Nijay Gupta, of his eponymously-named blog, put out a list of 20 scholars who have influenced him most.

I don't have a list quite like Nijay's, likely because I haven't pursued formal graduate studies. My list is less centered around scholars and influence from the books they've written and more centered around scholars (and others who some may not qualify as 'scholars' because they have no post-grad/terminal degree) and the conversation(s) and relationship I've had with them. While ideas presented in books are important, relationships are much more shaping—at least for me. That said, here we go. This is in no particular order.

Randall Tan — Randall has been nothing short of an encouragement to me; he has always been generous and charitable in any interaction we've had. He is a gentleman, a scholar, and someone I am lucky enough to call a friend. I'd venture to say his functional recall of things having to do with Greek grammar is the highest of almost anyone I know, and he's always willing to help when I have a question. Anyway, Randall has encouraged and taught me to not be afraid when approaching things I don't fully understand; chances are I have a better understanding than I give myself credit for — and I'll usually be able to work it out while pursuing the problem.

Matthew Brook O'Donnell — While working on the Logos Bible Software implementation of OpenText.org's syntactic analysis of the Greek New Testament, I was able to interact with Matt a lot. In working through the OpenText.org data, and with his help (and, for that matter, Randall's help too) my brain made the shift from thinking about Greek at the word level to thinking about Greek at the level of the phrase/clause. Additionally, his Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament (amazon.com) is thought provoking and (along with Jeffrey T. Reed's A Discourse Analysis of Philippians (amazon.com)) go a long way to providing documentation and background to the details of the OpenText.org analysis. All great stuff.

Albert Lukaszewski — I've had the privilege of working with Dr. Lukaszewski (whom many of you know from Zondervan's Reader's Greek New Testament (amazon.com) fame) on the conception and production of the Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament for Logos Bible Software. The primary work was done roughly in the same period as work on the OpenText.org SAGNT (mentioned above), though the project is an ongoing one. In working through this information with Al, I was able to first of all come to an understanding of sentence diagramming that I would've never been able to outside of his work, and secondly come to understand the strengths and weaknesses of both the traditional approach to Greek grammar/syntax (which the Lexham SGNT largely represents) and the more linguistically oriented approach of the OpenText.org project.

Steven Runge — I've been working with Steve on the Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament for well over a year now. In much the same way that my brain shifted from thinking about words to thinking about phrases/clauses; my brain has shifted further into the realm of discourse; particularly the area of "Discourse Grammar". I never would've been able to realize the importance, at the discourse level, of function words and other sorts of information structures without his work and encouragement. I still have oodles to learn in this particular area, but Steve has given me a foundation I can build on as I examine all sorts of things (like αλλα) to learn more. Conjunctions and other particles are now my friends.

Maurice Robinson — I've been privileged to have a few conversations with Dr. Robinson as we've met in passing at ETS over the past few years. What I've learned from him and his work is that if you have theories you're convinced of, you need to do due diligence and work them out to their logical extent. I'm not a Byzantine priorist; but I do appreciate and respect Dr. Robinson's work.

Charles E. Hill — Dr. Hill was my first-year Greek prof at Northwestern College back in 1992-93. Without the foundation he gave (yay ATHENAZE!  Go, Δικαιοπολις!) I wouldn't be where I am today.

Ray Van Neste — Ray's work on the Pastorals (Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles (amazon.com)) is the best non-commentary resource you can get for the Pastorals (and better and more helpful than most commentaries, for that matter). The section on semantic chaining (much of the theory here taken from Guthrie's work on Hebrews (amazon.com)) alone is worth the price of admission (or, it used to be before the book went out of print and you could get it for under $100). Discussions of transitions, cohesion and the like are excellent. This volume has helped and shaped my thinking about the Pastorals more than any other single volume. Find it at a library or get it via interlibrary loan if you're working in the Pastorals. And his focus on pastoral ministry and family is heartening.

Vincent Setterholm — Vincent is a colleague at Logos whom I've known for what, five years now? Vincent taught me that, properly focused and adequately balanced, auto-didacticism is a good thing. He also taught me that building a library is important. Don't be afraid to buy the worthy books at any reasonable price. And read them once you've got them.

Eli Evans — Eli is another colleague at Logos (you can tell I'm heavily influenced by the guys I work with, huh?). I've worked with him for over 10 years. Eli has single-handedly shaped my writing skills with his incisive and functional criticism of the stuff I've passed off as writing in the past, oh, five years. He's also a valued friend and debating partner/adversary.

Here's a nugget from the intro in the back of W&H's printed volume (so, not the Intro/Appendix volume, but the actual text volume):

A few hours spent in studying a series of the countless corrections which no one would think of accepting will shew the variety of instinct to be found among scribes, the frequent disagreement between their instincts and our own, and, above all, the conflicting effects of different instincts in the same passage. (W&H, 542)

So often we (or I should say "I", instead of transferring my guilt to others) study only the juicy variants, discounting variants that seem obviously wrong or misguided according to common text-critical guidelines. This is exceedingly easy to do with the NA27 apparatus as guide, which (rightly for a handbook edition) focuses on listing variants but doesn't really get you any further in associating variants with particular MSS or even with particular scribes. In other words, studying variants with NA27, you will get a very good sense of the variation units but you won't get any sense of the underlying MSS and variant types to which each are prone.

W&H's advice above runs counter to the presentation in NA27. They say study all of the variants, not just the juicy ones. They say to get a sense of "the variety of instinct among scribes", not just items meaningful to translation. Reuben Swanson's NT Manuscripts volumes are much more amenable to this approach; they let you study each MS as a whole so you can actually get a sense of the peculiarities of each MS and, to some degree, scribes.

Why is that important? Coming to such an understanding by working through several of the seemingly "little" issues clues you in to how to process the big, juicy, more "meaningful" variation units. Otherwise one will likely just think things like "the shorter reading is the best reading" or "the more difficult reading is more likely the correct reading" or even "the older witness/higher quality MS has the best reading". Balancing those sort of seemingly objective criteria might be good guidelines overall, but they're hardly 100% applicable rules; particularly when these guidelines conflict, as they often do. What about when the shortest reading is the easiest reading, but it's in the earlier/more reliable witness? Or when the longest reading is the hardest reading, but it is in an 8th-9th century MS that doesn't agree with the major uncials? In these sorts of cases, a "majority rules" approach has as much chance at being right as it does at being wrong.

So take W&H's advice sometime. Work through all the variants you can find for your passage, keeping track of source (which MS they come from) and nature of variant. Use that information when considering overall which readings you consider proper. Have fun!

The Symbol of Chalcedon is one of the more important historical and theological documents of the church. If you've never heard of it, you should really read more about it.

But this post isn't about the theological and historical importance of the Symbol of Chalcedon (which dates back to Oct 22, 451 AD/CE). It's about the difference between αλλα and δε.

Creeds, confessions, and other statements of faith, by their very nature, attempt to be precise with their language. Words and phrasing are chosen to convey a particular point in language as unambiguous as possible. So even though the Symbol of Chalcedon dates around 400 years after the New Testament was written, the Greek version is still helpful to us in considering use of conjunctions. The text below conforms to Drobner, The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction (amazon.com), pp. 487-488 as much as possible. I took the Greek from the CCEL version of Schaff's Creeds of Christendom and fixed some typos and rearranged a few words to (upon a quick visual comparison) match the Greek presented in Drobner. The English is that of Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds., Creeds & Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, (amazon.com) vol 1 p. 181; though note I've rearranged some lines so that the English content is in the order of the Greek content.

I've made statements involving δε blue, and the one statement involving αλλα red. Note the differences between them.

Ἑπόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν	So, following the saintly fathers,
ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν υἱὸν	the confession of one and the same Son,
τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν	our Lord Jesus Christ
συμφώνως ἅπαντες ἐκδιδάσκομεν,	we all with one voice teach
τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν θεότητι	the same perfect in divinity
καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι,	and perfect in humanity
θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς	the same truly God and truly man
τὸν αὐτὸν ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος,	of a rational soul and a body;
ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα,	consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity,
καὶ ὁμοούσιον ἡμῖν τὸν αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα,	and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity
κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον ἡμῖν χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας·	like us in all respects except for sin;
πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα,	begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity
ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν	and in the last days
τὸν αὐτὸν δἰ ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν	the same for us and for our salvation
ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς θεοτόκου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα,	from Mary, the Virgin God-bearer, as regards his humanity;
ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστόν, υἱόν, κύριον, μονογενῆ,	one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged
ἐν δύο φύσεσιν,	in two natures
ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιφέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον·	which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation;
οὐδαμοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνῃρημένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν,	at no point was the difference taken away through the union,
σωζομένης δὲ μᾶλλον τῆς ἰδιότητος ἑκατέρας φύσεως	but rather the property of both natures is preserved
καὶ εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπὸστασιν συντρεχούσης,	and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being;
οὐκ εἰς δύο πρόσωπα μεριζόμενον ἢ διαιρούμενον,	he is not parted or divided into two persons,
ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ,	but is one and the same only-begotten Son,
θεὸν, λόγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν·	God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ,
καθάπερ ἄνωθεν οἱ προφῆται περὶ αὐτοῦ	just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him,
καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐξεπαίδευσεν	and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us,
καὶ τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε σύμβολον.	and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

So, what are the differences, at least in the above context, between αλλα and δε? Well, working on the general assumption (via Heckert (amazon.com)) that δε is a marker of development and αλλα is a marker of contrast, we can note the following:

The first instance of δε: First, this is a μεν .. δε statement, which clues us in even more that these three lines are related in some way. Second, note the chronology: Christ was begotten "before the ages from the Father" and "in the last days for us and our salvation". The creed is speaking to the begotten-ness of Christ's divine nature and human nature. Both go together; there is development and comparison happening here. The μεν .. δε statement is a spectrum speaking as to the whole of the begotten-ness of the natures of Christ. There's no way this could be comparably (and as unambiguously) written using αλλα instead of δε.

The second instance of δε: The context of this instance is confirmatory; both natures of Christ are distinctly preserved and not co-mingled. The gathering of the natures in one person did not cause them to unite into one nature; "the property of both natures is preserved". The two distinct natures are present in one single person as the following και (which is generally 'additive' according to Heckert (amazon.com)) tells us. The δε statement is used to confirm that both natures remain separate; it is the developmental hinge in moving from two separate natures (lines previous to δε) into the και statement that these two natures are contained in one "subsistent being".

The instance of αλλα: This is a somewhat standard "not this, but that" instance of αλλα. The vast majority of New Testament and Apostolic Fathers instances of αλλα are of this kind. But the immediate context is important. The discussion of two natures precedes and has just developed into two natures/one person. The αλλα statement now unambiguously states that this is not two persons, but is one person. This is not development, this is contrasting the negated option with the positive option (in this case a direct false/true comparison) to make the αλλα phrase prominent. Considering the history of the doctrine of the nature(s) and person(s) of Christ until this point, which was all over the board (two natures/two persons, one nature/two persons, one nature/one person, etc.) this statement is clear, forceful and unambiguous. Not one nature, but two. Not two persons, but one. The following summary statement (last four lines of the symbol) are equally strong, noting that two natures/one person is grounded in the prophets (Hebrew Bible), was taught by Jesus (New Testament) and handed down this way from the fathers (tradition).

Now, it could be argued that there isn't much difference between the second δε and the αλλα. It is true, their immediate functions in these contexts are similar. At this point, I'd argue that the δε statement, especially with the και following, is largely developmental. It is the shift from speaking of natures to speaking of persons. The αλλα statement doesn't do that; it is more focused on making clear that Christ is one person, not two, even though he has two natures, not one.

Aren't conjunctions fun? Now, if αλλα and δε are important in contexts like the Symbol of Chalcedon; how important is is to have a general understanding of the discourse function of conjunctions when reading the Greek New Testament?

Run, don't walk, over to Dr. Jim West and check out the 29th Biblical Studies Carnival.

An excellent job, Jim. Thanks for putting it together!

Eric Sowell, who blogs at Archaic Christianity, today released a new collation of 2Cl 1-6 (that's the blog post, the collation itself is here). There are only two extant sources for the Greek (and one for the Syriac); Eric has done a comprehensive collation of both Greek sources (Alexandrinus and Hierosolymitanus) against Lake's Apostolic Fathers edition (likely because that's in the Public Domain). I'm not sure what exact sources he's using for Alexandrinus and Hierosolymitanus, though. I know there are JPGs of a transcription of Alexandrinus at CSNTM.org; and I know that Lightfoot's 2-volume edition of Clement has lithographs of Clement in Hierosolymitanus (in minuscule, which Eric has some skill at). I don't know where else he might be getting the sources.

Anyway, this is awesome stuff! If you're into the Apostolic Fathers, you should make sure to bookmark this resource!

Second Clement is one of my favorite items in the Apostolic Fathers corpus; I even translated the first chapter awhile back. Here's that translation again:

¹ Brethren, it is necessary for us to think in this way concerning Jesus Christ: [to think] as concerning God, [to think] as concerning the judge of the living and the dead. It is not proper for us to think little concerning our salvation. ² For when we think little concerning him, we also hope to receive little. The ones listening as though these were little things, they sin, and we sin — not knowing from where and on behalf of whom and into which place we have been called; nor how great the suffering Jesus Christ endured for us. ³ Therefore what can we give to him as return? What fruit [can we give him] worthy of that which he has given to us? And how much holiness do we owe him? ⁴ For he gave us the light; he greeted us as a Father does his sons; he saved us when we were being destroyed. ⁵ Therefore what praise shall we give to him? What wages can we give him as return? ⁶ We were maimed in our understanding, worshiping stone and wood and gold and silver and copper, the works of men. Our entire life was nothing if not death. And so we were blanketed in darkness and had eyes full of foggy mist. But we received sight, by his will we have cast off the cloud that enveloped us. ⁷ For he had mercy on us and saved us in his compassion, having seen in us the great error and destruction. We had not an ounce of hope of becoming saved, if not through him. ⁸ For he called us when we did not exist and he willed us out of non-being to be. (2Cl 1.1-8)

If you're a child of the 80's like I am, you have all sorts of useless lyrics from TV theme songs stuck in your head. Today, I'm thinking of that 80's TV juggernaut "The Facts of Life" (itself a spinoff from "Diff'rent Strokes"):

You take the good,
You take the bad,
You take them both
and there you have
the Facts of Life ...

That's what I think of when I think of Louw-Nida's description of αλλα, spread across at least five articles. Here's the first unedited draft of the paragraph that reviews LN for my αλλα paper:

Louw-Nida provide a rather conventional view of αλλα, classing it in domains 89 (“Relations”, articles 96 and 125) and 91 (“Discourse Markers”, articles 2 and 11). Thus Louw-Nida break αλλα into four primary senses, providing glosses of “but” (89.125), “and” (89.96), “yet” (91.2) and “certainly” (91.11). The primary entry is 89.125, which describes αλλα as a “marker of emphatic contrast”. The article at 89.96 seems to provide a place to describe the unique instance of 2Co 7.11. The other senses, categorized as discourse markers, cover the use of αλλα in transitions (91.2, somewhat like BDAG’s second and third senses) and as a “marker of contrastive emphasis” (91.11). How “contrastive emphasis” differs from “more emphatic contrast” is not specified. While some heed is paid to the function of αλλα in discourse contexts, this seems more in use of categorization (as “Relations” and “Discourse Markers”) and in use of the term “marker” to describe αλλα.

I didn't even discuss 89.136, which (among other things) has notes on μεν .. αλλα (though I probably should, but the article is just a citation of Ro 14.20 and nothing more, so I'll likely relegate it to a footnote). But the thing that I noticed was how very similar 89.125 and 91.11 are: "contrastive emphasis" vs. "more emphatic contrast"? The difference seems primarily that one (89.125) works at the clause/phrase level (a 'relation'), while the other (91.11) works at a higher discourse level (as a 'discourse marker'). But they do the same things in the same ways. So there is good and bad in here: Good in noting different levels (phrase/clause and paragraph/discourse) on which αλλα functions; bad because it presents this as if these are different senses of αλλα when they aren't.

As I review lexical and grammatical descriptions of αλλα, two things become clear:

First, nobody knows what the heck to do with 2Co 7.11-12. It almost always ends up in a special sense all by itself (though 1Co 6.11 sometimes is included). All sources seem to note a "continuative" sense here, but then can only muster the one example. Seems weird that αλλα would be doing something fundamentally different here than elsewhere.

Second, descriptive terms like "adversative", "contrast" and "emphasis" are common, but these have more to say about the contexts in which αλλα is used and less to say about αλλα itself. And that's fine—I don't know that there is much we really can do to formally define αλλα; but if that's the case we shouldn't pretend that we are defining it by giving seemingly authoritative short glosses that don't really help the average user of lexicons and grammars (though I wonder how often the average user would actually look up and then skim and then actually read or work through an article on a conjunction). This said, we shouldn't describe αλλα as an "adversative particle" or provide morphology like "conjunction, adversative" or "conjunction, contrastive". We should more appropriately say that it occurs in adversative or contrastive contexts. (Hint: maybe when examining 2Co 7.11-12, instead of simply classing it as "continuative" because there is a chain of 6 αλλα in a row, we should look and see if there is any contrast that αλλα could be intensifying here?)

As I think through all of this, I bounce ideas off of my friend and colleague Steve. One thing he mentioned the other day has stuck in my mind (in a good way). He said that it is helpful in situations like these to think of contrast like a dial. Contrast is in the context (particularly with αλλα, where it usually stands between negative and non-negative things); use of particular grammatical phenomena, such as conjunctions, verb tense, etc., can heighten or lessen the degree of contrast in a given context. In other words, thinking specifically about αλλα, the contrast (or "emphasis" or an adversative nature) isn't put into the context by the simple use of αλλα; the use of αλλα can sharpen the degree of contrast in that particular context.

I s'pose that's my beef with the grammatical and lexical descriptions, then. When we describe αλλα as "adversative" or "contrastive" or what-have-you, we seem to be saying that these qualities are in the context simply due to the presence of αλλα, and if it was taken out these qualities would be gone. But the reverse is actually true: αλλα is being used because that contextual quality already exists; the author is using αλλα for specific purposes to tweak the context so that it communicates what he desires.

From the What's New in Papyrology blog comes mention of a splendid sounding title, Greetings in the Lord: Early Christians in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri (amazon.com). The author is AnneMarie Luijendijk, the publisher is Harvard Divinity School. And the price for the 235 page book is $25. (Brill, Mohr-Siebeck, et. al., please take note of the price-per-page ratio).

It is apparently slated for release in August of 2008. I can't wait to read it once I scrape up the $25.

Here's the blurb from the publisher (text taken from Amazon's page):

This is the first book-length study on Christians in the ancient Egyptian city of Oxyrhynchus, the site where some of the most important and oldest fragments of early Christian books were unearthed.

Bringing the people in dry papyrus letters and documents back to life, the book reveals how Christians lived in this city in different contexts and situations. In the first part, the image of the city's marketplace functions to address questions of Christian identity in the public sphere. The second part features a man called Sotas, bishop of Oxyrhynchus in the third century, as he is busy networking with other Christian communities, involved in teaching, book production, and fund-raising. The third part, focusing on evidence of the persecution of Christians, reveals the far-reaching power and pervasiveness of Roman bureaucracy. We learn that Christians negotiated their identity through small acts of resistance against the imperial decrees.

The papyrus letters and documents discussed in this book offer sometimes surprising insights into the everyday lives of Christians in the third and early fourth century and nuance our understanding of Christianity in this period. It is the mundane aspects of everyday life that make these papyrus documents so fascinating.

I hereby declare my "pick the photo caption" contest over. According to the results of the poll, the winner is:

Elect Ella: She'll work for you!

Congratulations to Chuck Grantham, and thanks to all who entered. Chuck, zap me an email (textgeek at gmail dot rhymes-with-mom) with your mailing address and your choice between these three books:

• Rodney Decker's Koine Greek Reader (amazon.com)
• Guthrie & Duvall's Biblical Greek Exegesis (amazon.com)
• Mark Wilson's Mastering New Testament Greek Vocabulary through Semantic Domains (amazon.com)