occurs in the TF, he never once appears to refer to some deep, sublime reality or mystical truth. Instead, in all cases he seems rather to be speaking of various ‘facts’, the ‘present situation’, ‘the way things are’ or ‘truisms’. (Schmidt 2025, 78)
If the historical Jesus was the Jesus of the Gospel of John, maybe so. There Jesus talks in “hidden mysteries” the whole time. But few critical scholars would give much credence to the historical characterization of Jesus in that Gospel. The teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Little Apocalypse, of the Last Supper, of what must be done to inherit eternal life, of the sins of the Pharisees, and so on. Even the parables are pointers to “the facts of the matter about the Kingdom of God”. All of these teachings are best described with the same word that Menander, Dio Chrysostom, Epictetus, Plutarch and Josephus consistently used to refer to truths that may have been hidden but that had to be sought out, truths about the future, about prophetic fulfilments, about the faith and obedience required to enter eternal life, and the message of the gospel to be preached: τἀληθῆ.
There are no grounds that I can see for imagining that the word τἀληθῆ would not be used by a Christian in a positive sense. There are certainly no grounds for translating the word in a way to suggest Josephus was expressing some negativity (or even neutrality!) towards the teaching of Jesus.
Bibliography:
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. 2014. “Was the Hypothetical ‘Vorlage’ of the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’ a ‘Neutral’ Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on ‘Antiquitates Judaicae’ 18.63-64.” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 45 (3): 326–65.
Luschnig, Cecelia Eaton, and Deborah Mitchell. 2007. An Introduction to Ancient Greek: A Literary Approach. 2nd edition. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Menander, of Athens. 1990. Menandri Reliquiae selectae. Oxonii : E Typographeo Clarendoniano.
Menander, of Athens, and Francis Greenleaf Allinson. 1921. Menander, the Principal Fragments, with an English Translation by Francis G. Allinson. London W. Heinemann.
Schmidt, T. C. 2025. Josephus and Jesus: New Evidence for the One Called Christ. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Continues with Part 3 . . .
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
I don’t see any “New Evidence,” just a new and labored argument. I stand by my opinion that the TF is a total interpolation.
Schmidt describes as “new evidence” a hypothetical source behind two or so specific witnesses of the TF in late antiquity/early middle ages. Like discovering Q as “new evidence” for Christian origins, perhaps. I may post about it later.
I find these efforts to salvage Josephus as a witness to a real historical Jesus to have more than a hint of desperation.
I find it hard to understand why there is an obsession with Josephus at all. How can someone born after the supposed time of Jesus count as any kind of witness? At best he’s reporting other people’s beliefs, something anyone can do today by walking into a church. What does it prove? That Christian beliefs are not new? Is that a surprise to anyone?
I think you are correct about this, Neil. My reading of the TF is that “Jesus….was a teacher of such men as receive the truth with ἡδονῇ”, that is with hedonistic or worldly pleasure. In Wars 6.5.4 Josephus says an ambiguous prophecy of the Jews that one from their own nation would rule the world actually referred to Vespasian, but the wise men interpreted these things according to their own ἡδονὴν, hedonistic or world pleasure. Therefore I guess Josephus is saying Jesus taught the truth, but to men who received it with worldly pleasure, which Tacitus, Histories 5:13 calls selfish ambition. Josephus says something similar about Judas of Gamala in Ant 18.1.1 “and what they said was received with ἡδονῇ” by his followers. Josephus seems to use this Greek word ἡδονῇ quite a bit in describing what the Romans saw as seditious activity in Judea.
Thanks, Stephen. I have just one quibble — though ἡδονῇ lies behind our word “hedonism”, it was a more neutral term in ancient times that could be applied to not only evil and worldly pleasures but also to pleasures in doing right, self-sacrifice, spiritual laws etc. You’ve prompted me to make this my next post. 😉
“ἡδονῇ . . . also to pleasures in doing right, self-sacrifice, spiritual laws etc.”
Cf. Arete ‘…being and doing one’s absolute best – becoming the best person one can become. The moral excellence or arete of a person or thing was virtue.
“The root of the word, arete, is the same as ‘aristos’, a term which denotes superlative ability and superiority.” The meaning of the word changes depending on what it describes, since everything has its own particular excellence; the arete of a man is different from the arete of a horse. This way of thinking first comes from Plato, and can be seen in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. (Jaeger)’ –David T. Porter, February 12, 2007 @ https://speeches.byuh.edu/david-o-mckay-lecture/the-pursuit-of-arete
ἀρετή is not the word being discussed here. I want to keep the focus on what Schmidt himself is arguing.
in even arguing about this Neil are you still of the belief that the TF is a complete interpolation? some scholars have always insisted there was something originally in there that Eusebius chose to both obscure and falsify. I’ve always thought that even if Josephus did say something about Christianity for the first time in 94 AD near the end of his life, that also totally obliterates the official story. The Church claimed that after the crucifixion the religion spread like wildfire, if that were true there is no way Josephus could spend his entire life ignoring it and still gain any validation or respect as a historian. . . nor is Josephus the only first century historian with whom first century Jesus is conspicuously missing. If the religion was that monumental than certainly Josephus father Matias would have recounted his direct experience to his illustrious son as Matias was a Jerusalem temple priest who likely directly witnessed such events as the trial/crucifixion/rumors of resurrection. Additionally, Christians would have been badgering all Jews including Josephus and Matias to convert, that was the point after all of the later gospels especially Matthew inventing Slaughter of the Innocents trying to implant a Moses meme. Josephus wrote reams about other Messiah wannabes he should have given Jesus that much attention and more if the religion “spread like wildfire,” not just a simple paragratph. Yet in his earlier work Josephus doesn’t even mention Nero slaughtering Christians, even though Josephus became personally acquainted with Nero when he attempted to negotiate the release of jewish hostages.
If Josephus actually met Christians near the end of his life, isn’t it far more likely there were of the possibly “gnostic” (Jesus came down fully formed at Capernaum) variety? This might even explain why Josephus would use the words “if indeed one ought to call him a man.” If his overall tone qualifies as snide, that says it all about what he thinks about such a “concept” allegorical or otherwise.
Paul wrote that the Jesus was created in heaven using the seed of David on an un-named woman, so if Paul and Cephas invented Jesus (he came from their visions, not history) that’s what the earliest Christians would have believed as opposed to later Christians who sought to insert Jesus into history for their own purposes.
since I can’t edit what I just put above, I wanna clarify Josephus father Matias did not witness the trial etc because they never happened
I don’t have a “belief” either way. “Belief” is for religious convictions, but not for scholarly inquiry. For that, scepticism is the default position.
I’m not interested in “obliterating” any official story etc — though apologists have taken my criticisms as assaults on their faith, but that’s their problem, not mine. If people claim there was a “wildfire” of Christian growth in the first century I have no way to answer such claims because they can’t produce any evidence with which to argue.
The simplest hypothesis that explains all the questions arising with the fewest supporting (i.e. ad hoc) sub-hypotheses is that the passage was interpolated in its entirety. I can understand why many want/need Josephus to have said something about Jesus and Christians but none of their arguments that I have so far encountered meet the basic level of normative historical methods and argument.
I have in the past few months discovered that this is not a flaw restricted to biblical scholars. I have encountered the same wishful thinking and flawed methods of argument among Classicists who desperately seem to want a certain first hand account of a Christian martyr, and woman as well, to be authentic. So I have to have a bit more understanding of the foibles of biblical scholars, I guess.
Neil, I think you have just proved, or certainly provided evidence for, Brandolini’s Law (The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.). Brandolini’s Law is also known as the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle.
I didn’t find the author’s arguments worth commenting upon. These pieces seems to be preaching to the choir pieces, but I guess if they aren’t refuted they just sit in the corpus providing ammunition for each new generation of apologists/excusigists.
Exactly. The amount of publicity this book by T.C. Schmidt is getting is quite remarkable — so I had to check it out and when I see it does not at all discuss the evidence even-handedly, but consistently and at length slants only one view of the evidence while giving only a sentence to acknowledging other interpretative possibilities — that is simply not professional scholarship. Some might even suggest a kind of apologetic bias is at work — a bias that is being hailed as intellectually honest scholarship.
Stephen said: “Therefore I guess Josephus is saying Jesus taught the truth, but to men who received it with worldly pleasure, which Tacitus, Histories 5:13 calls selfish ambition.” It might be noted the Gentile churches of Paul did not like the Jerusalem church of James and John, because they wanted to be first and greatest in this coming kingdom of God (Mark 10:37).
Perhaps I should have said:
“It might be noted the Gentile churches of Paul also did not like the Jerusalem church of James and John, because they wanted to be first and greatest in this coming kingdom of God (Mark 10:37).”
It just depends on who wrote “….a teacher of such men as receive the truth with ἡδονῇ.” Josephus may not have liked the Jerusalem church of James and John, but then neither did Paul’s Gentile churches.
It’s worth following through on Nina Livesey’s book that I discussed in depth here: https://vridar.org/tag/livesey-letters-of-paul-in-their-roman-literary-context/ — there is no historical evidence for the existence of such churches. We only have writings unattested until the second century that are depicting literary/rhetorical constructions.
I think Josephus may be saying the ambiguous prophecy of a world ruler coming out of Judea was true (truth) and was referring to Vespasian, Josephus kissing up of course. But to add insult to injury, the TF said Jesus taught the truth of this prophecy to men who applied it to themselves (i.e. received it with pleasure). Tacitus says much the same thing, “….the common people [of the Jews], true to the selfish ambitions of mankind, thought that this exalted destiny was reserved for them, and not even their calamities [The Jewish War] opened their eyes to the truth. —Histories 5.13, Tacitus, AD 56-120. So “truth” seems to be the correct reading as you say in this article.
“and not even their calamities [The Jewish War] opened their eyes to the truth” of this ambiguous prophecy applying to Vespasian — just to clarify.
The reason I apply the “world ruler” interpretation to the TF is because Josephus would have known that “Christ” or “Messiah” would have been Jewish understanding of this coming world ruler.
What textbook are you using in your Greek course? Would you recommend it?
The text we are using is
It’s solid enough, though sometimes amusing for a pro-Christian bias it cannot hide at times. It doesn’t include everything, such as the very rarely used dual forms of words (only the singular and the plural) but as the title says, it is an Introduction — and is solid enough.
One text — a new one — has been pointed out to us by our professor: it is open source and takes an approach that is consistent with modern resources and tools online —
If I were studying alone I would go for that one.
A significant advantage of a formal course is that we also learn many of the forms of Greek, the changes and variants over the centuries and across different dialects — as well as how to read text on pottery and stone inscriptions (not always straightforward and that our text book does not really help with), and strengths and weaknesses of various online tools (such as Perseus Digital Library).
I could extend this reply with a list of other relevant sources we have been advised about but then I would be guilty of rambling.
Thanks. Luschnig is a classic, and focuses on Attic Greek, right? I have Jeremy Duff’s New Testament Greek which focuses on the much simpler Koine.
Yes, but we have been told that Attic Greek is a good foundation for reading koine Greek — there are some differences but the basic rules and forms apply, as per other variants such as Ionic Greek, and learning Attic Greek will enable one to read koine. Attic Greek has the advantage of being at the core of Septuagint and other Greek writings relating to the question of OT origins, as well as the writings of Josephus, for example, who modeled his work on Thucydides.
For NT Greek we have included in a list of other Greek resources an old but apparently still recommended text, A Brief Introduction to New Testament Greek by Samuel G. Green. I see it’s on archive.org
Years back I picked up an into to NT Geek by Dobson because it made it look so easy.
Yes, being able to read the LXX would be great too. If you can read that and Aristotle the NT should not be a problem.
I’m thinking that with my limited linguistic skills it might be better to start with the easiest dialect, and maybe I could back into Attic later.
Thinking about your comment here — I think it would be a mistake for me to offer an opinion on what would be the better starting point. My backgrounds in the two — Attic and Koine — are quite different. I think for me I need the discipline that a formal course offers to make the most of it.