Here we go. Mike at ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ tagged me in Josh McManaway’s A Meme: Funniest Things in Ancient Literature.

I don’t have a wide reservoir of non-NT ancient literature to draw upon. A few come to mind, though.

Hebrew Bible

First thing that comes to mind is 1Ki 18.26-27, particularly v. 27. I don’t know Hebrew, but here’s the English (from the ESV):

26 And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, “O Baal, answer us!” But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. 27 And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” (1Ki 18.26-27, ESV)

So, Baal doesn’t answer his prophets when they cry to him. Elijah helpfully points out some options to the prophets of Baal, including (my paraphrase), “hey, guys, maybe Baal is (to put it as my 2-year-old daughter would) going ‘poo poo’, and that’s why he can’t hear you!” The bit about being asleep is funny too.

Martyrdom of Polycarp

I laughed out loud the first time I read MPoly 9.2:

Therefore, when he was brought before him, the proconsul asked if he were Polycarp. And when he confessed that he was, the proconsul tried to persuade him to recant, saying, “Have respect for your age,” and other such things as they are accustomed to say: “Swear by the Genius of Caesar; repent; say, ‘Away with the atheists!’ ” So Polycarp solemnly looked at the whole crowd of lawless heathen who were in the stadium, motioned toward them with his hand, and then (groaning as he looked up to heaven) said, “Away with the atheists!” (MPoly 9.2, Holmes)

So the proconsul wants Polycarp to renounce his Christianity by saying, “Away with the atheists"!” (Christians, who refused to worship pagan gods, were considered to be atheists). Polycarp — the wise old codger — instead takes the same words and, by his actions, condemns the whole crowd with them. Gesturing to the pagans and rabble-rousers in the crowd, he says “Away with the atheists!” but obviously is referring to the whole crowd, not making renunciation of his faith. Polycarp, at least 86 years old, is “sticking it to the man”.

That’s it for me. I won’t be tagging anyone else for further participation in this meme, but if you’re looking for an excuse and have a good one to post … consider yourself tagged.

If I could pick a "life verse" from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, it would have to be MPoly 9.1 (actually, MPoly 9.1a):

But as Polycarp entered the stadium, there came a voice from heaven: “Be strong, Polycarp, and act like a man.”
Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers : Greek Texts and English Translations (Updated ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 233.

Τῷ δὲ Πολυκάρπῳ εἰσιόντι εἰς τὸ στάδιον φωνὴ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐγένετο· Ἴσχυε, Πολύκαρπε, καὶ ἀνδρίζου.
Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers : Greek Texts and English Translations (Updated ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 232.

Particularly, the portion spoken by the "voice from heaven", ἀνδρίζου. In BDAG, the headword is ἀνδρίζομαι; it is ἀνδρίζω in LSJ (why does BDAG do that?!). The word is also found in 1Co 16.13. Here's LSJ's relevant portion (sense II, not sense III):

II. make physically strong or manly, τοὺς γεωργοῦντας X.Oec.5.4.
2. endow with moral strength, Pl.Tht.151d; med., take courage, be resolute, X.An.4.3.34, Arist.EN1115b4, Lxx Jonah 1.6, 1Cor 16.13, D.C.50.24.7.

And here's BDAG:

conduct oneself in a courageous way w. κραταιοῦσθαι (like חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ; cp. 2 Km 10:12; Ps 26:14; 30:25) 1 Cor 16:13; w. ἰσχύειν (Dt 31:6, 7, 23; Josh 1:6, 7 al.) MPol 9:1. ἀνδρίζου act like a man! Hv 1, 4, 3. Of an old man, whose hope in life has been renewed v 3, 12, 2. Also of a woman who is girded and of manly appearance v 3, 8, 4.

Why bring this up, and what am I thinking? My application is in the area of professional criticism. I've been doing some writing and I had to buck up to accept some fairly harsh criticism in order to review, revise and edit the writing for an article I'm hoping gets published (more on that at the appropriate time, perhaps). Instead of bristling and being defensive (my typical response in such situations) I need to stand, accept the criticism and react to it positively so that the end product can be better. In this case, it has become better, and is sure to become even better down the road.

Ran across this while reading EpDiog awhile back so I thought I'd blog it.

Here's the Greek, from Holmes' 2nd edition (matches his 3rd edition):

τράπεζαν κοινὴν παρατίθενται, ἀλλʼ οὐ κοίτην.

Here are all the English translations of EpDiog 5.7 I have to hand, in chronological order:

• They have their meals in common, but not their wives. (Lightfoot)
• They offer free hospitality, but guard their purity. (Lake)
• Free board they provide, but not their carnal bed. (Meecham)
• They share their food but not their wives. (Holmes, 2nd ed and 3rd ed)
• They share their meals but not their sexual partners. (Ehrman)

You can see how Holmes is influenced by Lightfoot, but that's OK because Holmes is a revision of Lightfoot. He's allowed to do that. Ehrman translates exactly the same, only giving "meals" and "sexual partners" instead of "food" and "wives". There seems to be a heritage here.

Lake is the one that mystifies me. Of course, the date is 1912, so Lake could be appealing to Victorian sensibilities, but he doesn't usually get that idiomatic in a translation. "Guard their purity"? The word is "bed" (κοίτην) and it is a reference to, at minimum, the marriage bed (cf. BDAG κοιτη 1b) and perhaps even "seminal emission" (cf. BDAG κοιτη 2b). Either way, the Greek is obvious as the balance of translations show. Lake makes it sound like the Christians are simply averting their eyes when they walk into the bath; if you didn't read the Greek you wouldn't know that it's really talking about adultery and fornication. But who knows. Maybe "guard their purity" was the completely obvious way to translate it for Lake's audience. But I doubt it; otherwise I'd guess Lightfoot would tend that direction as well.

I think Meecham does the best job as the word is in reference to the place of the act, not to the act itself (so Lake's "purity", I guess) or in reference to those involved in the act ("wives" Lightfoot and Holmes, "sexual partners" Ehrman). At least Ehrman's translation acknowledges it wasn't just females; it takes two to tango.

But while I like the second half of Meecham's translation, I don't like the first. It sounds like a bed & breakfast open for all. Free board? Really? Sounds like a great deal for college students! Somehow, I don't think that is what was happening either. Lightfoot seems better here too.

How would I translate it? I tend to try to stay literal and transparent at this point, even in word order where possible, largely so I can remember/guess at the Greek behind the translation, so I'd probably go for something like:

A common table they set, but not a [common] bed.

Whatever the case, and whatever the best translation, you really should read EpDiog 5 in any translation. When doing so, realize that these are the things that the author saw as distinguishing Christians from those around them.

The logical question for me at this point: How do Christians distinguish themselves from those around them these days? And is that distinguishing what it should be, or do we have more work to do in this area? I'd say we (yes, pointing fingers directly at myself here) have some work to do.

I'm reading through the Epistle to Diognetus in the Greek. Or, at least, I'm trying to. I'm in chapter 3, and was really scratching my head on the end of verse 5 in comparison with Lake's translation:

τῶν μὲν μὴ δυναμένοις τῆς τιμῆς μεταλαμβάνειν, τῶν δὲ δοκούντων παρέχειν τῷ· μηδενὸς προσδεομένῳ.
For it seems that the one offer to those who cannot partake of the honour, the others to him who is in need of nothing. (Lake)
the latter make offerings to things unable to receive the honor, while the former think they offer it to the One who is in need of nothing. (Holmes)
one group giving to gods who cannot receive the honor, the other thinking that it can provide something to the one who needs nothing. (Ehrman)
For the one class seem to offer sacrifices to things unable to partake of the honour, the other to Him who is in need of nothing. (Meecham, emphasis his)

Thankfully I've got Meecham's edition (from 1949, the last available critical edition in English) where he includes the note:

The text is corrupt. See Otto's full note. Stephanus reads τα μη δυναμενα. So Gildersleeve. Geffcken follows Wilamowitz' rdg. των μεν τοισ η δυναμενοις. For further emendations, see Blakeney (p. 42). We adopt the text printed by Funk, Lightfoot, and Lake, following Gebhardt. For the grammatical construction of the sentence see p. 13. (Meecham, 103).

Here's p. 13:

In general, the author's syntax is correct and careful. Some laxity, however, is seen in iii.5, where the sentence των μεν κτλ. is isolated, being either an irregular genit. abs. or a clause loosely attached to the preceding genit. των ... ενδεικνυμενων.

So that helps, somewhat. Recorded here so I don't have to look it up in Meecham again.

I just finished working through EpBarn 10. There is some strange stuff in there as regards basic understanding of anatomy (of rabbits) and reproductive systems (of hyenas and weasels).

Why bring this up? It makes me wonder how much stuff we miss in our reading of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament because, simply, we view such things differently than they did. Here is EpBarn 10.6-8, with some comments interspersed:

(6) Furthermore, “You shall not eat the hare.” Why? Do not become, he means, one who corrupts boys, or even resemble such people, because the hare grows another opening every year, and thus has as many orifices as it is years old. (EpBarn 10.6, Holmes)

First, note that two different words for "hare" are used in the same verse. Basically (caution, this may not be family-friendly) Barnabas says that for each year the rabbit lives, it grows a new anus. The Greek word is ἀφόδευσις, BDAG "anus of hares", this being the only citation in BDAG's source corpora. On the word, BDAG provides the helpful parenthetical note "Pliny, NH 8, 81, 218 Archelaus auctor est, quot sint corporis cavernae ad excrementa lepori, totidem annos esse aetatis=according to Archelaus the number of apertures for a hare’s excrements equals the years of its lifespan." I'll let you guess what "one who corrupts boys" might be meaning (hint: BDAG glosses the word as "pederast"). Barnabas draws a parallel between the uncleanliness of the rabbit and pederasts. In the same way you don't eat rabbits, avoid pederasts (associating the hare's defecational peculiarities with its uncleanliness as some justification for the statement). But how much of that would make any sense without a good lexicon? I don't know. I don't even know what Kirsopp Lake was thinking when he translated the latter portion of the verse "Because thou shalt not, he means, become a corruptor of the young, or become like such men; for the rabbit multiplies during every year its retirements by the way; for it has as many burrow-holes as it lives years" unless he was just trying to be diplomatic and appeal to the Victorian sensibilities of the era. Lake is less convoluted, but some portion of the analogy is lost.

(7) Again, “Neither shall you eat the hyena.” Do not become, he means, an adulterer or a seducer, or even resemble such people. Why? Because this animal changes its nature from year to year, and becomes male one time and female another. (8) But he also hated the weasel, and with good reason. Do not become, he means, like those men who, we hear, with immoral intent do things with the mouth that are forbidden, nor associate with those immoral women who do things with the mouth that are forbidden. For this animal conceives through its mouth. (EpBarn 10.7-8, Holmes, emphasis mine)

So, hyena are unclean because they actually change sex (φύσις) from male to female each year (καὶ ποτὲ μὲν ἄρρεν, ποτὲ δὲ θῆλυ γίνεται)? I've seen hyena in the wild (and took some pictures, one is below, more here) when I was in South Africa. They seem pretty normal to me:

My point in writing all of this isn't to berate the anatomical and biological understanding of the author of EpBarn. These sorts of understandings seem to be foundational for him, and assumed to be understood by his initial readership. But they are clearly not the way we today look at such things.

What sorts of things are we missing because our understanding in such areas is much different than that of the ancients? One potential item may be the discussion in 1Co 11. See an older post on Michael Heiser's blog, scroll down to the last item in the "required reading" portion of the post; you may be interested in some of the subsequent posts (here and here) discussing this sort of thing.

Apart from simply investing oneself in the primary and secondary (and tertiary) source material ("read, read, read"), what are some other ways that we today can become more aware of such blind spots that have a propensity to affect our understanding and therefore interpretation of these texts we hold so dear?

It's Christmas Eve. I don't know about you, but here in Bellingham we have at least 2 feet of snow on the ground, which is very unusual for this time of year. And it's still snowing; we got 4-6" more overnight—with more on the way, according to the weather-dude. I get to shovel my driveway for the fourth time in a week! The Christmas Eve service at our church has been canceled. Mail delivery is off-and-on (so much for that "neither snow nor sleet nor hail" bit). We're hoping the garbage truck makes it to pick up our garbage today. And I've been working from home (thanks, Logos!) since last week Friday. This will be the first real white Christmas, with lots of snow, that I can ever recall experiencing.

I wanted to wish a Merry Christmas to all who read ricoblog, and express my gratitude as well. I know my posting has been sporadic this year; hopefully the posts that I've made have been interesting and thought-provoking in some way.

I've come across a few unique tools and charts that I wanted to make sure all you folks out there in TV-land knew about. I find them incredibly interesting and think that you might too.

So enjoy these goodies, and Merry Christmas!

Christmas Goodie #1: What's in Your Bible? An interactive Canon Comparison Chart.  This is from Bible Study Magazine (which is published by Logos), put together my my friend and colleague (in that order), Vincent Setterholm. You're likely aware that most protestant bodies accept 66 books in the Biblical canon, and that there are "apocryphal" or "deuterocanonical" books that are accepted into other traditions' canons. But did you know that the Ethiopian canon (the widest canon) has both a "broad" and "narrow" canon, and that the broad canon includes stuff like purported letters of Peter to Clement? Check the chart out to get a glimpse of the sorts of things going on in the canons of other traditions.

Christmas Goodie #2: Biblindex: Index of Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Early Christian Literature. This as well is very awesome, hat-tip to Kevin P. Edgecomb at Biblicalia. I've mentioned Biblia Patrisica on this blog before; it is a 7 volume (plus one supplement) set that somewhat exhaustively sets out references among the writings of the Fathers to the Bible. Biblindex makes this information available for query:

This site already allows simple interrogation in a corpus of about 400,000 biblical references, from the volumes of Biblia Patristica, CNRS Editions, 1975-2000, and unpublished archives of the Center for Patristics Analysis and Documentation (CADP).

As Kevin notes, the search function is somewhat byzantine. Read the instructions to figure out how things work, it doesn't work like you might think. But it makes a wealth of hard-to-find material available, with a little work. You should bookmark this site.

Christmas Goodie #3: Collation and Evaluation of OT Apocrypha Translations. The hat-tip goes to Mark Hoffman of Biblical Studies and Technological Tools for this one. This originated in a posting to the Biblicalist yahoo group. There is a cool chart, some XML, and a spreadsheet. Check it out, there is some cool and useful information here.

For those keeping score at home, I've recently purchased the following:

Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (amazon.com). Yes, I should've read this one a long time ago. I've done a lot of work, reading and thinking in the area of use of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers; specifically in the use of the Pastoral Epistles in the Apostolic Fathers. As such, it only makes sense that I should read Hays' classic to see what it can add to the mix. I'm well aware of the criticisms of his work, but it still is one of those books you've got to deal with if you're digging around in this area. So now I've got it, I hope to dig into it soon. Here's the blurb:

Paul's letters, the earliest writings in the New Testament, are filled with allusions, images and quotations from the Old Testament. This book investigates Paul's appropriation of Scripture from a perspective based on recent literary-critical studies of intertextuality.

Andrew E. Bernhard, Other Early Christian Gospels: A Critical Edition of the Surviving Greek Manuscripts (amazon.com). I've been wanting this for awhile and finally took the plunge. I can only say that it is very awesome; giving both transcriptions and reading editions of each early non-canonical gospel as well as translations. Incidentally, this book also ends up being a pretty good "reader"; it has text with familiar vocabulary but unfamiliar content, in Greek and English. The indexes look great too. I can recommend this one highly. Here's the Amazon.com blurb:

Other Early Christian Gospels (amazon.com) collects all the recently-recovered Greek manuscripts containing parts of long-lost early Christian gospels into a single volume. It includes new critical editions, English translations, and exhaustive indexes of the Greek fragments of the "Gospel of Thomas", the "Gospel of Peter", the "Egerton Gospel", and six other unidentified gospels. In addition, "Other Early Christian Gospels" features "student's Greek texts" that present the restored Greek texts without any potentially confusing apparatus, editorial signs, or unidentifiable word fragments. This special student's version makes the fragmentary ancient texts dramatically more accessible to those still in the process of learning Greek.

Finally, I installed the Flavius Josephus Collection (5 Volumes) on my home computer. This package from Logos Bible Software is the perfect complement to the recently-released Josephus in Greek: Niese Critical Edition with Apparatus. The Flavius Josephus Collection includes:

• Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus: Life of Josephus
• Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study
• Louis H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 3: Judean Antiquities Books 1-4
• Christopher T. Begg, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 4: Judean Antiquities Books 5-7
• Christopher T. Begg and Paul Spilsbury, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 5: Judean Antiquities Books 8-10

No, I'm not positing dependence or anything like that. But I think that when similar sounding sorts of things occur in contemporary literature, examining both occurrences can aid our understanding of what is being discussed. Thus, when the similarities are between the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, our understanding of the NT may be aided by further examining the AF instance. I think too often people notice similarities and end up going down the quotation/allusion/echo rabbit trail to little or no profit.

So, I noticed the following awhile back. First is from the New Testament, 1Ti 1.3-7, pay particular attention to verses 6 and 7, and the description of the teachers in each example. Is our understanding of the portrayal of false teachers enhanced? Not that I'm saying the stuff in Hermas is transferable to the portrayal in First Timothy; I'm just looking at the idea of false teachers and how they are portrayed by those who think they are the true teachers.

With that said, here we go.

3 Καθὼς παρεκάλεσά σε προσμεῖναι ἐν Ἐφέσῳ πορευόμενος εἰς Μακεδονίαν, ἵνα παραγγείλῃς τισὶν μὴ ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖν 4 μηδὲ προσέχειν μύθοις καὶ γενεαλογίαις ἀπεράντοις, αἵτινες ἐκζητήσεις παρέχουσιν μᾶλλον ἢ οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει. 5 τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου, 6 ὧν τινες ἀστοχήσαντες ἐξετράπησαν εἰς ματαιολογίαν 7 θέλοντες εἶναι νομοδιδάσκαλοι, μὴ νοοῦντες μήτε ἃ λέγουσιν μήτε περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦνται. (1Ti 1.3-7, NA27)

3 As I urged you while I was on my way to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain people not to teach contrary doctrine, 4 nor to cling to myths and endless genealogies—which give rise to useless speculations rather than administration from God that is by faith. 5 The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned. 6 Some, having gone astray from these, have turned away into empty talk, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, not understanding either what they are saying or the matters about which they themselves make confident assertions. (1Ti 1.3-7, my own translation)

Now, here's Hermas Similitudes IX xxii.1-4 (99.1-4) in Holmes' edition:

99.1 Ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ πέμπτου τοῦ ἔχοντος βοτάνας χλωρὰς καὶ τραχέος ὄντος οἱ πιστεύσαντες τοιοῦτοί εἰσι· πιστοὶ μέν, δυσμαθεῖς δὲ καὶ αὐθάδεις καὶ ἑαυτοῖς ἀρέσκοντες, θέλοντες πάντα γινώσκειν, καὶ οὐδὲν ὅλως γινώσκουσι. (2) διὰ τὴν αὐθάδειαν αὐτῶν ταύτην ἀπέστη ἀπʼ αὐτῶν ἡ σύνεσις καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς αὐτοὺς ἀφροσύνη μωρά. ἐπαινοῦσι δὲ ἑαυτοὺς ὡς σύνεσιν ἔχοντας καὶ θέλουσιν ἐθελοδιδάσκαλοι εἶναι, ἄφρονες ὄντες. (3) διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν ὑψηλοφροσύνην πολλοὶ ἐκενώθησαν ὑψοῦντες ἑαυτούς· μέγα γὰρ δαιμόνιόν ἐστιν ἡ αὐθάδεια καὶ ἡ κενὴ πεποίθησις· ἐκ τούτων οὖν πολλοὶ ἀπεβλήθησαν, τινὲς δὲ μετενόησαν καὶ ἐπίστευσαν καὶ ὑπέταξαν ἑαυτοὺς τοῖς ἔχουσι σύνεσιν, γνόντες τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀφροσύνην. (4) καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς δὲ τοῖς τοιούτοις κεῖται μετάνοια· οὐκ ἐγένοντο γὰρ πονηροί, μᾶλλον δὲ μωροὶ καὶ ἀσύνετοι. οὗτοι οὖν ἐὰν μετανοήσωσι, ζήσονται τῷ θεῷ· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ μετανοήσωσι, κατοικήσουσι μετὰ τῶν γυναικῶν τῶν πονηρευομένων εἰς αὐτούς.
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (504). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

99. “And from the fifth mountain, the rugged one with the green grass, are believers such as these: they are faithful, but slow to learn, arrogant, and self-satisfied; though they want to know everything, they know nothing at all. (2) Because of this arrogance of theirs, understanding has left them and a foolish stupidity has taken possession of them. Yet they praise themselves for having wisdom and want to be volunteer teachers, foolish though they are. (3) So, because of this pride many people, while attempting to exalt themselves, have been ruined, for arrogance and overconfidence are a mighty demon. Many of these, therefore, were rejected, but some, comprehending their own foolishness, repented and believed, and submitted themselves to those with understanding. (4) And of the rest of these people repentance remains a possibility, for they were not really evil but rather stupid and short on understanding. So these will, if they repent, live for God, but if they do not repent they will dwell with the women who do harm to them.”
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (505). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Most believe that First Clement was written from the church of Rome to the church in Corinth.

Keeping that in mind, go and scan 1Cor 13 quickly. Got it? Good.

Then read First Clement 49:

49. Let the one who has love in Christ fulfill the commandments of Christ.
(2) Who can describe the bond of God’s love?
(3) Who is able to explain the majesty of its beauty?
(4) The height to which love leads is indescribable.
(5) Love unites us with God; “love covers a multitude of sins”; love endures all things, is patient in all things. There is nothing coarse, nothing arrogant in love. Love knows nothing of schisms, love leads no rebellions, love does everything in harmony. In love all the elect of God were made perfect; without love nothing is pleasing to God.
(6) In love the master received us. Because of the love he had for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, in accordance with God’s will, gave his blood for us, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives.
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (amazon.com) (Updated ed.) (83). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

49.1 Ὁ ἔχων ἀγάπην ἐν Χριστῷ ποιησάτω τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ παραγγέλματα.
(2) τὸν δεσμὸν τῆς ἀγάπης τοῦ θεοῦ τίς δύναται ἐξηγήσασθαι;
(3) τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς καλλονῆς αὐτοῦ τίς ἀρκετὸς ἐξειπεῖν;
(4) τὸ ὕψος εἰς ὃ ἀνάγει ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνεκδιήγητόν ἐστιν.
(5) ἀγάπη κολλᾷ ἡμᾶς τῷ θεῷ, ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, ἀγάπη πάντα ἀνέχεται, πάντα μακροθυμεῖ· οὐδὲν βάναυσον ἐν ἀγάπῃ, οὐδὲν ὑπερήφανον· ἀγάπη σχίσμα οὐκ ἔχει, ἀγάπη οὐ στασιάζει, ἀγάπη πάντα ποιεῖ ἐν ὁμονοίᾳ· ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἐτελειώθησαν πάντες οἱ ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ· δίχα ἀγάπης οὐδὲν εὐάρεστόν ἐστιν τῷ θεῷ.
(6) ἐν ἀγάπῃ προσελάβετο ἡμᾶς ὁ δεσπότης· διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην, ἣν ἔσχεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἐν θελήματι θεοῦ, καὶ τὴν σάρκα ὑπὲρ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ψυχῶν ἡμῶν.
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (amazon.com) (Updated ed.) (82). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

How cool is that?

This is in Gregory & Tuckett's The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers: The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com), p. 130, note 5:

Hagner's monograph contains an extended methodological discussion of how scholars should evaluate what he refers to as 'variant [i.e. inexact] quotations' (in which he argues that these are usually best explained as memoriter quotations form known texts rather than as accurate quotations from unknown texts or oral traditions; see Hagner, Use [of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome], 80-108, on the use of the OT; 287-312, on the use of the NT) and also a helpful survey of how the pattern of 1 Clement's apparent use of the writings later canonized as the NT compares with that of the use of the same writings in other Apostolic Fathers (ibid. 272-87).

So, Hagner's distinction and methodology is helpful. Basically, unattested quotations/allusions are better treated as inexact quotations of known readings than as exact quotations of unknown readings.

I suppose this appeals to the lowest-common-denominator and is right more often than not, but of course it also means that in practice, all quotations/allusions are always accounted for among the known readings, so, for text-critical purposes, the Apostolic Fathers are ultimately useless as regards attestation of heretofore unknown readings.

In practice, however, this also means that where there is similarity between a quotation/allusion in the Apostolic Fathers, it can be used to help understand how the writer understood the NT text without falling into a text-critical black hole. And, at least for my purposes at present, this is helpful.

I had an earlier post on Tracking Down Similarities Between the NT and the Apostolic Fathers. I suppose this is a continuation of that post.

This is from the Edito Critica Maior edition of James (Volume IV, Installment I, Part 1). Note that the ECM's interest is in Patristic citations of the NT and they are not specifically focused on the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, as I am. So their pool is wider and deeper. But still, here is their definition:

The difficulty of distinguishing true quotations from allusions or paraphrases is well known. Considering the great mass of the variant readings found in the manuscript tradition of the first millennium and recorded in the present edition, the following rule of thumb is observed: a true quotation is one where the wording of the Father's text is identical with a reading found in the manuscript tradition. Readings attested exclusively by a Father are only rarely recorded. Allusions are considered only if they clearly reflect a known reading. Variants are excluded from the apparatus if they may be ascribed to a Father's stylistic tendencies and are unlikely to have been in his manuscript source. In essence, the criteria for patristic quotations are restrictive in order to ensure their reliability. (ECM IV.I.1, p. 12*-13*)

So, in essence, the rule is restrictive. Data from the Fathers can only be used as support for existing readings, not as datapoints of new and heretofore-unknown readings. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I can see why it was drawn there.

Of course, with that rule, there will be very little if anything from the Apostolic Fathers that plays a part in the apparatus of the ECM (and, thus, NA28). Some, yes. But not a lot.

But, on the flip side, if you're looking for patristic citations in general, then you need to add examining the ECM to your list. Oh, and since my last post I've been able to consult some volumes of Biblia Patristica, and you need to add those to your list too.

I've written before (and also hold this in my paper for the upcoming ETS meeting) that αλλα is a marker of contrast. This means that when one runs across an αλλα, the first thing that one should do is determine the items being contrasted. You'll likely miss the import of the passage and the structure if you don't do this.

In most cases this is easy. Here's an example from 1Cl 4.13, the Greek and English are that of Lake:

13 διὰ ζῆλος Δαυεὶδ φθόνον ἔσχεν
     οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων,
     ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ Σαοὺλ βασιλέως Ἰσραὴλ ἐδιώχθη·.

13 Through jealousy David incurred envy
     not only from strangers,
     but suffered persecution even from Saul, King of Israel.

This is a pretty standard "not only ... but also" / οὐ μόνον .. ἀλλὰ καὶ construction. It happens in the NT frequently. The idea here is that David may very well have expected to incur envy from strangers, but Clement says that even Saul was jealous of him to the point of persecuting him. The contrast is between the 'strangers' and Saul. Most examples of αλλα are like this. Particularly when a negator is used, the items being contrasted are fairly easy to find.

But then, right after this verse, we come to 1Cl 5.1. A chapter that actually starts with αλλα. So what is being contrasted?

1 Ἀλλ ̓ ἵνα τῶν ἀρχαίων ὑποδειγμάτων παυσώμεθα, ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς· λάβωμεν τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν τὰ γενναῖα ὑποδείγματα.

1 But, to cease from the examples of old time, let us come to those who contended in the days nearest to us; let us take the noble examples of our own generation.

Chapter 4 of First Clement is a laundry list of OT personages, listing examples of jealousy (such as that described in 4.13 above). Chapter 5 switches the focus from examples of the past to examples of the present. The balance of chapter 5 speaks of "pillars of the church" and gives further examples of Paul and Peter.

This example of αλλα is interesting because the contrasted items are at the paragraph level and perhaps might even be said to be at a higher level. But most, if they were classifying this instance of αλλα, would call it transitional because it seems to transition the discourse to a different topic. And that's true, it does. However, this isn't a different use or sense of αλλα; it is simply αλλα doing what it does at a higher level in the discourse; instead of functioning as a conjoiner of phrases or clauses, this instance joins (depending on how you view it) paragraphs or clause complexes and clues us in that these higher-level discourse items are being contrasted.

Denniston (The Greek Particles (amazon.com)) notes this sort of usage, but it is hard to find in grammars that focus specifically on the Greek of the New Testament era.

Yet another reason why reading Greek, and reading Greek from outside of the NT but still in the same general era can be an enlightening exercise.

In my recent post on Ignatius' Christology, Esteban Vázquez asked in a comment:

I wonder if there are any studies out there of St Ignatius' knowledge of the Acts of the Apostles, and what text of it he might have known.

I thought I'd respond since I've done a fair bit of tracking references between the NT and the Apostolic Fathers. I don't have any specific studies on Acts to refer to, but I do have some hints on tracking this stuff down. Here we go.

1. Editions of the Apostolic Fathers (Holmes, Ehrman, Lake and Lightfoot at least, perhaps others) typically have reference indices in the back. Several of these editions cite cross-references in the margin or in footnotes. The Logos Bible Software editions of Holmes, Lake and Lightfoot index these references, so information on any cross-reference is a reference search away. For example, I have an "Apostolic Fathers" collection, I just searched it for "bible in 'Act 20' " to search for references to Acts 20 (any verse). This is a great place to start. The references won't all be quotations/allusions, and the reference may just be topical—but it is a way to get a quick look at what the editions have to offer.
2. The original 1905 edition of The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers is online at archive.org. You could (and should) examine the portion on Ignatius' writings. There is a scripture index in the back, though I don't know if it is comprehensive. Acts 20.28 is not referenced in the index. I find this one so valuable (see some previous work here; hopefully I'll pick up that work again sometime soon) that I have it printed out and on my desk. Do read the front matter to understand how the book works, though.
3. The 2005 two-volume edition of The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com) should also be consulted. Mine is downstairs and I'm upstairs on the computer in the office ... and I'm lazy ... so I'm not going to check it right now. Maybe later. But this should be on your list of stuff to check, definitely.
4. If you can find a copy, you want to check Biblia Patristica. But it can be hard to find. So good luck.
5. Hermeneia has commentary editions for Didache, Ignatius, Shepherd of Hermas and the Apostolic Traditions. A reference search of the Ignatius volume turns up the following:

What enflames the Ephesians is “the blood of God”—that is, the blood of Christ. The expression is found in important manuscripts (SB) of Acts 20:28. Tertullian also says that we are bought with a price—the “blood of God” (sanguine dei; Ad uxor. 2.3.1). That “God” suffered (see Rom. 6.3) was acceptable language before criticism required some refinement of the conviction that God (or God’s Son) had become man and died on the cross. Monophysites were later to appeal to precisely such unreflective remarks of Ignatius in defense of their christology. By the term “blood” Ignatius has in mind the passion (Phd. inscr; Sm. 6.1) and/or the eucharist (Phd. 4). Such a reference is appropriate in this context since the eucharistic blood (Tr. 8.1; Rom. 7.3) and the blood of the passion (Sm. 1.1) are both closely linked with “love” by Ignatius (see Introduction, 5.7).
Schoedel, W. R., Ignatius, S., Bishop of Antioch, & Koester, H. (1985). Ignatius of Antioch : A commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Includes indexes. Hermeneia—a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (42). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Lastly, there are several specialized volumes that may come in handy, depending on what you're looking for and how easily you can get to a good library that might actually have them on the shelves. Use the footnotes in the new 2-vol NTAF as a roadmap (amazon.com); they are well worth following. If Ignatius, or Clement, or Polycarp, then see if you can find Lightfoot's multivolume editions (two vols on Clem, three vols on Iggy and Polly). Also, if First Clement, you need to locate Donald Hagner's work on OT & NT quotations in First Clement; it is a gold mine.

Finally, if you're dealing with a specific NT book or subcorpus (e.g. Pastoral Epistles) then commentaries are hit and miss. Again, go to a decent library and check out some technical commentaries, you may strike gold. FWIW, on the Pastorals, I've found the Yale Anchor Bible Commentary volumes (L.T. Johnson on 1&2 Timothy; Jerome Quinn on Titus) and Hermeneia the more valuable ones when it comes to references to the Apostolic Fathers and other early Christian writings; but other volumes in those series may vary. I'd expect Quinn & Wacker on 1&2 Timothy in the Eerdmans Critical Commentary to also be good in this realm (though perhaps not so good in other realms).

Just read an excellent essay:

Thomas G. Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap., "The Apostolic Christology of Ignatius of Antioch: The Road to Chalcedon", pp. 71-85 in Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tuckett, eds., The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers: Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com), Oxford University Press: London, 2005.

In reading through Ignatius recently, I'd noticed many of the items that Weinandy brings to light, but the way he strings them together makes a convincing case that Ignatius' Christology, in those very early years (early 2nd century), can be seen as seeds of what ends up in the statement of the Council of Chalcedon (Greek and English available here).

Weinandy has three major sections of the article, the first centering on Ignatius' representation of the divinity of Christ; the second focusing on Ignatius' representation of the humanity of Christ. The third section, on the oneness of Christ, puts it all together and paints a pretty decent picture of Ignatius essentially hewing to the both fully God and fully man description of Christ's nature.

He also brings to light Ign. Eph. 1.1, which has a very interesting turn of phrase:

1.1 Ἀποδεξάμενος ἐν θεῷ τὸ πολυαγάπητόν σου ὄνομα, ὃ κέκτησθε φύσει δικαίᾳ κατὰ πίστιν καὶ ἀγάπην ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ τῷ σωτῆρι ἡμῶν· μιμηταὶ ὄντες θεοῦ, ἀναζωπυρήσαντες ἐν αἵματι θεοῦ τὸ συγγενικὸν ἔργον τελείως ἀπηρτίσατε·
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (136). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

1. I welcome in God your well-beloved name which you possess by reason of your righteous nature, which is characterized by faith in and love of Christ Jesus our Savior. Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (137). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

The phrase "through the blood of God" is striking and, to my knowledge (off the top of my head; no searches done), unparalleled in literature previous to this point. Of it, Weinandy writes:

This phrase ... is an arresting alignment of seemingly clashing words with their seemly (sic?) irreconcilable meanings ('blood' and 'God') that accentuates the reality of the Incarnation; that is, only if the divine Son of God did actually become man and so exist as an, does such an alignment make theological sense and possess any literal meaning. (Weinandy 81)

All this to say, I've been very pleased with my recent purchase of the 2-volume NTAF set (amazon.com) (thanks to some birthday money and Amazon.com commissions, thanks to all who click through links and buy!) and can highly recommend it.

So I'm reading Charles E. Hill's essay "Ignatius, 'the Gospel' and the Gospels" in Gregory & Tuckett's The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers: Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com). In Hill's discussion of ISm 5.1, there it is:

Gundry argues that the strong adversative, αλλα, just before 'the gospel' distances it from the law and the prophecies and aligns it with 'our human sufferings'. But any distinction intended with the adversative is surely temporal (note μεχρι νυν). (Hill, in Gregory & Tuckett (amazon.com) 277-278).

Hill is arguing that at least some of Ignatius' uses of ευαγγελιον are in reference to a written gospel. Gundry, whose work I'm not familiar with (R. Gundry, 'ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ: How Soon a Book', JBL 115 (1996), 321-5; I'll have to check out the article), is arguing the opposite, at least in this case.

My eyes and ears perk up when I see something attributed to αλλα, the 'strong attributive'. So we can all be on the same page, here is the Greek and English of Ign. Smyrn. 5.1:

5.1 Ὅν τινες ἀγνοοῦντες ἀρνοῦνται, μᾶλλον δὲ ἠρνήθησαν ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ, ὄντες συνήγοροι τοῦ θανάτου μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἀληθεῖας· οὓς οὐκ ἔπεισαν αἱ προφητεῖαι οὐδὲ ὁ νόμος Μωσέως, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ μέχρι νῦν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον οὐδὲ τὰ ἡμέτερα τῶν κατʼ ἄνδρα παθήματα·
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (186). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

5.1 Certain people ignorantly deny him, or rather have been denied by him, for they are advocates of death rather than the truth. Neither the prophecies nor the law of Moses have persuaded them, nor, thus far, the gospel nor our own individual suffering;
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (187). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

In reading about αλλα (lexicons, grammars, monographs, etc.), in examining every instance in the NT and in the Apostolic Fathers, and in thinking about what αλλα does, my basic conclusion is similar to that of Heckert. I don't see the 'adversative' nature of αλλα functionally separating things, I think αλλα essentially marks a relationship of contrast between two items at the same discourse level (so, words, phrases, clauses, paragraphs, discourses, etc.). The degree of contrast is dependent upon context (vocabulary, other grammatical elements, etc.). Instances of αλλα normally occur with a "not", hence the so-called 'adversative' nature. But even without "not", the contrast is there, you just have to look.

In other words, contra Gundry, I'd say that in Ign. Smyrn. 5.1, αλλα doesn't distance anything from anything else. It denotes that two items are in fact joined for the sake of contrasting them. In this case, "the prophecies and the law of Moses" are contrasted with "the gospel" and "our own individual suffering". Importantly (and most favorable to Hill's argument, I'd say) "the gospel" is being contrasted against "the prophecies and the law of Moses". Ignatius is running through a list of things that, by all rights, should have persuaded those who deny, but haven't. The prophecies haven't, the law of Moses hasn't, the gospel hasn't, and the present suffering of Christians hasn't. As Hill points out, μεχρι νυν ("until now") is the kicker here. We have the past (prophecies and law) in contrast with the present (gospel and suffering).

Additionally, I'd say that in such comparisons, the stuff after αλλα (gospel and suffering) is the more prominent of the material. In other words, I'd say the structure highlights that "the gospel" and "our own individual suffering" haven't even served to persuade these deniers of the truth. While the prophecies and law of Moses should've done the persuading, that isn't really Ignatius' point; his point is that not even up to this point, these people, knowing the gospel (written or not) and seeing our suffering, even now still deny the truth.

In other words, I don't think the use of αλλα has anything to do with separating written content from oral content (in this instance); I think it has to do with Ignatius' amazement that folks could still deny in light of having the gospel and seeing the suffering that professing Christians were willing to endure.

Update I (2008-10-20): Note the comment by Mike Aubrey (of εν Εφεσω). He asks if I see αλλα as only functioning in a coordinating relationships. On your question, Mike, I'd have to say "yes", though I'll note that even Denniston has some examples (as I recall, in his sections on both αλλα and μεν) where αλλα and other conjunctions (even asyndeton) are used to respond to either a general idea ascertainable from the context, or in response to something well before in the discourse. I'd say Mk 16.5-7 (see my previous post on these verses) is an example of stuff like this.

Update II: Also please note that Dr. Carl Conrad, of B-Greek fame, sent along the following note which, for some reason, the commenting feature didn't allow him to post:

Rick, I think you're probably right about this; despite my warnings not to confuse the conjunction ἀλλὰ with the neuter accusative plural pronoun ἄλλα, I rather suspect that the conjunction originated in an adverbial usage of the neuter accusative plural pronoun with a sense "otherwise" — that it became a stronger equivalent of δὲ in μὲν ... δὲ (beginning Greek students are still taught that μὲν ... δὲ means "on the one hand ... on the other hand"). But (ἀλλὰ) there's an interesting idiomatic expression in older Greek using the pronominal adjective ἄλλος/η/ο with a καὶ to underscore the term following the expression (LSJ s.v. ἄλλος II.6) ἄλλοι τε καὶ ἐκεῖνος = "especially 'that one'"; an adverbial use is also not uncommon: ἄλλως τε καὶ (LSJ s.v. ἄλλως I.3) with the sense "especially." My surmise may very well be wrong, but I've long thought that ἀλλὰ derives originally from the adjectival pronoun ἄλλα used in the adverbial accusative.

The four-word string is " ... had had who had ...".

I'm not making this up. From Kirsopp Lake's translation of Hermas, Similitudes VIII.iv.6 (Hermas 70.6 for you kiddies out there using the new-fangled numbering scheme). Surely he had some better options than that travesty. Here's the whole verse:

Then those gave them up who had them half dry and cracked, and many of them gave them up green and without cracks, and some green and with buds, and with fruit on the buds, as those had had who had gone crowned into the tower. But some gave them up dry and moth-eaten, and some dry but not eaten, and some remained half dry and with cracks. And he commanded each of them to stand apart, some in their own station and some apart.

Yikes. Holmes is a bit better, though he still has the string "had had":

(6) Then those whose sticks were half-withered and cracked returned them; many returned them green and without cracks, and some returned them green and budded, with fruit on the buds, like those who were crowned and went into the tower had had, but some returned them withered and eaten, and some withered but not eaten, and some were as before, half-withered and cracked. He ordered each one of them to stand off by themselves, some with their own group and others by themselves.

Translation is crazy business.

There I was, Reading Hermas Mandate 11.xii (that's Hermas 43.12 for those kiddies out there using the 'new' chapter/verse citation system), minding my own business, when I saw it: πολυλαλος.

(12) πρῶτον μὲν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος ὁ δοκῶν πνεῦμα ἔχειν ὑψοῖ ἑαυτὸν καὶ θέλει πρωτοκαθεδρίαν ἔχειν, καὶ εὐθὺς ἰταμός ἐστι καὶ ἀναιδὴς καὶ πολύλαλος καὶ ἐν τρυφαῖς πολλαῖς ἀναστρεφόμενος καὶ ἐν ἑτέραις πολλαῖς ἀπάταις, καὶ μισθοὺς λαμβάνων τῆς προφητείας αὐτοῦ· ἐὰν δὲ μὴ λάβῃ, οὐ προφητεύει. δύναται οὖν πνεῦμα θεῖον μισθοὺς λαμβάνειν καὶ προφητεύειν; οὐκ ἐνδέχεται τοῦτο ποιεῖν θεοῦ προφήτην, ἀλλὰ τῶν τοιούτων προφητῶν ἐπίγειόν ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα.
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (406). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

(12) In the first place, that man who thinks he has a spirit exalts himself and wants to have a seat of honor, and immediately is arrogant and shameless and talkative and well acquainted with many luxuries and with many other pleasures, and receive money for his prophesying, and if he does not receive money, he does not prophesy. Now, can a divine spirit receive money and still prophesy? It is impossible for a prophet of God to do this, but the spirit of such prophets who do so is earthly.
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (407). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Here's BDAG:

πολύλαλος, ον (Cleobulus [VI b.c.] in Stob. III p. 112, 3 H.; Ael. Dion. κ, 8; Vi. Aesopi G 26 P.; schol. on Soph., Ant. 324 p. 234 Papag.; Plotinus 6, 2, 21; Job 11:2 Sym.) engaged in much purposeless talk, talkative, garrulous w. ἀναιδής Hm 11:12. VandeSande Bakhuyzen suspects that πολύλαλοι was once read Js 3:1 for πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι (B-D-F §115, 1).—DELG s.v. λαλέω. (BDAG 847)

Heck, maybe we should be ΠΟΛΥΛΑΛΟΙ instead of bibliobloggers, bibiliabloggers, or biblicabloggers.

Of course, the following entry in BDAG might actually be be better name for a blog: πολυλογια

πολυλογία, ας, ἡ (X., Cyr. 1, 4, 3; Pla., Leg. 1, 641e; Plut., Mor. 6c; 519c; Vett. Val. 108, 8; 23; Herm. Wr. 14, 5; Sextus 155; Pr 10:19) speech of tedious length, much speaking, wordiness, long-windedness ἐν τῇ π. αὐτῶν with their many words Mt 6:7; Lk 11:2 D (Ael. Aristid. 45, 8 K.=8 p. 85 D.: θεοὺς ἄνευ μέτρων προσαγορεύοντες οὐκ αἰσχυνόμεθα=we are not ashamed of addressing gods without mantras/incantations).—DELG s.v. λέγω B. M-M. TW. (BDAG 847)

If I ever decide to change from the very boring "ricoblog" title (sorta invested in it now, I guess) then I'd seriously consider one of these.

Yay, someone else has actually blogged about the Shepherd of Hermas!

Check out Peter Head's notes on available MSS of the Shepherd. Worth repeating is his closing remark:

In terms of manuscript attestation and patristic appreciation the evidence looks better than large parts of the New Testament.

There I was, working through Kirsopp Lake's Greek and translation of the Shepherd of Hermas, and I came across Mandates V.ii.4:

4 ἡ δὲ ὀξυχολία
   πρῶτον μὲν μωρά ἐστιν,
   ἐλαφρά τε καὶ ἄφρων.
   εἶτα ἐκ τῆς ἀφροσύνης γίνεται πικρία,
      ἐκ δὲ τῆς πικρίας θυμός,
      ἐκ δὲ τοῦ θυμοῦ ὀργή,
      ἐκ δὲ τῆς ὀργῆς μῆνις·
   εἶτα ἡ μῆνις αὕτη·
      ἐκ τοσούτων κακῶν συνισταμένη·
         γίνεται ἁμαρτία μεγάλη καὶ ἀνίατος.
     (Hermas 34.4 || Mandates V.ii.4, Lake's Greek)

4 But ill temper
   is first foolish,
   frivolous, and silly;
   then from silliness comes bitterness,
      from bitterness wrath,
      from wrath rage,
       and from rage fury;
   then fury,
      being compounded of such great evils,
         becomes great and inexpiable sin.
      (Hermas 34.4 || Mandates V.ii.4, Lake's English)

Upon seeing ἀνίατος translated as "inexpiable", I thought to myself, "now that's a word to remember." The Greek word is from ἰάομαι (alpha privative) and glossed generally as "incurable" in BDAG; BDAG offers a specific translation of this passage as "unforgivable". I don't like "unforgivable" here because the author of Hermas uses terms like forgiveness a whole lot. If he specifically meant "unforgivable", then he had an ample lexicon to produce that. But he didn't. He wrote ἀνίατος.

I like Lake's take on it. Holmes translates the same as BDAG's gloss, "incurable", and that matches up with LSJ. But I still like "inexpiable". To think about something as "unable to be expiated" brings the seriousness of it into play, much more so than works like "unforgivable" (which is accurate of the result). A translation like "incurable" makes it sound like more of a malady. I think "inexpiable" threads the needle between those two, and is simply a cool word to boot.

Score one for Kirsopp Lake. FWIW, I generally find Holmes' translation better and more readable, but Lake has enough gems that it is well worth considering. And in most books, Lake tends to be less idiomatic and more "literal" (whatever that means), so it is easier to use as a check when working through the Greek.

BDAG glosses as "quite empty", but its usage in Hermas Mandates 5.2.1 is what got me:

"Now hear", he said, "how an angry temper works, how evil it is, and how it subverts God's servants by its working, and how it leads them astray from righteousness. But it does not lead astray those who are filled with faith, nor can it work on them, because the Lord's power is with them. But it can lead astray those who are empty-headed and double-minded.

Ἄκουε <νῦν>, φησί, τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς ὀξυχολίας, πῶς πονηρά ἐστι, καὶ πῶς τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ καταστρέφει τῇ ἑαυτῆς ἐνεργείᾳ, καὶ πῶς ἀποπλανᾷ αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης. οὐκ ἀποπλανᾷ δὲ τοὺς πλήρεις ὄντας ἐν τῇ πίστει, οὐδὲ ἐνεργῆσαι δύναται εἰς αὐτούς, ὅτι ἡ δύναμις τοῦ κυρίου41 μετʼ  αὐτῶν ἐστιν· ἀποπλανᾷ δὲ τοὺς ἀποκένους καὶ διψύχους ὄντας.

Note the "empty-headed" (translation from Holmes' 3rd edition) is tweaked for the context; the other usage in Hermas (Mandates 12.5.2) is translated "those who are empty".

This is a great word. I can see Jim West giddily using it in the proper context.

From Michael Holmes' excellent and highly-recommended diglot edition (amazon.com):

(3) After these words of hers ceased, she said to me, “Do you wish to hear me read?” And I said, “Yes I do, madam.” She said to me, “Pay attention, and hear about the glories of God.” I listened with care and amazement to things which I did not have the strength to remember, for all the words were terrifying, words which a human being cannot endure. The last words, however, I remembered, for they were beneficial to us and reassuring:

(4) “Behold, the God of hosts, who by his invisible and mighty power and by his great wisdom created the world, and by his glorious purpose clothed his creation with beauty, and by his mighty word fixed the heaven and set the earth’s foundations upon the waters, and by his own wisdom and providence created his holy church, which he also blessed—behold, he is removing the heavens and the mountains and the hills and the seas, and all things are becoming level for his elect, that he might keep the promise which he promised to them with great glory and joy, if they keep God’s commandments, which they received with great faith.”

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (amazon.com) (Updated ed.) (339). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Now I'm not arguing for canonicity of the Shepherd (even though Sinaiticus has both Shepherd and Barnabas after Revelation); there's some wacky stuff in the book(s) later on. But can you see why so many early Christians revered the writing? (you can see this more in the Mandates & Parables sections) The testimony attributed to "the Lady" regarding creation is simple in its attribution of such to God, but not specific regarding method — apart from ascribing creation to God's "invisible and mighty power" and "his great wisdom". I think Christians of all strides could testify to that.

The curious part (to me) in the above is the idiom "...and all things are becoming level for his elect". Osiek's Hermeneia commentary (amazon.com) is (at least to me) hard to follow on this; it doesn't really shed any light. I understand a bit from the context, but I'm left wondering if there is something in the larger milieu that I'm missing.

Update (2008-08-25): Thanks to reader BZephyr (check out his blog while you're at it) for some enlightening comments. Do make sure to read them.

Ran across some references to the Glagolitic script, so I have to post them, plus some others I knew of to round out the collection.

For those unaware, Glagolitic is the script developed by Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century so that they could translate stuff (i.e. the Bible) into Slavic languages. And it is a very cool script. If you're deep into textual criticism, it could pay off to have some familiarity with it.

If you're really interested, perhaps Horace Lunt's Old Church Slavonic grammar (amazon.com) might be a place to start. Note I've not seen this, it is just the most accessible/affordable English language OCS grammar I've seen to date.

So here are some links.

• Cyrillic and Glagolitic Alphabet Day (too bad I missed it)
• The Living Glagolitic
• Ministry of Type: Glagolitic
• Typonine: Glagolitic
• Wikipedia: Glagolitic alphabet
• Wikipedia: Old Church Slavonic
• AncientScripts.com: Glagolitic

Enjoy!

It's for episodes like the one related from chapter 9 through chapter 11 of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The below is Holmes' translation of the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com) (which you really need to buy and read, either the Greek-English diglot (amazon.com) or the English-only edition (amazon.com)). The setting? Polycarp, an old man and bishop of Smyrna, was arrested and brought to the stadium for persecution — to be persuaded to confess the greatness of Caesar. He's being interviewed in a stadium full of masses of people by the proconsul.

9. But as Polycarp entered the stadium, there came a voice from heaven: “Be strong, Polycarp, and act like a man.” And no one saw the speaker, but those of our people who were present heard the voice. And then, as he was brought forward, there was a great tumult when they heard that Polycarp had been arrested. (2) Therefore, when he was brought before him, the proconsul asked if he were Polycarp. And when he confessed that he was, the proconsul tried to persuade him to recant, saying, “Have respect for your age,” and other such things as they are accustomed to say: “Swear by the Genius of Caesar; repent; say, ‘Away with the atheists!’ ” So Polycarp solemnly looked at the whole crowd of lawless heathen who were in the stadium, motioned toward them with his hand, and then (groaning as he looked up to heaven) said, “Away with the atheists!” (3) But when the magistrate persisted and said, “Swear the oath, and I will release you; revile Christ,” Polycarp replied, “For eighty-six years I have been his servant, and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?”

10. But as he continued to insist, saying, “Swear by the Genius of Caesar,” he answered: “If you vainly suppose that I will swear by the Genius of Caesar, as you request, and pretend not to know who I am, listen carefully: I am a Christian. Now if you want to learn the doctrine of Christianity, name a day and give me a hearing.” (2) The proconsul said: “Persuade the people.” But Polycarp said: “You I might have considered worthy of a reply, for we have been taught to pay proper respect to rulers and authorities appointed by God, as long as it does us no harm; but as for these, I do not think they are worthy, that I should have to defend myself before them.”

11. So the proconsul said: “I have wild beasts; I will throw you to them, unless you change your mind.” But he said: “Call for them! For the repentance from better to worse is a change impossible for us; but it is a noble thing to change from that which is evil to righteousness.” (2) Then he said to him again: “I will have you consumed by fire, since you despise the wild beasts, unless you change your mind.” But Polycarp said: “You threaten with a fire that burns only briefly and after just a little while is extinguished, for you are ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and eternal punishment, which is reserved for the ungodly. But why do you delay? Come, do what you wish.”

 

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (amazon.com) (Updated ed.) (233). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Oh, yeah.

If I had a quarter for every time someone asked me about Logos doing Migne's Patrologia Graeca over the years ... well, I guess I'd have about five bucks. But still, that's a lot! Maybe I'll get to cash in on it some day.

Why? Because Migne's Patrologia Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, Part 1 (Vols 1-18) is on prepub at Logos Bible Software.

This is big, and we want to do it—the whole blasted PG, all 161 numbered volumes (166 volumes in print). All of the text, not just the Greek parts. I spent the last week living in the first 18 numbered (20 in print) volumes to evaluate them and let me tell you there is some real cool stuff in there.

We can only do it if enough people are interested, though. So get thee to the prepub page, and sign up!

Update (2008-07-10): Rod Decker (NT Resources Blog) responds in the comments asking about the usability of "untagged" versions of the text. My basic response is that if one approaches a text primarily as a database, then this is a valid question. But overall, I'd say the texts themselves are valuable. The ability to look up citations of these fathers in lexica, commentaries and other studies (e.g. Drobner's Fathers of the Church (amazon.com)) is valuable. I can't tell you the times I've seen a citation in a footnote, sitting as a lonely, orphaned reference with no other content, that I've wanted to look up but can't (try reading Luke Timothy Johnson's Anchor Bible commentary on 1&2 Timothy without wanting to look one of these up). Reading the text is valuable too. I'd say that the Latin materials (dissertations, translations, etc.) are valuable even though they are largely inaccessible to many. But this is one of those big tasks of Biblical Studies* that just needs to get done, somehow, in some way. And this is the best way we can come up with to try to start that task. Maybe it'll work; maybe it won't. But we've got to try.

Tagging the PG Greek texts morphologically would be a large task. I won't say we (Logos) haven't thought about it, because we have. But since we're unsure how/if a task of that magnitude would work in a timely fashion in concert with the production of the first 20 volumes, we chose not to address the subject of "tagging" in the prepub description. We're more interested in first making the content available as text instead of as facscimile scans (which you can find in Google Books and perhaps other sources, though note these are not Logos' sources for the material). If there is support for that (already large) task then there may be support for further enhancement of the texts as well.

* Reminds me of a quote of Fred Danker in John Lee's book on the History of NT Lexicography. Danker is quoted as saying, "Scholar's tasks are not for sissies". I love that quote.

This post has been percolating in my mind for awhile; recent events (my previous post) make me anxious to actually write it.

The short version: Being wrong about things is part of learning, and therefore part of scholarship. The one genuinely interested in scholarship and learning is willing and ready to admit wrongs and mis-steps. The one interested in securing position will likely not admit the validity of any opinion contrary to his own, no matter how obvious or well-argued, as this would potentially harm his investment in the position. No man is perfect, no position completely unassailable. Beware the one who admits no error or wrong in his work; this one may have motives apart from seeking knowledge and truth.

Now, the long version.

In his preface to his edition of the epistles of Ignatius, J.B. Lightfoot discusses the extant versions of these epistles. In the mid-1800's, Cureton published what is now known as the "short form" of the the Ignatian epistles, which is currently known only in the Syriac. There are three forms of the Ignatian epistles, the short ("Curetonian") form, the middle ("Vossian") form, and the long form. Almost no one holds to the long form being the genuine form, most hold to the middle form as the genuine form. Some do hold to the short form as the genuine form. When Cureton published the short form, however, there was apparently a rush to support the short form as the genuine form. Lightfoot writes (apologies for the lengthy quotation, but do note the bold text):

When I first began to study the subject [of the Ignatian epistles] Cureton's discovery dominated the field. With many others I was led captive for a time by the tyranny of this dominant force. ...

When however the short Syriac of Cureton appeared, it seemed to me at first to offer the true solution. ... For a time therefore I accepted the Curetonian letters as representing the genuine Ignatius, and this opinion was expressed in some of my published works. Subsequent investigation however convinced me of the untenableness of this position. At an early state an independent investigation of the relations between the Armenian and the Syriac assured me that there had existed at one time a complete Syriac version of the seven Vossian Epistles, fragments of which still remained, and of which the Curetonian recension was either the abridgement or the nucleus. ... Meanwhile, while revising my own exegetical notes, which had been written some years before, I found that to maintain the priority of the Curetonian letters I was obliged from time to time to ascribe to the supposed Ignatian forger feats of ingenuity, knowledge, intuition, skill and self-restraint, which transcended all bounds of probability. At this state I gave expression publicly to my growing conviction that after all the seven Vossian Epistles probably represented the genuine Ignatius. Afterwards I entered upon the investigation, which will be found in this volume (p. 282 sq.), into the language of the two recensions. This dispelled any shadow of doubt which might have remained; for it showed clearly that the additional parts of the Vossian Letters must have proceeded from the same hand as the parts which were common to the Curetonian and Vossian Recensions.

...

For reasons which will be found not only in the separate discussions devoted to the subject, but throughout these volumes, I am now convinced of the priority and genuineness of the seven Vossian Letters. (Lightfoot, preface, pp. v-vii)

In his preface, Lightfoot shares his journey from one position (short form is genuine) to the other (middle form is genuine). Reading this, I learned that really, really smart people can be wrong. What sets the good apart from the great is that the great ones are able to review and re-work the problem and admit they were wrong if it comes to that. Entrenched positions are not simply fortified through one's career; instead the solutions to problems themselves are worked, re-worked; evaluated, re-evaluated as one works the problems through one's career.

I learned from Lightfoot's preface that it is OK to change positions and admit error, even when those positions have been previously published.

Being wrong is OK. It's what you do when you realize you're wrong that sheds light on what sort of person one really is.

Thanks to Dr. Carl Conrad, I've been shown a fatal flaw in the below; I've confused the adjective ἄλλα with the conjunction ἀλλὰ. Now it all makes so much sense! Thank you, Dr. Conrad, for the correction. And for the reminder to double-check parsings before spending too much time trying to figure out something that doesn't make sense.

The below is left as testimony to my folly. When you need a laugh, do please read it again.

Here is Holmes' Greek for the first sentence of IgnEph 7.1, followed by his English.

7.1 Εἰώθασιν γάρ τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ τὸ ὄνομα περιφέρειν, ἄλλα τινὰ πράσσοντες ἀνάξια θεοῦ·

7.1 For there are some who maliciously and deceitfully are accustomed to carrying about the Name while doing other things unworthy of God.

The above is from his second edition, but the third edition is exactly the same. For some comparison, here's Ehrman:

For some are accustomed to bear the name in wicked deceit, while acting in ways that are unworthy of God.

So as to be complete, here's Kirsopp Lake's translation.

For there are some who make a practice of carrying about the Name with wicked guile, and do certain other things unworthy of God;

The Greek is the same in all three editions, so we're comparing apples to apples. The question is, what is αλλα doing in this statement?

My basic contention at this point is that αλλα is a marker of contrast (as Heckert has posited); I'm comfortable with saying that it indicates discontinuity (which is what Porter and O'Donnell note) but contrast seems the better term, and I really don't see much difference between "contrast" and "discontinuity" anyway. The second part of my contention is that when one encounters an αλλα, one must realize there need to be two parts in order for contrast to be made (or for there to be discontinuity); with αλλα, the latter part corrects/replaces the former part.

My contention, then, is that looking for these two things when examining instances of αλλα is essential, and that if you can do this you don't need to worry about sense-classifying αλλα. You don't need to worry if it is continuative, or adversative, or contrastive, or what-have-you.

Further, particularly in situations like we find here in Ignatius to the Ephesians, the latter part (the correction/replacement) is set up such that it is the more prominent/salient piece of the whole sentence/paragraph. It is the author's primary point, it gives the punch to what he's trying to get through our (well, mine, anyway) thick skulls.

This instance in Ignatius to the Ephesians provides a good example. The standard gloss "but" doesn't fit (mostly because there isn't a negative involved, which would heighten the contrast and make "but" feel more appropriate), so we see some translators use "and" (Lake) and others use "while" (Ehrman and Holmes, though perhaps in these instances "while" comes from the participle and αλλα is left untranslated). But that doesn't really help us to see the contrast (whatever degree of contrast is present is indicated by the context, not by αλλα) or the things being contrasted, and it isn't easy to see what corrects/replaces the other. So let's look at the Greek again:

Εἰώθασιν γάρ τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ τὸ ὄνομα περιφέρειν,
ἄλλα τινὰ πράσσοντες ἀνάξια θεοῦ

Basically, there are some people who "bear the name" yet while bearing the name (note that this in itself is important to Ignatius, who calls himself "the God-bearer" in his epistolary introductions) they do things unworthy of God. This is the contrast, that they say represent themselves in one way, but act in another.

What is the correction/replacement? It is the same thing, basically. My boy Iggy is pointing out that these evil, nefarious people who claim to "bear the name" are really not to be trusted because their actions betray them. This is Iggy's point: They're not who they say they are, so beware. They should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

That this is the salient bit of this sentence is born out by the following sentence. Again, Holmes' translation:

You must avoid them as wild beasts. For they are mad dogs that bite by stealth; you must be on your guard against them, for their bite is hard to heal.

You can see exactly what Ignatius is doing now; paying attention to the discourse cues in the original language helps us understand even better how he got there.

Of all of the translations cited, I'd say I like Ehrman's best. But even then, the αλλα is obscured, and the basic sorts of things that I contend it clues us in to are hard to see. At the same time, accounting for all of that in a translation is hard, and I don't have a better suggestion. So, at the very least, consult the Greek as you read the English. Sometimes you'll be very surprised at how the translator renders what's happening in the original language text. But, particularly with particles and conjunctions, the work pays off.

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)

My friend and colleague Steve Runge recently blogged about "Paying Attention to 'This' and 'That'" on the Logos Bible Software blog. He was showing how paying attention to ουτος and εκεινος can pay dividends in your study of the NT.

For a bonus on the difference between 'near' and 'far', check this Sesame Street clip from YouTube (thanks for the reference, Steve) where Grover makes sure we get the difference between the two.

Now that that's all cleared up, I ran into a stellar example of the difference between ουτος and εκιενος this weekend while reading Second Clement. Here's the text of 2Cl 6.3-5 from Holmes' second edition; pay particular attention to verse 4:

(3) ἔστιν δὲ οὗτος ὁ αἰὼν καὶ ὁ μέλλων δύο ἐχθροί.
(3) This age and the one that is coming are two enemies.

(4) οὗτος λέγει μοιχείαν καὶ φθορὰν καὶ φιλαργυρίαν καὶ ἀπάτην, ἐκεῖνος δὲ τούτοις ἀποτάσσεται.
(4) This one talks about adultery and corruption and greed and deceit, but that one renounces these things.

(5) οὐ δυνάμεθα οὖν τῶν δύο φίλοι εἶναι· δεῖ δὲ ἡμᾶς τούτῳ ἀποταξαμένους ἐκείνῳ χρᾶσθαι.
(5) We cannot, therefore, be friends of both; we must renounce this one in order to experience that one.

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (110-111). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Also interesting is the use of δε in v. 4. This implies development of a point, whereas use of αλλα would likely heighten the contrast.

I've recently finished a first-pass examination of every instance of αλλα in the Apostolic Fathers. While I report numbers here, the big thing to notice are trends; the specific numbers may change as I re-evaluate things between now and November.

There are no surprises in the 352 instances evaluated.

First, αλλα usually occurs with a negated clause or phrase.

• The negator μη (or something very much like it, such as μηδε) is used 82 times.
• The negator ου and its kin are used 188 times (though note some of these are ου μη).

When I say μη or ου, I'm also including things like μη μονον and ουκ μονον and even ουδεν, μηδεν, μηκετι, ουκετι and stuff like that. Maybe not completely and technically accurate, but I have the details down in a spreadsheet I can use later to disambiguate if need be.

There are 76 'clearly' positive (so, no negator on either side of αλλα); there are six that I've found confusing enough to pass on for now. What could be confusing? Sometimes negators are involved, though it is difficult to determine if the entire context is negative, or if something else is going on. These usually involve use of μηδεν.

Recall, my submitted abstract involved examining the "positive" instances, so these instances will be followed up and re-examined.

As mentioned above, the negator occurs both before and after αλλα.

• Of the 82 instances of the negator μη, there is only one that has the negator after αλλα, though there are four instances (e.g. Ign Tral. 5.1) that have negators on both sides of αλλα.
• Of the 188 instances of ου and its kin, 21 instances occur after αλλα (αλλʼ ουκ is a relatively common formation), and seven instances that have negators on both sides of αλλα.

What have I found most interesting? Well, it has to be how the Shepherd of Hermas uses αλλα without negation. Of course, this is the largest item in the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers, but 39 of the 76 'positive' instances are found in the Shepherd. There are some pretty cool things going on in those 39 instances that have no analogue in the New Testament; I'm guessing that I'll end up working through a few of them for the paper as examples of how αλλα functions and what that means for evaluating αλλα from the perspective of discourse analysis.

What's my next step? I have similar data tables for the NT and the Apostolic Fathers. I believe my next step will be to re-evaluate the positive instances in the NT (90 clearly positive instances out of 638; but I have 35 more complex/confusing instances to re-evaluate and classify). After this, I'll be able to really start writing. I've already got a high-level outline in my head, it'll be interesting to see how it fleshes out.

When looking into the use of αλλα, one needs to (at least to some degree) consider the difference between αλλα and δε. Grammarians have hopelessly associated the two together. The conjunction δε is usually described as having "adversative" qualities, though it can also be "continuative" or even "transitional". The primary description of αλλα seems to be that it, as an adversative, is "stronger than δε" (though sometimes it is "transitional" too, they say). So αλλα is the "strong adversative" while δε is the "weak adversative". Or something like that.

And that description is somewhat helpful, but it leaves a lot to be desired. All these different functions/descriptions are based, it seems, on context of usage. When looking at the problem from a discourse level, however, these contextual descriptions don't really help, particularly when the basic recommendation for translation is to just use the English "but" for both cases. That may be accurate translation, but it doesn't really help us understand what is going on in the Greek and what function these two conjunctions have.

What are "strong" and "weak" adversatives? It seems the strong adversative is normally a corrective (and normally a negative particle or adverb is involved); the weak is normally a development of argument of some sort. Here's Hermas, Visions 3.1.9, in Holmes' 2nd edition, first in Greek then in English. This excerpt has two instances of αλλα; we're only interested in the second one for purposes of this blog post. <CP ...> marks the "counterpoint", typically the first phrase/clause that αλλα responds to; <P ... > marks the "point", typically the salient bit of the whole comparison.

(9) <CP θέλοντος οὖν μου καθίσαι εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη οὐκ εἴασέν με,> ἀλλʼ <P ἐννεύει μοι τῇ χειρὶ ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἀριστερὰ μέρη καθίσω>.
διαλογιζομένου μου οὖν καὶ λυπουμένου
   ὅτι οὐκ εἴασέν με εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη καθίσαι, λέγει μοι·
      Λυπῇ, Ἑρμᾶ;
         ὁ εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη τόπος ἄλλων ἐστίν,
            τῶν ἤδη εὐαρεστηκότων τῷ θεῷ
            καὶ παθόντων εἵνεκα τοῦ ὀνόματος·
         <CP σοὶ> δὲ <CP πολλὰ λείπει ἵνα μετʼ αὐτῶν καθίσῃς>·
         ἀλλʼ <P ὡς ἐμμένεις τῇ ἁπλότητί σου,
            μεῖνον,
            καὶ καθιῇ μετʼ αὐτῶν,>
               καὶ ὅσοι ἐὰν ἐργάσωνται τὰ ἐκείνων ἔργα
                  καὶ ὑπενέγκωσιν ἃ καὶ ἐκεῖνοι ὑπήνεγκαν.

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (346). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

(9) <CP Then when I wanted to sit down on the right side, she would not let me,> but <P indicated to me with her hand that I should sit on the left side>.
Then as I thought about this and was sad
   because she would not permit me
      to sit on the right side,
   she said to me,
      “Are you sad, Hermas?
         The place on the right side is for others,
            who have already pleased God
            and have suffered for the sake of the Name.
         But [δε] <CP you fall far short of sitting with them.>
         But [αλλα]
            <P persevere in your sincerity,
               as you are now doing,
               and you will sit with them,>
                  as will all who do what they have done
                  and endure what they have endured.”

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (347). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Can you get the sense of the difference between δε and αλλα? Heckert summarizes δε as a "marker of development". In this case, δε is a further development of the preceding statement describing the meaning of the right side. The right side is for others; Hermas has fallen short of the status the others have achieved. The status of the right side and reason for Hermas' exclusion is more clear with the δε statement. This instance of δε would probably normally be classed as a "continuative" or "copulative"; in this instance it represents a further development of the state of those on the right side. In short, those on the right have "already pleased God", Hermas hasn't done this yet, therefore he is not worthy.

After explaining the right side, and why Hermas can't sit there, the good lady offers him some hope. This is the counterpoint, the foil the αλλα statement ends up responding to. Αλλα sits in the middle. Heckert calls αλλα a "marker of contrast". Here, the contrast is between Hermas' falling short of those on the right side, and what Hermas can do to achieve right-side worthiness. In the CP, Hermas can't sit with those on the right side as he is unworthy of them. But in the P, the good lady offers Hermas hope! He can sit with them if he keeps up what he has started.

This gets to what has been cookin' in my thinking concerning the use of αλλα, from the discourse level. I've looked at a lot of instances of αλλα (approaching 1000!) in both the NT and the Apostolic Fathers. When αλλα is used, as Heckert maintains, there is contrast involved. But I also think that when αλλα is used, it is the statement that happens after the αλλα that is being made prominent. That is, in this case, the important bit isn't that Hermas can't sit on the right side. The important bit is that, if he does the right stuff, Hermas will be able to sit on the right side among the honored of God, those who have suffered for the sake of the Name.

In other words, I'm beginning to come to the conclusion that αλλα does involve contrast, as Heckert maintains. With αλλα, there always seems to be a pair of things, whether the comparison/contrast is in the same phrase, in the same clause, in the same sentence, in the same paragraph, or whether the αλλα appears to be contrasting previous content at the discourse level or even contrasting an underlying idea floating in the contextual ether. The αλλα makes the contrast explicit and the content following the αλλα is the more salient bit. It is the reason for the contrast, it is the important piece of the puzzle that keeps the discourse going.

At least, that's where I'm at now. These things may change.

I'm looking at the instances of αλλα in the Apostolic Fathers. One very peculiar set of instances (seven instances in two verses) occurs in Hermas, Visions I.iii.1-2. (watch out, I may blog about it later to work though some thoughts)

Of course, I'm using the Logos version of Holmes (2nd edition). So, while in Vis. I.iii.1, I right-click and do a "Search for References to Herm., Vis I, iii, 1". One tiny little right-click.

Across my library, 148 instances of references to the verse (including ranges that include the verse) in 15 books. Books like:

• TDNT
• Nag Hammadi Library in English
• BDAG (very handy; this gives me links to all the articles that cite the verse, sort of like a reader's edition!)
• ICC vols
• NIGTC vols
• A Semeia volume
• Some Hermeneia volumes, including several in the volume on the Shepherd of Hermas.

How cool is that?

The Epistle to the Romans uses μη γενοιτο (usually translated, "May it never be!" or "By no means!") five times. In four of those instances, it stands between a counterpoint and point that has αλλα as hinge (Ro 3.31; 7.7, 13; 11.11; the other instance is Ro 6.15). [On Counterpoints and Points, see this article on the Logos blog and also see this conference paper on negation by Dr. Steve Runge -- RB] Here's a sample, the <<..>> denote the CounterPoint (CP) and Point (P):

Ro 3.31:

<<CP νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως;>> μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ <<νόμον ἱστάνομεν.>> (NA27)

<<CP Do we then overthrow the law by faith?>> By no means! On the contrary, <<P we uphold the law.>> (ESV)

So, Paul answers his own rhetorical question with the obvious answer (μη γενοιτο!), then uses αλλα to fill out the comparison/contrast.

In examining instances of αλλα in the Apostolic Fathers, I noticed one instance of the same thing going on in the Epistle of Barnabas:

Ep.Barn 6.3:

εἶτα τί λέγει; Καὶ ὃς ἐλπίσει ἐπʼ αὐτὸν ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. <<CP ἐπὶ λίθον οὖν ἡμῶν ἡ ἐλπίς;>> μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλʼ <<P ἐπεὶ ἐν ἰσχύϊ τέθεικεν τὴν σάρκα αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος.>> λέγει γάρ· Καὶ ἔθηκέν με ὡς στερεὰν πέτραν. (Holmes 2nd Ed)

Then what does he say? “And whoever sets his hope on him will live forever.” <<CP Does our hope, then, rest on a rock?>> By no means! But <<P he says this because the Lord has established his flesh in strength.>> For he says: “And he established me like a solid rock.” (Holmes 2nd Ed)

The comparison/contrast is less straightforward in Ep.Barn., but you get the contrast, particularly when you look at the end of v. 2, " ... 'Behold, I will set into the foundations of Zion a precious stone, especially chosen, a cornerstone, highly valued.'" That rolls right into v. 3; all of it referring to Is 28.16. The author of Ep.Barn. is saying that this passage in Isaiah doesn't mean that a rock will save us, he points to a different passage of Isaiah (Is 50.7) to explain the rock reference; vv. 4-5 have three more citations doing the same thing. All in accordance with the allegorizing style of the letter. The bottom line is that it isn't a rock that saves us (that's ridiculous!), it is the Lord that saves us.

Anyway, I found it interesting that the Epistle of Barnabas uses, at least in this one instance, rhetoric similar to the Epistle to the Romans. No, I'm not saying that Paul wrote Barnabas (or that Barnabas, influenced by Paul, wrote Barnabas). I'm just noting a little gem I found while sifting through mounds of data.

Though it is traditionally called "Second Clement", implying that the same author is responsible for both First and Second Clement, scholarship has for centuries (as I recall) considered them to come from different sources. Lightfoot, in his one-volume edition from the late 19th century, simply calls it "An Ancient Homily" instead of "Second Clement".

As I've been examining instances of αλλα in the Apostolic Fathers, I ran across a peculiar thing.

In First Clement (and in NT, for that matter), when the phrase "not only ... but (also) ... " is used, the phrasing is "ου μονον .. αλλα και" with uniformity (though cf. 2Ti 2.20, Εν μεγαλη δε οικια ουκ εστιν μονον .. αλλα και ..).

In Second Clement, however, the phrasing of "not only ... but (also)" is uniformly "μη μονον .. αλλα και" (or some variant of μη μονον, like 2Cl 9.10, "μη απο στοματος μονον αλλα και .. " or even 2Cl 13.1, "και μη .. μηδε θελομεν μονον .. αλλα και ..").

I'm not one to say that an author always has to use the same turn of phrase in the same way. But the disparity between First and Second Clement in this sort of phrasing seems suspicious.

Update (2008-03-19): Note that μη μονον is used elsewhere in the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers: IgnMag 4.1; IgnRom 3.2 (2x); MPoly 1.2 (2x); EpDiog 2.1.

Ok, so in all likelihood Clement didn't have anything to do with Second Clement. But I needed a headline to get your attention.

Here's another dose of the preacher delivering the homily we know as Second Clement. This is from chapter 13:

For when the pagans hear from our mouths the oracles of God, they marvel at their beauty and greatness. But when they discover that our actions are not worthy of the words we speak, they turn from they turn from wonder to blasphemy, saying that it is a myth and a delusion. For when they hear form us that God says, "It is no credit to you if you love those who love you, but it is a credit to you if you love your enemies and those who hate you," when they hear these things, the marvel at such extraordinary goodness. But when they see that we not only do not love those who hate us but do not even love those who love us, they scornfully laugh at us, and the Name is blasphemed. (2Cl 13.3-4, Holmes' 3rd edition)

Here it is, Ignatius to the Magnesians 11:

11.1 Ταῦτα δέ, ἀγαπητοί μου, οὐκ ἐπεὶ ἔγνων τινὰς ἐξ ὑμῶν οὕτως ἔχοντας, ἀλλʼ ὡς μικρότερος ὑμῶν θέλω προφυλάσσεσθαι ὑμᾶς μὴ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς τὰ ἄγκιστρα τῆς κενοδοξίας, ἀλλὰ πεπληροφορῆσθαι71 ἐν τῇ γεννήσει καὶ τῷ πάθει καὶ τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ γενομένῃ ἐν καιρῷ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Ποντίου Πιλάτου· πραχθέντα ἀληθῶς καὶ βεβαίως ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, ἧς ἐκτραπῆναι μηδενὶ ὑμῶν γένοιτο. (IgnMag 11)

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (156). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Here's Ehrman's translation:

I am not writing you these things, my beloved, because I have learned that some of you are behaving like this. But as one who is less important than you I want to protect you from being snagged by the fish hooks of worthless ideas. You should be fully convinced of the birth and suffering and resurrection that occurred in the time of the governor Pontius Pilate. These things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ, our hope. From this hope may none of you turn away. (IgnMag 11)

Here Ignatius is responding to a danger that the Magnesians may fall prey to: that of Judaizing and perhaps even elevating Judaism above Christianity. Ignatius reminds them to focus on Christ: "You should be fully convinced ..."

The other picture in here that draws my attention is that of the "fish hooks of worthless ideas". Others (Holmes, Lake, Lightfoot) translate this as "hooks", but "fish hooks" seems more appropriate (cf. BDAG). Have you ever been fishing and snagged the fish instead of hooking it in the mouth? I have. Ignatius is saying, "don't let the false ideas draw you in—don't be caught up in them." On the metaphor, Schoedel includes a helpful footnote in his commentary on Ignatius' letters (helpfully copied/pasted from the Logos version!):

For the metaphorical use of the word “hooks” (fishhooks) see Diogenes Laertius 4.47; Plutarch De virt. moral. 6, 446a; Aristaenetus Ep. 1.17; cf. Lucian Pisc. 47. From the same circle of metaphors comes the word “lure” used in Jas 1:14 (cf. Plutarch De ser. num. vind. 10, 554f). For the full development of the imagery in connection with heresy see Theodoret Hist. eccl. 5.13.6.

Schoedel, W. R., Ignatius, S., Bishop of Antioch, & Koester, H. (1985). Ignatius of Antioch : A commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Includes indexes. (129) Hermeneia—a critical and historical commentary on the Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Two things.

First, I received my copy of Michael Holmes' Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts and English Translations, Third Edition (amazon.com). What a beautiful volume. The form factor is excellent, the type is crisp, the binding is sturdy and functional, and the scholarship is top-notch. This is a book that is a pleasure to own.

Second, I have made a decision. As many know and can easily see, I have an Amazon Associates account. If you click on links from this blog and buy stuff, I get a tiny portion of the sale (ranges from 4% to 6% per sale). Don't worry, I'm not getting rich off of it, I just save the accumulation and use it to buy a book every few months.

I've decided that I'm going to save up my commissions for the next while and splurge on a two-volume set of books I'd love but can't afford to purchase: The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament Two-Volume Set (amazon.com). It consists of both of the recent volumes published by Oxford, The Reception of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com) and Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com). If you're wondering how much I make off of the commissions, well ... I'm about 1/4 of the way there and don't expect to make enough for probably 4-6 months.

So ... if you want to help a brother out and are buying stuff from Amazon anyway ... click to Amazon from a link on this blog. Or, if you really want to make Rico smile this Christmas, cruise to my wish list and purchase a copy for me (only half-joking!). Of if you work for Oxford and need someone to review the set ... well, I just might be interested!

It's true, Holmes' Third Edition Apostolic Fathers Diglot (amazon.com) is finally ready! I read about it on the B-Greek list on Friday. A message to B-Greek (from moderator Jonathan Robie, forwarded from James Ernest, Academic Editor at Baker Academic) notes (and do notice the part I made bold):

The first copies of the new edition of the Michael Holmes's Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com) (the Lightfoot-Harmer-Holmes Greek-English diglot) just arrived at Baker Academic's warehouse yesterday. That should mean that copies have also arrived at San Diego for the book exhibits at the ETS and AAR-SBL meetings. Listmembers attending those meetings may want to visit our booth to check it out.

It's a thoroughly re-edited and redesigned opus. Michael (a member of this list) put a tremendous amount of labor into this revision, as did a number of us at the press; and we had significant advice and help on particular points from a number of outside scholars. I'm very happy to find that the 1000ppi paper and Smyth-sewn binding enable the book to lie flat even when opened near near the front or the back. The stamped kivar cover is over more substantial boards than used for the Bible-society texts that this volume otherwise resembles, so it should stand up well to use; but the feel is still quite compact.

It will be purchaseable (at a great discount!) at ETS and AAR/SBL, so be sure to check it out at the Baker booth. Here's some further descriptive text from the Baker Academic web site:

Description: Following the recent publication of his thoroughly revised translations in The Apostolic Fathers in English, 3rd ed., Michael Holmes, a leading expert on these texts, offers a thoroughly revised and redesigned bilingual edition, featuring Greek (or Latin) and English on facing pages. Introductions and bibliographies are generous and up to date. In the textual apparatus, existing notes have been revised and expanded, and well over two hundred new notes have been added. This handsome and handy one-volume, thin-paper edition, with a ribbon marker and reader-friendly page layout, will be an essential resource for New Testament students and scholars.

In the interests of full disclosure, note that in my work at Logos (getting editions of the Apostolic Fathers ready for our electronic editions) I ran across a some typos in the second edition of Holmes' Greek text. As a result of those submissions, Dr. Holmes and James Ernest decided to send along a complimentary copy of the third edition diglot. So it's a happy day for Rico! When I have the edition and am able to examine it further, I will surely blog about it.

[This is part of a series of posts, for a list of all posts see Drobner's The Fathers of the Church]

I'll start off by saying that I don't plan on doing comprehensive blogging of this book; so there won't be a post for each part/chapter. But I made it through the introductory material and the first chapter, so I figured I'd post.

Initially, it's everything I expected. I've noted some titles in the bibliographies that I should probably track down at some point. And the explanations are decent.

I also understand that introductions, by their very nature, are complicated to write. That is, it is hard to be judicious when introducing material that may, when further studied, have several different layers or approaches. So, unsurprisingly, I can report that I'm not the happiest with the perspective taken when providing dates for NT books. Drobner places all gospels after 70 CE (Mark in 70 CE, Luke in 80, Matthew in 90-95, and John in 100). He also only sees six (6) authentic Paulines: First Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians (?), Philippians, Philemon and Romans.

I don't necessarily have a problem with his views (though I think he's wrong); I have a problem with them being presented as undisputed fact. But ... I say again ... I wasn't surprised; this sort of thing usually happens in handbooks/introductions like this. One item I was surprised at, though, was part of Drobner's description of an apocalypse. He contends that "Although there are 'no formal laws which are applicable to all apocalypses' and the apocalypse of John is accorded a special place among all the apocalypses, it is possible to discerna a number of enduring stylistic and content-related features" (Drobner 38). Ok, sure. But these aren't (and can't be) rules. Even so, his first item is very curious:

All apocalypses are written pseudonymously under the name of a significant male of the past who lends the work an authority that the author himself does not possess. This means that an apocalypse is always written from a perspective of fictitious anteriority, as a book that alleges to be ancient already and, because of being sealed up, has to be keppt secret until the predetermined time of the end (cf. Dan 12.9; Rev 6). (Drobner 38)

I can buy this statement from non-canonical works; but it is harder to swallow when one includes Biblical apocalypses like Daniel and Revelation. Does that mean that if I think John (whichever John you wish; the elder or the apostle) is responsible for Revelation that I therefore cannot hold that Revelation is an apocalypse (when it clearly is)?

That said, the section on the Epistle to Barnabas is good; as is that on Hermas. And again, the bibliographies are excellent.

Chapter Two, "Postapocalyptic Literature", looks good as well ... though I'll probably have dating qualms with Drobner's stance on the dating of Ignatius' epistles (Drobner's range is 105-135; I'd say 110 at the latest). But I'll write on that chapter after I read it ...

In an earlier post, I mentioned The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction (amazon.com) by Hubertus Drobner, translated by Siegfried Schatzmann.

Like Mike Aquilina, a copy arrived for me today! Many thanks to Hendrickson for sending it along. And it looks wonderful. The bibliographies look great (full, and sectioned into sections like 'Editions', 'Bibliographies', 'Dictionaries' and stuff like that). So you get an idea of what the book is about, here's the last paragraph of the Preface to the English Edition:

It [the book] is not a "manual" that intends to cover the entire field in all its details. It is a textbook that presents an overview of the most important authors, works and themes, imbedded in their historical, political, and ecclesiastical background. For everything beyond this basic aim, the numerous bibliographical data given serve to point the way to further and more specialized studies. (Drobner xvi)

Here's a link to the Table of Contents. Here's a link to the Introduction. Here's a link to a sample chapter. And here's the blurb from Hendrickson:

Good, solid, contemporary introductions to patristic authors and writings are difficult to find in the English-speaking world, and European volumes are expensive. This volume, which is Siegfried Schatzmann’s translation of Lehrbuch der Patrologie, offers English-speaking readers easy access to Hubertus R. Drobner’s traditional introduction to early Christian thought.

Hubertus R. Drobner brings patristics scholarship up to date in this traditional introduction. His work is sufficiently broad to be a useful summary of early Christian history and the expansive strokes of doctrinal debate and development and provides a clear presentation of early Christian thought.

Drobner introduces new materials throughout this recently updated edition of his handbook. A general map and several timetables add to the clarity of the volume.

The Fathers of the Church is valuable in its presentation of contemporary studies and views. Patristics students will benefit from this dependable overview of early Christian texts, and scholars and libraries will appreciate the extensive bibliography, indexes, and other resources.

Here's a somewhat abbreviated Table of Contents:

Introduction: Patrology as Subject

Part One: Apostolic and Postapostolic Literature
   Introduction: The Rise of Christian Literature
   Chapter One: Biblical Apocrypha
   Chapter Two: Postapostolic Literature

Part Two: Literature of the Period of Persecution (Mid-Second to Early Fourth Centuries)
   Introduction: The Impact of Persecution
   Chapter Three: Greek Literature
   Chapter Four: Beginnings of Latin Literature

Part Three: Literature of the Ascending Imperial Church (Early Fourth Century to ca. 430)
   Introduction: Essential Features of the History of the Fourth Century
   Chapter Five: First Phase of Arianism
   Chapter Six: Apollinarianism and the Second Phase of Arianism
   Chapter Seven: Pastors, Exegetes and Ascetics
   Chapter Eight: Monastic and Hagiographic Literature
   Chapter Nine: Augustine of Hippo

Part Four: Literature of the Transition from Late Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages (ca. 430 to the Mid-Eighth Century)
   Introduction: Retrospective Collections and Progressive Works
   Chapter Ten: Theological Controversies of the Fifth Century
   Chapter Eleven: Literature of the Latin West
   Chapter Twelve: Literature of the Greek East

Part Five: Literature of the Christian East
   Chapter Thirteen: Independent Bodies of Literature
   Supplementary Bibliography

All in all, it looks wonderful and also looks to be a great counterpart to Moreschini and Norelli's Early Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History (amazon.com); though Drobner looks to have more information on area it treats (Patristic Literature) and the bibliographies look more complete and, at least in the English translation, more geared toward English readers.

Updated: I've begun a series as I read the book.

• 2007-11-05: Part I

Yes, it has been fairly quiet in the corner of the blogosphere recently. Amy and I have been moving house; we're out of the old house (it sold quickly, thankfully) and into a new house (yay!). This past week was pack-n-move time; with the majority of actual moving happening this past weekend.

So, obviously, we're still settling in, but things are in good shape.

Also ... a little bird just told me that Siegfried Schatzmann's English translation of Hubertus Drobner's Lehrbuch der Patrologie (Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction (amazon.com)), to be published by Hendrickson but long-delayed for many and sundry reasons, has actually hit the warehouse. That means ... well ... it is like, you know, done and stuff. And in paper. And ready to read. WOO HOO!!!!

When I get a copy (which should hopefully be soon; I've been waiting over two years!) I'll certainly mention it and blog about it somewhat.

Speaking of which, I'm about to wrap up Skarsaune & Hvalvik's Jewish Believers in Jesus (amazon.com). This is an awesome book; I can't recommend it highly enough. I was lucky enough to receive a gratis copy. I likely wouldn't have bought it, but I would've missed out greatly and kicked myself repeatedly had I found out what a treasure I missed. You should really check it out — when you're at SBL, cruise the Hendrickson booth and pick up a copy to browse (then buy!)

Found these mentioned in a footnote in Skarsaune & Hvalvik's Jewish Believers in Jesus (amazon.com); this is the proverbial "note to myself" so I can dig the references out again:

Kenneth Berding, Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological Relationship in Light of Polycarp's Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature (amazon.com) (VCSup 62; Leiden: Brill, 2002)

Paul Hartog, Polycarp and the New Testament: The Occasion, Rhetoric, Theme and Unity of the Epistle to the Philippians and its Allusions to New Testament Literature (amazon.com) (WUNT 2.134; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 2002)

That is all.

[NB: I originally got the title of the book wrong in the headline; I've changed it but it will likely mean the post will show up twice in your news readers. Apologies, RWB]

The kind folks at Hendrickson Publishers just today sent me a copy of Rodney Whitacre's A Patristic Greek Reader (amazon.com), and I must say it looks mighty fine — if you want to improve your Greek reading skills, then you need to read large chunks of unfamiliar text. A Patristic Greek Reader (amazon.com) looks to be an excellent way to do just this.

Here's the blurb from Hendrickson:

The heart of this book is a selection of Greek texts from early Christian writers, accompanied by notes so that a person with one year of Greek can read the texts. Basic translations of the texts are also provided so that readers can check their work. A list of words used 50+ times in the New Testament and the principal parts of several verbs is included.

The Greek selections represent a variety of styles and levels of difficulty. The notes also vary, with very extensive notes provided in some cases.

Passages that have played a major role in the history of Christian thought are included, as well as passages that contribute to matters of spirituality and pastoral care. Several passages are of more purely historical interest. The author includes an introduction to the writings of the early Church to help orient readers to the writings of the Fathers in general and also give the rationale for the particular selections included in the book. Each selection also has a brief introduction discussing its historical setting and content. A brief bibliography is included for the particular selections included and for the Greek reference works cited. However, the book would also be of interest to those studying the Classics and could be used by anyone as a brief introduction to some samples of early Christian thought. This may be the only book available that provides such translation notes for selections from the Greek fathers.

The contents (full TOC here) include the following writings (either in total or in part):

• The Didache (the whole thing)
• 1 Clement (in part)
• Ignatius to the Romans (the whole thing)
• Epistle to Diognetus (in part)
• Martydom of Polycarp (in part)
• Justin Martyr's First Apology (in part)
• Melito of Sardis, On Pascha (in part)
• Clement of Alexandria's Miscellanies (partial)
• Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History and Life of Constantine (partial)
• Athanasius, On the Incarnation (partial)
• Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations (partial)
• Desert Fathers and Mothers, Apophthegmata Patrum (partial)
• John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Matthaeum (partial)
• Hesychios the Priest, On Watchfulness and Holiness (partial)
• Symeon the New Theologian, Hymns (partial)

You should really check out the sample chapter provided by Hendrickson. The text is the first five chaptes of the Didache, plus an introduction to the Didache (note I have a "phrasal interlinear" translation and some comments on the Didache available as well). You will get a good idea of how things are laid out and how the reading notes work. Everything is translated, but the translations are in a completely different section of the book, so there's no easy cribbing on the facing page.

I really like how the text notes provide the form in the text, followed by the dictionary form, followed by a short gloss and any other notes that Whitacre deemed necessary.

If you want to improve your Greek reading skills, you owe it to yourself to purchase and diligently work through this book. You'll get into non-familiar text, which means you'll stretch your reading muscle and learn a great deal along the way. The readings are even ranked and an appendix in the back (Appendix C) sorts out "Easiest", "Intermediate" and "Advanced" texts so you can pick your poison, or work up from "easy" to "advanced".

I realized I hadn't posted a table of contents for this book when I blogged about it earlier. The TOC is extensive and runs for six of the book's 900+ pages. I've only listed parts, chapters and contributors below so you can get an idea of the scope of this book. The full TOC is available as a PDF on Hendrickson's site. I'm enjoying reading it thus far and am interested to read many of the essays.

Part One: Introduction
1 Jewish Believers in Jesus in Antiquity—Problems of Definition, Method, and Sources
     Oskar Skarsaune, Oslo, Norway
2 The Definition of the Terms Jewish Christian and Jewish Christianity in the History of Research
     James Carleton Paget, Cambridge, England

Part Two: Jewish Believers in Jesus in The New Testament and Related Material
3 James and the Jerusalem Community
     Richard Bauckham, St. Andrews, Scotland
4 Paul as a Jewish Believer—According to His Letters
     Donald A. Hagner, Pasadena, California, United States
5 Paul as a Jewish Believer—According to the Book of Acts
     Reidar Hvalvik, Oslo, Norway
6 Named Jewish Believers Connected with the Pauline Mission
     Reidar Hvalvik, Oslo, Norway
7 Jewish Believers and Jewish Influence in the Roman Church until the Early Second Century
     Reidar Hvalvik, Oslo, Norway
8 Jewish Believers in Asia Minor according to the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John
     Peter Hirschberg, Bayreuth, Germany

Part Three: The Literary Heritage of Jewish Believers
9 The Jewish Christian Gospel Tradition
     Craig A. Evans, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canada
10 Jewish Christian Editing of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha
     Torleif Elgvin, Oslo, Norway
11 Jewish Christian Elements in the Pseudo-Clementine Writings
     Graham Stanton, Cambridge, England
12 Fragments of Jewish Christian Literature Quoted in Some Greek and Latin Fathers
     Oskar Skarsaune, Oslo, Norway
13 Jewish Christian Sources Used by Justin Martyr and Some Other Greek and Latin Fathers
     Oskar Skarsaune, Oslo, Norway

Part Four: Jewish Christian Groups according to the Greek and Latin Fathers
14 The Ebionites
     Oskar Skarsaune, Oslo, Norway
15 The Nazoraeans
     Wolfram Kinzig, Bonn, Germany
16 Cerinthus, Elxai, and Other Alleged Jewish Christian Teachers or Groups
     Gunnar af Hällström, Joensuu, Finland, and Oskar Skarsaune, Oslo, Norway

Part Five: Other Literary and Archaeological Evidence for Jewish Believers
17 Evidence for Jewish Believers in Greek and Latin Patristic Literature
     Oskar Skarsaune, Oslo, Norway
18 Evidence for Jewish Believers in the Syriac Fathers
     Sten Hidal, Lund, Sweden
19 Evidence for Jewish Believers in Christian-Jewish Dialogues through the Sixth Century (excluding Justin)
     Lawrence Lahey, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States
20 Evidence for Jewish Believers in “Church Orders” and Liturgical Texts
     Anders Ekenberg, Uppsala, Sweden
21 Jewish Believers in Early Rabbinic Literature (2d to 5th Centuries)
     Philip S. Alexander, Manchester, England
22 Archaeological Evidence of Jewish Believers?
     James F. Strange, Tampa, Florida, United States

Part Six: Conclusion and Outlook
23 The History of Jewish Believers in the Early Centuries—Perspectives and Framework
     Oskar Skarsaune, Oslo, Norway

Bibliography Index of Modern Authors
Index of Subjects
Index of Ancient Sources (selective)

For two years now, I've been drooling over a Mohr-Siebeck title: Paul Treblico, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. It was published in 2005 and sold for like $250 as I recall.

It is out of print now (they must've only printed five copies) and unavailable. A search of Mohr's website only finds a few paragraphs from reviews of the book, but no listing. RBL reviewed the book as well.

For about a year, I've been lamenting that I was never able to purchase the book. Today, however, I was browsing Eerdmans' upcoming releases in preparation for my annual SBL book-buying spree and noticed that they've got the book slated for publication in October (just previous to SBL!) at a price of $85! That means mortals like me could actually purchase the book at SBL and probably get a decent discount.

This was encouraging in light of my recent disappointment with Royse's Scribal Habits book ...

Rob Bradshaw of the ever-helpful biblicalstudies.org.uk posts the following that may be of interest:

F.P. Cotterell, "The Gospel of Barnabas," Vox Evangelica 10 (1977): 43-47.

Here's the first paragraph:

The Gospel of Barnabas is one of three, or more precisely four, writings associated with the name of Paul’s companion in the first part of his mission to the gentiles. The earliest of these writings is the Epistle of Barnabas, dating from the first half of the second century. The Acts of Barnabas, a more convenient appellation than the formal Greek title, The journeys and the testimony of St. Barnabas the apostle, dates from the fifth century. Then there is the Gospel of Barnabas, a title which is confusingly applied to two works. The first of these is known to us only by name. It is referred to in the Latin Decretum Gelasianum, associated with pope Gelasius (492-496). Of the text of this Gospel we have no knowledge whatever. The second Gospel of Barnabas made its appearance in the sixteenth century and has re-surfaced at intervals ever since, most recently through a series of publications originating in Karachi, edited by Begum Aisha Bawany Wakf. This brief note is intended simply to draw attention to the character of the ‘Gospel’, to record what is known of its antecedents and the claims made for it by some Muslim apologists.

So if you have interest in such things, read the whole article.

I forget where I saw mention of this, but I filed a note away to blog about it, so that's what I'm doing.

(Update: Of course, it was Mike Aquilina who blogged about it in the middle of June. Thanks, Mike!)

Looks like Hendrickson is getting ready to release A Patristic Greek Reader (amazon.com) by Rodney Whitacre. This sounds really good. Here's the book description from Amazon:

The heart of this book is a selection of Greek texts from early Christian writers, accompanied by notes so that a person with one year of Greek can read the texts. Basic translations of the texts are also provided so that readers can check their work. A list of words used 50+ times in the New Testament and the principal parts of several verbs is included.

The Greek selections represent a variety of styles and levels of difficulty. The notes also vary, with very extensive notes provided in some cases.

Passages that have played a major role in the history of Christian thought are included, as well as passages that contribute to matters of spirituality and pastoral care. Several passages are of more purely historical interest.

The author includes an introduction to the writings of the early Church to help orient readers to the writings of the Fathers in general and also give the rationale for the particular selections included in the book. Each selection also has a brief introduction discussing its historical setting and content. A brief bibliography is included for patristics in general, for the particular selections included, and for Greek tools a person would need for continued reading in such material.

The primary readership for A Patristic Greek Reader (amazon.com) are those who have studied Greek in order to read the New Testament. However, the book would also be of interest to those studying the Classics and could be used by anyone as a brief introduction to some samples of early Christian thought.

This may be the only book available that provides such translation notes for selections from the Greek fathers.

So, if you want to beef up your Greek and dig into some of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers at the same time, give A Patristic Greek Reader (amazon.com) a try. Though note it has a ship date of Sept. 30, 2007, so you won't be able to read it right away.

J.B. Lightfoot, in his first volume on Clement, writes:

If we had to describe briefly the respective provinces of the three great Apostolic Fathers, we might say that it was the work of Clement to co-ordinate the different elements of Christian teaching as left by the Apostles; and of Ignatius to consolidate the structure of ecclesiastical polity as sketched out by them; while for Polycarp, whose active career was just beginning as theirs ended, and who lived on for some half century after their deaths, was reserved the task of handing down unimpaired to a later generation the Apostolic doctrine and order thus co-ordinated and consolidated by his elder contemporaries--a task for which he was eminently fitted by his passive and receptive character. (Lightfoot, p. 8)

I'm not so sure it is that neat and tidy--for example, though Ignatius makes many comments about the roles of bishop/elder/overseer/deacons/etc., I'm not convinced that his letters can be interpreted as a manual on ecclesial polity--but the quote does highlight some major emphases of the respective authors.

These are titles on Logos Bible Software's Community Pricing page. If you're interested in this sort of stuff, you should bid sooner rather than later to lock in your low, low price for the book(s) in question.

• H.B. Swete's Patristic Study.
  

  The aim of Patristic Study is to draw the attention of the reader to the vast store of wisdom to be found in the writings of the Fathers of the ancient church. Monuments of Christian thought in the first generations of the Church's life, the writings of the Fathers are still of perennial interest and importance. As Henry Barclay Swete states, "The Fathers, in the stricter sense of the term, are the great champions of orthodox belief, whose writings became the standard of Catholic truth."

  by Henry Barclay Swete | Published 1902; Longmans, Green and Co. | 194 pages

• The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers
  

  The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers is a classic work in Biblical scholarship, treasured by generations of scholars since its initial publication in 1905. Prepared by a committee of Biblical scholars upon appointment of the Society of Historical Theology in Oxford, this volume presents passages from the Apostolic Fathers which display – or are thought to display – the Fathers' acquaintance with New Testament literature. These include passages from Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, and II Clement.

  From the The American Journal of Theology:

  "The Oxford Society of Historical Theology has, through a committee of six scholars, done a real service to all students of early Christian literature in the volume on The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers… This enterprise… is designed to make the more important patristic writings accessible and intelligible to a wider circle of students and clergy."

  by the Oxford Society of Historical Theology | Published 1905 | 144 pages

Donald Alfred Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome. (Series: Supplements to Novum Testamentum, 34). Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973.

The possible allusions to 1 Timothy in Clement's epistle are numerous. Individually they are not very convincing; taken together, however, they establish a probability that Clement knew and was influenced by 1 Timothy. (Hagner, 232)

This is followed later by:

... A common ethical catechesis may well account for a number of the parallels. However, even when allowance is made for such agreement, it seems improbable that all the allusions are to be explained in this way. Thus on the basis of the evidence cited, our conclusion is that Clement probably knew and made use of 1 Timothy and Titus; for Clement's knowledge of 2 Timothy, however, the evidence is less convincing and justifies not more than a conclusion of possible dependence. (Hagner, 236)

I deal with a limited set of possible allusions to the Pastorals in First Clement over on PastoralEpistles.com; though I should obviously sift through Hagner's work (and Lightfoot, of course, though I'm guessing Hagner has already mined that work) and supplement that list.

The good folks at Hendrickson Academic have recently sent me a copy of Heresies and How to Avoid Them: Why it Matters what Christians Believe (amazon.com). No, they haven't found me in any heresy — so they say — they sent me the book because they thought I'd be interested in it and just might blog about it. Thankfully, the book is interesting and I will blog about it to some degree. But first, I need to point out the cover art because it is so cool. It's Augustine battling a demonic-looking heretic with a Bible and what appears to be a light saber!

Now that is cool. How can you not want to read a book with cover art like that?!

One thing I really like about this book is that it began as a series of sermons. These aren't intricate theological definitions of heresy; they are intended to be heard and understood by the person in the pew who may not have a strong background in dogma and heresy. You know, someone who would think "Arianism" has more to do with Hitler than heresy in the fourth century. Ben Quash writes in the book's prologue:

Appreciative inquisitiveness was the premise for devoting a term-full of sermons in Peterhouse Chapel, Cambridge (where the editors of this volume serve as Anglican priests) to great heresies, and the majority of essays in this volume were first delivered as sermons in that series — intended not to be excessively encumbered with scholarly apparatus, but to be informed and accessible accounts of how these ancient debates still have much to say to Christians today as they try to make sense of their faith in thought, word and deed. The huge interest in the sermons took us by surprise, and the idea was hatched of making them available to a wider audience by publishing them in a book. (Quash and Ward, 8)

Here's the back-cover blurb, which is different than the publisher blurb you'll find at Hendrickson's site or on Amazon. I think the back-cover blurb is better than those other blurbs.

What don't Christians believe?
Is Jesus really divine?
Is Jesus really human?
Can God suffer?
Can people be saved by their own efforts?

The early Church puzzled over these questions, ruling in some believes and ruling out others. Heresies and How to Avoid Them (amazon.com) explains the principal ancient heresies and shows why contemporary Christians still need to know about them. These famous detours in Christian believing seemed plausible and attractive to many people in the past, and most can still be found in modern-day guises. By learning what it is that Christians don't believe — and why — believers today can gain a deeper, truer understanding of their faith.

Topics Include
Adoptionism—did Jesus become the Son of God at his baptism?
Docetism—was Jesus really human or did he just appear to be so?
Nestorianism—was Christ one Person or a hybrid with a divine dimension and a human dimension?
Arianism—was Christ divine and eternal or was there a time when he did not exist?
Marcionism—is the God of the New Testament the same as the God of the Old?
Theopaschitism—is it possible for God to suffer in His divine nature?
Pelagianism—can people save themselves by their own efforts?
‘The Free Spirit’—are there two kinds of Church membership, one for the elite and one for the rest?
Donatism—do Christian ministers need to be faultless for their ministrations to be effective?

From what I can tell (I've read the intro and the first two essays) the essays strive to define and place the heresy in proper historical context, discussing the milieu in which the heresy came about. Each essay begins with a paragraph-long definition of the heresy in plain language, followed by major scriptures that provide foundation for the orthodox position. The essays provide the setting and discuss the heresy, and then also discuss the theological implications of the heresy. Good stuff. As I read the first two essays, I thought that Heresies and How to Avoid Them (amazon.com) might even make good fodder for book-study groups in local churches. There are sections in the back with a few recommendations for further reading and a brief glossary. There's an index as well.

I say: check it out. I may blog further on the book as I read it, I may not. We'll see what happens.

This time, however, the point is illustrated by looking at multiple translations of Hermas, Mandates 12.6.2. These are chronological, in order of original publication. Note the emphasized text. I think Ehrman is the most readable. Recall that Holmes is ostensibly an update and revision of Lightfoot/Harmer.

Lightfoot/Harmer: Believe, therefore, on God, ye who by reason of your sins have despaired of your life, and are adding to your sins, and weighing down your life; for if ye turn unto the Lord with your whole heart, and work righteousness the remaining days of your life, and serve Him rightly according to His will, He will give healing to your former sins, and ye shall have power to master the works of the devil. But of the threatening of the devil fear not at all; for he is unstrung, like the sinews of a dead man.
Lightfoot, J. B., & Harmer, J. R. (1891). The Apostolic Fathers. Includes index. (439). London: Macmillan and Co.

Lake: Believe, therefore, in God, though you have renounced your life through your sins, and have added to your sins, and have made your life heavy, that if you ‘turn to the Lord with all your heart, and do righteousness’ for the rest of the days of your life, and serve him in uprightness, according to his will, he will heal your former sins, and you shall have power to master the works of the devil. But do not fear the threat of the devil at all, for he is powerless as the sinews of a dead man.
Lake, K. (1912-13). The Apostolic fathers. The Loeb classical library (2:137). London; New York: Heinemann; Macmillan.

Holmes: So believe in God, you who because of your sins have despaired of your life, and are adding to your sins, and are making your life hard, because if you turn to the Lord with all your heart, and practice righteousness the rest of the days of your life, and serve him rightly according to his will, he will heal your previous sins, and you will have power to conquer the devil’s works. But do not fear the devil’s threats at all, for he is as powerless as a dead man’s sinews.
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (417). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Ehrman: You have despaired of your life because of your sins, and increased your sins, and overburdened your life—you should trust in God. For if you turn to the Lord with your whole heart and do righteousness the rest of your days, serving him properly according to his will, he will heal your former sins. And you will be empowered to rule over the works of the devil. But do not fear the devil's threat at all, for he is as weak as a tendon on a corpse.
Ehrman, Bart D. (2003). The Apostolic Fathers. Loeb Classical Library (2:303). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

The picture that Ehrman provides — "he is as weak as a tendon on a corpse" — is much better than the others that revert to the KJV-ish "sinew" to make the image. The use of "corpse" instead of "dead man" also contributes positively to the picture.

This excerpt from Hermas also reminds me of a bit of a pet peeve of mine. Have you ever been in a Bible study where folks end up dwelling on "Satan" as if he is an omnipotent and omnipresent deity wreaking havoc in all areas of everyone's life simultaneously? It's easy to think so; but I much rather think that many of the things in life that folks like to ascribe to "Satan" are really the result of our struggle against sin. I really don't think the prince of darkness has much personal interest in me; he can surely focus his non-omniscience and non-omnipresence elsewhere to much greater effect. Instead of focusing on attribution of things to "Satan" (whom I am much more comfy just calling "the enemy"), we should instead focus our efforts on believing and serving the one true God.

That's why I like this last portion of Hermas Mandates so much. I think it properly refocuses me on what is important: living in obedience to God, not cowering in fear to the one he has vanquished. I'm not saying that Hermas is canonical (despite its presence in Codex Sinaiticus) and I'm not saying that we should let it unduly influence our doctrines of Satan and demonology. I am saying, though, that the underlying notion and perspective found here is generally healthy and helpful.

The enemy has no power, he is as weak as a tendon on a corpse.

Consider how the Mandates end. Here is Hermas, Mandates 12.6.3-5 (Holmes' translation):

(3) Listen to me, therefore, and fear him who is able to do everything, to save and to destroy, and keep these commandments, and you will live to God.” (4) I said to him, “Sir, now I am strengthened in all the Lord’s commandments, because you are with me. I know that you will crush all the power of the devil, and we will rule over him and prevail over all his works. And I hope, sir, that I am now able to keep these commandments which you have commanded, as the Lord enables me.” (5) “You will keep them,” he said, “if your heart is pure toward the Lord; indeed, all who cleanse their hearts of the vain desires of this world will keep them, and will live to God.”
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (417). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Excellent news from Michael Bird (Euangelion).

A series of essays on the Apostolic Fathers that originally appeared in the Expository Times has been collected and is being published by Continuum under their T&T Clark imprint. The book is titled The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com), edited by Paul Foster (who wrote several of the articles, along with other folks like Michael Holmes and Charles Hill). Each article in the series is an overview of one of the works with the corpus popularly known as the "Apostolic Fathers".

This is excellent. I have no journal access and have snagged articles in the series when I've been in libraries, or when the SBL has a free month of access (usually in December) to a select group of journals as a promo for Sage Journals. These promos typically include Expository Times. To have the whole collection, with introduction, edited in one volume is awesome news! It's on my Amazon wishlist and I hope to get it at some point in the future.

I'd recommend The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com) though I've not read all of the essays. The essays I have read have been top-notch. If you're teaching a class on the Apostolic Fathers, it may even serve as a great introductory text.

[Looking into use of the word αυταρκεια this morning (cf. 1Ti 6.6) I came across Hermas Mandates 6.2 and had to post it. — RWB]

36. “Now hear,” he said, “about faith. There are two angels with man, one of righteousness and one of wickedness.” (2) “So how, sir,” I said, “will I recognize their workings, given that both angels live with me?” (3) “Listen,” he said, “and understand them. The angel of righteousness is sensitive and modest and gentle and tranquil. When this one enters your heart, immediately he talks with you about righteousness, about purity, about holiness, about contentment, about every righteous deed, and about every glorious virtue. Whenever all these things enter your heart, you know that the angel of righteousness is with you. These, then, are the works of the angel of righteousness. So trust him and his works. (4) Now observe the works of the angel of wickedness. First of all, he is ill-tempered and bitter and senseless, and his works are evil, tearing down God’s servants. So whenever this one enters your heart, recognize him by his works.” (5) “But I do not know, sir,” I said, “how to recognize him.” “Listen,” he said. “When some angry temperamental outburst or bitterness comes over you, recognize that he is in you. Then comes the desire for much business, and extravagant kinds of foods and drink, and much drunkenness, and various kinds of unnecessary luxuries, and the desire for women, and greed and arrogance and pretentiousness, and whatever else resembles or is similar to these things. So whenever these things enter your heart, you know that the angel of wickedness is with you. (6) Recognizing, therefore, his works, shun him and do not trust him at all, because his works are evil and harmful to God’s servants. You now have, then, the working of both angels; understand them and trust the angel of righteousness. (7) But shun the angel of wickedness, because his teaching is evil in every respect. For even if one is a man of faith and the thought of that angel enters one’s heart, it is inevitable that that man or woman will commit some sin. (8) On the other hand, if one is an extremely sinful man or woman, and the works of the angel of righteousness enter his heart, of necessity he must do something good. (9) You see, then,” he said, “that it is good to follow the angel of righteousness, but to shun the angel of wickedness. (10) This commandment explains the things about faith, in order that you may trust the works of the angel of righteousness, and that doing them, you may live to God. But believe that the works of the angel of wickedness are dangerous, so that by not doing them you will live to God.”

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (amazon.com) (Updated ed.) (391). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

So, the idea of the angel/devil on the shoulder — popularized for me by several Warner Bros. cartoons as I recall — goes back. Way back. Probably further back than Hermas (second century?).

Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 11

Ταῦτα δέ, ἀγαπητοί μου, οὐκ ἐπεὶ ἔγνων τινὰς ἐξ ὑμῶν οὕτως ἔχοντας, ἀλλʼ ὡς μικρότερος ὑμῶν θέλω προφυλάσσεσθαι ὑμᾶς μὴ ἐμπεσεῖν εἰς τὰ ἄγκιστρα τῆς κενοδοξίας, ἀλλὰ πεπληροφορῆσθαι ἐν τῇ γεννήσει καὶ τῷ πάθει καὶ τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ γενομένῃ ἐν καιρῷ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Ποντίου Πιλάτου· πραχθέντα ἀληθῶς καὶ βεβαίως ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, τῆς ἐλπίδος ἡμῶν, ἧς ἐκτραπῆναι μηδενὶ ὑμῶν γένοιτο.
Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (Updated ed.) (Ign. Magn. 11). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

I am not writing these things, my beloved, because I have learned that some of you are behaving like this. But as one who is less important than you I want to protect you from being snagged by the fish hooks of worthless ideas. You should be fully convinced of the birth and suffering and resurrection that occurred in the time of the governor Pontius Pilate. These things were truly and certainly done by Jesus Christ, our hope. From this hope may none of you turn away.
Erhman, B. (2002) The Apostolic Fathers (Ign. Magn. 11). Series: Loeb Classical Library, vol. 23. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

In the past 24 hours, I've been made aware of two (yes two!) groups on Yahoo! that may be of interest to readers of ye olde ricoblog.

Greek Geeks

The first is "Greek Geeks", set up by Bryan Cox who used to blog at the now apparently defunct Biblaridion. Check out a few of his older posts on minuscule handwriting (here and here). Here is Bryan's description of the Greek Geeks group:

Greek Geeks is a discussions group for those who have learned or are in the process of learning ancient Greek, classical and/or Koine, and would like a place to discuss various aspects of the language. Discussions of any type of ancient Greek works are welcomed and encouraged.

Greek Geeks will be a moderated forum in order to create as fun and educational an atmosphere as possible. Certain tangents will be allowed while others will not be allowed. Allowable tangents currently include textual criticism and palaeography (other applicable tangents will be taken into consideration).

Please have fun, but make every effort to be courteous and respectful toward other posters. If a certain topic or a certain poster frustrate you, please think twice (or more) before posting a reply. Be aware that any controversial topics will be closely watched and moderated. For everyone's sake, refrain from making repetitive posts that belabor a particular point that has already been made.

Enjoy the group! If you're new to Greek, ask questions and don't be intimidated. If you've been around Greek forever, share a bit of your knowledge and experience by helping to answer some questions. Have an idea for a topic, project, trivia, game, or whatever, then speak up and let us all hear about it!

Check the Greek Geeks page for subscription info.

Apostolic Fathers

I was made aware of the Apostolic Fathers group by a post on Dr. Jim West's (usually) eponymous blog. Here are the details:

This group is for people who would like to expand their facility in reading New Testament Greek by reading through The Apostolic Fathers, whose writings appeared a little after the completion of the New Testament.

The moderator, David McKay, is most definitely a learner, not an expert, and has only just begun to read these texts himself. He hopes that we can learn from each other.

Subscription info is here. The group is beginning with the Didache, which I've recently worked through.

The good folks at Eisenbrauns had a little book-giveaway via RSS feed a few weeks back. I was one of the 30 lucky book-winners. James Spinti (Idle musings of a bookseller) kindly sent me a copy of:

Holy Spirit and Religious Experience in Christian Literature ca. AD 90-200
with a foreword by James D.G. Dunn
Studies in Christian History and Thought - SCHT
by John Eifion Morgan-Wynne
Paternoster Press, 2006
xxi + 381 pages, English
Paper
ISBN: 1842273191
List Price: $39.99
Your Price: $35.19
www.eisenbrauns.com/wconnect/wc.dll?ebGate~EIS~~I~MORHOLYSP

This is pretty cool because I figured the book I'd end up with would be some sort of deeply technical tome on things Hebrew and semitic. But this one is up my alley. Thanks, James! And Thanks, Eisenbrauns!

Awhile back, I posted some quotations from J.B. Lightfoot. The book is J.B. Lightfoot's The Apostolic Fathers Part I: S. Clement of Rome. A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations and Translations (Volume I). Macmillan: London 1890. I'm still reading the book, and there is a lot of quotable stuff in here. I stop almost nightly to tell Amy, "oh, you gotta hear this!" I'm sure she's sick of me doing that, but she always manages a laugh and a smile. So it's worth trying. :)

Anyway, here are some more quotations.

On responding to a Volkmar's (whoever he is) theory that the book of Judith is an allegory:

I shall not attempt to dissect this theory in detail, for it would be mere waste of time to do so. Those who wish to see it torn into shreds have only to consult the criticisms of Hilgenfeld and Lipsius, who have shown that neither the dates nor the localities nor the incidents will admit it. (p. 356)

On the genuineness of First Clement:

There is lastly the circumstance that its genuiness was never questioned by any individual critic of repute or by any Church for more than seventeen centuries, from the reign of Domitian or Nerva to the reign of Victoria. I pass by one or two writers of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th, whose method deprives them of any weight as authorities, and whose opinions it would be a waste of time to discuss or even record. [NB: he then gives a footnote with two citations, to Lipsius and Harnack, so one could follow up and find the worthless opinions]. (p. 362).

... As a matter of fact, [the passage concerning the phoenix] is one of the best authenticated passages in Clement; and indeeed we may well excuse a simple Christian for a credulity of which not a few among his higly educated heathen contemporaries were guilty (see the note on sect. 25). Again soon after, an Englishman, E. Bernard, suggested that some later impostor had foisted into the text of the Roman Clement some fragments of the Alexandrian who quoted him. This was hardly worth refutation, but it was refuted by Wotton. (p. 363).

That's it for now. More later if/when I come across it.

Update (2007-04-04): ricoblog reader Mike Aubrey (who has his own blog εν εφέσω, check it out) comments:

Rick, I'm trying to make a decision here...Is it worth it to pick up Lightfoot's five volume work on Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp? I know that most of his writings are still quite valuable, but I'm a little nervous about dropping that cash for these volumes.

So, yes its worth it or do you think there are other more recent works that should be invested instead?

Yeesh, I dunno. First off, it's not worth it if you're going into debt. If you're floating a book purchase on a credit card, you're spending money you shouldn't be. If you pay off your card at the end of each month, then go ahead. But don't borrow money to buy books.

Mike, if you're near a decent seminary library or university library with a seminary, then head to the library and check out the volumes and see if they're something you really want to drop the cash on. Alternately, you could try searching Google Books to find 'em. I just did that; here's Ignatius & Polycarp Part II Vol I ; Part II Vol II. I think; I can't guarantee the links will work. But I searched http://books.google.com for "Joseph Barber Lightfoot" clement volume. 

I'd say if you're deep into the Apostolic Fathers, or Clement/Ignatius/Polycarp in particular, then sure. Lightfoot discusses relevant sources and at times even provides them in the original language and translation. The only place I've really learned about the three primary sources of Clement (Alexandrinus, Constinopolitanus, and the Syriac) is via Lightfoot. Sure, other editions (e.g. Ehrman, Holmes, Lake) talk about them in introductions; but Lightfoot actually gives MSS history and does comparison of MS trends in his discussion of textual history of the Clementine epistles. But Lightfoot goes both ways -- I've skipped a massive essay (a book in itself) on Roman succession; in one of the Polycarp volumes there is a massive tome on calendars and dating that is beyond me. Stuff like that I skip over; maybe it'll come in handy some day. But in the five vols. Lightfoot does do a ton of work with citations of the writings in later literature and also with canonical citations in the writings that might be hard to find elsewhere. And he's got commentary on the Greek editions of each writing and then some.

As most regular ricoblog readers know, I have recently completed a series on the Didache. The series included a phrasal breakdown of the text with interlinear translation.

I've compiled all of those individual sections of interlinear translation into one PDF file with an introduction. I have not edited the translation at all, so all errors and oversights still remain. But if you're interested, you can download it for your own use and perusal.

If for some reason you want to use it in a larger context (group context or distribution of some sort), please do check with me first. Thanks!

Update (2007-03-30): I noticed a slight indentation problem in Did 10.6, so I adjusted it and reuploaded the PDF.

In the "best sentences I've read tonight" department, from J.B. Lightfoot's The Apostolic Fathers Part I: S. Clement of Rome. A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations and Translations (Volume I). Macmillan: London 1890.

On the whole this MS appears to give a good text. The shortcomings of the scribe are generally such that they can be easily corrected; for they arise from petty carelessness and ignorance, and not from perverse ingenuity. (p. 120)

Follow-up (2007-03-29): After discussing Alexandrinus' version of First Clement, Lightfoot moves on to the version recorded in the Constantinopolitan MS. On p. 123-124, he writes:

[Constantinopolitanus] is written with a fair amount of care throughout, so far as regards errors of transcription. In this respect it compares favourably with A, which constantly betrays evidence of great negligence on the part of the scribe. But, though far more free from mere clerical errors, yet in all points which vitally affect the trustworthiness of a MS, it must certainly yield the palm to the Alexandrian. The scribe of A may be careless, but he is guileless also. On the other hand the text of C shows manifest traces of critical revision, as will appear in the sequel.

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

¹ Γρηγορεῖτε ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν·
Watch on behalf of your life:
   οἱ λύχνοι ὑμῶν μὴ σβεσθήτωσαν,
   that your lamps are not extinguished,
   καὶ αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκλυέσθωσαν,
   and that your loins are not ungirded,
      ἀλλὰ γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι·
      but be ready:
         οὐ γὰρ οἴδατε τὴν ὥραν,
         for you do not know the hour,
            ἐν ᾗ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἔρχεται.
            in which our Lord comes.

² πυκνῶς δὲ συναχθήσεσθε
Frequently be gathered together
   ζητοῦντες τὰ ἀνήκοντα ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν·
   seeking what your souls need:
      οὐ γὰρ ὠφελήσει ὑμᾶς
      For [it is] of no benefit to you,
         ὁ πᾶς χρόνος τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν,
         the full time of your faith,
         ἐὰν μὴ
         unless
            ἐν τῷ ἐσχάτῳ καιρῷ
            at the last time
         τελειωθῆτε.
         you are found complete.

³ ἐν γὰρ ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις
For in the last days
   πληθυνθήσονται
   shall be multiplied
      οἱ ψευδοπροφῆται
      false prophets
      καὶ οἱ φθορεῖς,
      and corrupters;
   καὶ στραφήσονται τὰ πρόβατα εἰς λύκους,
   and the sheep will be turned into wolves,
   και ἡ ἀγάπη στραφήσεται εἰς μῖσος.
   and love will be turned into hate.

   ⁴ αὐξανούσης γὰρ τῆς ἀνομίας
   For as lawlessness increases
μισήσουσιν ἀλλήλους
they hate one another
   καὶ διώξουσι καὶ παραδώσουσι.
   and they will persecute and betray.

καὶ τότε φανήσεται ὁ κοσμοπλανὴς ὡς υἱὸς θεοῦ,
And then the deceiver of the world shall appear as the son of God,
   καὶ ποιήσει σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα,
   and he shall make signs and wonders,
   καὶ ἡ γῆ παραδοθήσεται εἰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ,
   and the earth will be betrayed into his hands,
   καὶ ποιήσει ἀθέμιτα,
   and he shall do incessantly vile things
      ἃ οὐδέποτε γέγονεν ἐξ αἰῶνος.
      which never before have been since time began.

⁵ τότε ἥξει ἡ κτίσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων
Then the creation of mankind shall come
   εἰς τὴν πύρωσιν τῆς δοκιμασίας,
   into the burning ordeal of testing,
   καὶ σκανδαλισθήσονται πολλοὶ καὶ ἀπολοῦνται,
   And many will be led astray and destroyed,
      οἱ δὲ ὑπομείναντες
      but the ones persisting
         ἐν τῇ πίστει αὐτῶν
         in their faith
         σωθήσονται
         will be saved
            ὑπ ̓ αὐτου τοῦ καταθέματος.
            by the accursed one himself.
            [that is, Christ—the one cursed by those led astray. RWB]

⁶ καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἀληθείας·
And then the signs of the truth shall appear:
   πρῶτον σημεῖον
   Firstly a sign,
      ἐκπετάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ,
      the opening of heaven,
   εἶτα σημεῖον
   the next sign,
      φωνῆς σάλπιγγος,
      the call of a trumpet,
   καὶ τὸ τρίτον
   and the third (sign),
      ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν.
      resurrection of the dead.

⁷ οὐ πάντων δέ,
Not all (of the dead),
   ἀλλ ̓ ὡς ἐρρέθη·
   but as was said:
      Ἥξει ὁ κύριος
      "The Lord shall come
         καὶ πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι μετ ̓ αὐτοῦ.
         and all of the holy ones (shall come) with him".

⁸ τότε ὄψεται ὁ κόσμος τὸν κύριον ἐρχόμενον ἐπάνω τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
Then the world will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

Notes

There are several probable NT parallels in this text, particularly with Matthew 24. I won't rehearse all of those here, that's been done elsewhere. See Alan Garrow's Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache (amazon.com) and the companion book web site; see also Stephen C. Carlson's review of Garrow here and some notes from Mark Goodacre here. I think Garrow claims too much, but that the Didache contains some material also found in Matthew seems plainly evident.

What I will do, however, is look at this section in its larger context. The Didache warned about the way of life and the way of death, commending the way of life. The practice of a believer was set out; things like baptism, eucharist, prayer, hospitality to travelers and prophets and teachers, and leadership of the community have been discussed. After all personal and corporate issues of belief and practice have been highlighted, the Didache ends by looking forward to the days to come.

What will these days consist of? It's not a pretty picture. Things will get worse before they get better.

The most interesting thing I noticed, however, was the parallel between v. 4b and v. 6, with 5 in the midst of that. 4b has "the deceiver of the world" appearing as "the son of God". Verse 6 has "the signs of truth" appearing, with verse 5 summing up what will happen in between those two times. The same verb (which I've translated "appear") is used in both v. 4b and v. 6, which provides the parallel relationship between them.

The Didache ends with hope. As I wrote above, things will get worse before they get better. For the believers, though, things get better. Signs of the impending arrival of the Lord are made evident. A trumpet sounds and the dead (those of the Lord's) are raised. The Lord returns! (marana tha!) And all the world will see it.

Closing Note

Thanks to all who have suffered through these sporadic posts. At some point (hopefully sooner than later) I'll gather all of my translations, perhaps work over them a bit, and put up a version of the whole thing. That'll likely be in a PDF for easy download and printing without worrying about fonts and such. I'll blog when that's ready. Until then, the complete outline is in the series introductory post, so you can work through that if you'd like.

What's next? Well, I'll be delving into a bit of textual criticism. But I also have a hankerin' to eventually get into Second Clement (the first chapter of which I translated awhile back, and I briefly discussed third and fourth chapters here). So we'll see what happens.

So there I was in the doctor's office this morning, reading through Ehrman's edition of Papias and Quadratus (amazon.com), which is volume 2 in the set.

Anybody else notice a skip from p. 108 to p. 111? The pages in my edition are in the following order:

• 108: Latin/Greek of Papias frag. 5 (end) through 8 (start)
• 111: English of Papias frag 8 (end) through 10
• 112: Greek of Papias frag 11 through 12
• 111: English of Papias frag 8 (end) through 10
• 112: Greek of Papias frag 11 through 12
• 113: English of Papias frag 11 through 12

In other words, the bold pages are repeated and pages 109-110 are missing. 109 would have the English of Papis 5 (end) through 8 (start), 110 would have the Greek of Papias 8 (end) through 10.

Does anyone else with this print edition have this problem? If not, could you provide the missing Greek and English to me, either via scanned image or typing it in or whatever? I'd appreciate it.

Update (2007-03-07): Kudos to ricoblog reader Damian who confirmed that his print of Ehrman vol. 2 has the same issue and also provided me with images of the proper pages. Thanks, Damian! In the meantime, I've contacted Harvard University Press regarding the misprint and am awaiting their response. If/when they respond, I'll update this thread.

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

¹ Χειροτονήσατε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς
Appoint for yourselves, therefore,
   ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους
   overseers and deacons
      ἀξίους τοῦ κυρίου,
      holy of the Lord,
   ἄνδρας
   men (who are)
      πραεῖς
      gentle
      καὶ ἀφιλαργύρους
      and not lovers of money
      καὶ ἀληθεῖς
      and truthful
      καὶ δεδοκιμασμένους·
      and well-proven:
         ὑμῖν γὰρ λειτουργοῦσι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν λειτουργίαν τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων.
         for to you they themselves also minister the ministry of prophets and teachers.

² μὴ οὖν ὐπερίδητε αὐτούς·
Therefore you must not disregard them:
   αὐτοὶ γὰρ εἰσιν οἱ τετιμημένοι ὑμῶν
   for they are your honorable ones,
      μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων.
      along with the prophets and teachers.

³ Ἐλέγχετε δὲ ἀλλήλους
Correct one another
   μὴ ἐν ὀργῇ,
   not in anger,
      ἀλλ ̓ ἐν εἰρήνῃ
      but in peace
ὡς ἔχετε
as you find
   ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ·
   in the gospel:
      καὶ παντὶ ἀστοχοῦντι
      and anyone who has done wrong
         κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου
         against another
      μηδεὶς λαλείτω
      shall not be spoken to
         μηδὲ παρ ̓ ὑμῶν ἀκουέτω,
         nor shall he hear from you
            ἕως οὗ μετανοήσῃ.
            until he repents.

   ⁴ τὰς δὲ εὐχὰς ὑμῶν
   But your prayers,
   καὶ τὰς ἐλεημοσύνας
   and your charity,
   καὶ πάσας τὰς πράξεις
   and all your observance
οὕτω ποιήσατε,
in this way do:
   ὡς ἔχετε
   as you find
      ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.
      in the gospel of our Lord.

Notes

The beginning of the chapter transitions with a "therefore". Didache 14 is about keeping pure, Didache 15 transitions into leadership and other community guidelines. Thus I can only reason that proper leadership (overseers and deacons) combined with proper teaching (prophets and teachers), proper relationship (respond in peace, not anger), and proper practice (say prayers, give alms, etc.) all combine to ensure that the Eucharist is properly kept.

The problematic portion here, for me, is verse 3 which deals with the unrepentant one: He is to not hear from anyone until he repents. But that is prefaced with correcting in peace and not anger, as is "found in the gospel". The reference to the gospel, I'd think, must relate to Mt 18.15-20—particularly given the commonality of Matthew's gospel referenced in the Didache. So one has first approached the brother, then a group of two or three has approached him, then he has been put before the church. After this, then, the unrepentant brother is to be "as a Gentile and tax collector" (Mt 18.17). So I don't think it is as harsh as it seems once we plug in what the gospel says.

Next up: Didache 16. That's the last chapter!

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

   ¹ Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες
   Upon coming together on the Lord's Day of the Lord
κλάσατε ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσατε,
break bread and hold the Lord's Supper,
   προεξομολογησάμενοι τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν,
   confessing your sins beforehand,
      ὅπως καθαρὰ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν ᾖ.
      so that your offering may be pure.

   ² πᾶς δὲ ἔχων τὴν ἀμφιβολίαν
   And all those having a quarrel
      μετὰ τοῦ ἑταίρου αὐτοῦ
      with another of your number,
μὴ συνελθέτω ὑμῖν,
do not let them gather with you
   ἕως οὗ διαλλαγῶσιν,
   until they have reconciled
      ἵνα μὴ κοινωθῇ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν.
      so that your offering may not be defiled.

³ αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ῥηθεῖσα ὑπὸ κυρίου·
For this is what the Lord says:
   Ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ καὶ χρόνῳ προσφέρειν μοι θυσίαν καθαράν.
   "In every place and time offer me a pure offering.
      ὅτι βασιλεὺς μέγας εἰμί,
      For I am a great king,"
   λέγει κύριος,
   says the Lord,
      καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου θαυμαστὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσι.
      "and my name is great among the nations".

Notes

The liturgy (that word is too formal for the context, I think, but you get what I mean) for Eucharist was given in Didache 9 and Didache 10. Here in Didache 14, the view is from a higher level. It assumes that the process for the meal is known and instead focuses on when to hold the feast (on "Lord's Days of the Lord", a curious phrase) and how to prepare for the feast.

Preparation involves confessing one's own transgressions and also reconciling any quarrels, fights, misunderstandings and whatnot one has with anyone else. This likely comes from Mt 5.23-24:

²³ So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, ²⁴ leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. (Mt 5.23-24, ESV)

This degree of preparation is justified with appeals to what "the Lord" says. Niederwimmer (in his commentary [amazon] (amazon.com)) finds basis for the second quotation in Mal 1.11 and Mal 1.14. I say why not the whole range?:

¹¹ For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts. ¹² But you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted, and its fruit, that is, its food may be despised. ¹³ But you say, ‘What a weariness this is,’ and you snort at it, says the Lord of hosts. You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick, and this you bring as your offering! Shall I accept that from your hand? says the Lord. ¹⁴ Cursed be the cheat who has a male in his flock, and vows it, and yet sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished. For I am a great King, says the Lord of hosts, and my name will be feared among the nations. (Mal 1.11-14, ESV, emphasis added)

The whole range has to do with purity for one's offering, and that is really what Didache 14 is getting at: When we come before the Lord, we are to offer him our best, so we confess our sin and we also make right our relationships with others.

Also worthy of note is Niederwimmer's summary of some previous chapters:

In retrospect we find a more or less cogent train of thought here. While in chaps. 11–13 the Didachist had, in a sense, looked outward (toward the arriving guests of the community), in chaps. 14–15 he looks inward (at the relationships within the community itself). In doing so he touches on two groups of questions: on the one hand the moral status of the community, and on the other hand problems that arise with regard to the leadership of the community (the subject of chap. 15). In the first instance he decrees that the community may only offer its eucharistic sacrifice in a pure state when (1) the members have been purified of sin by a previous confession, and (2) all quarrels have been cleansed away by a prior reconciliation. Only in this way can the sacrificing community be clean; only in this way can it offer the pure, eschatological sacrifice prophesied by Malachi.
Niederwimmer, K., & Attridge, H. W. (1998). The Didache : A commentary (amazon.com). Facsims. on lining papers. Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (199). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Next up: Didache 15

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

¹ Πᾶς δὲ προφήτης ἀληθινὸς
But every true prophet
   θέλων καθῆσθαι
   (who) wishes to reside
      πρὸς ὑμᾶς
      among you
ἄξιός ἐστι τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ.
is worthy of his food.

² ὡσαύτως διδάσκαλος ἀληθινός ἐστιν ἄξιος
In the same way a true teacher is worthy
   καὶ αὐτὸς ὥσπερ ὁ ἐργάτης
   and he, just as the worker,
   τῆς τροφῆς αὐτοῦ.
   (is worthy) of his food.

³ πᾶσαν οὖν ἀπαρχὴν γεννημάτων ληνοῦ
Therefore all of the firstfruits of the produce of the winepress
   καὶ ἅλωνος,
   and (of the produce of the) threshing floor,
   βοῶν τε καὶ προβάτων λαβὼν
   and of (the produce of) oxen and sheep take (all of the firstfruits),
      δώσεις τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῖς προφήταις·
      and you shall give (them) as firstfruits to the prophets:
         αὐτοὶ γάρ εἰσιν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς ὑμῶν.
         for they are your high priests.

⁴ ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχητε προφήτην,
And if you do not have a prophet,
   δότε τοῖς πτωχοῖς.
   give (the firstfruits) to the poor.

⁵ ἐὰν σιτίαν ποιῇς,
If you make bread,
   τὴν ἀπαρχὴν λαβὼν
   take the firstfruits
   δὸς
   and give (them)
      κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν.
      according to the commandment.

⁶ ὡσαύτως κεράμιον οἴνου ἢ ἐλαίου ἀνοίξας,
Likewise, when you open a jar of wine or olives,
   τὴν ἀπαρχὴν λαβὼν
   take the firstfruits
      δὸς τοῖς προφήταις·
      and give (them) to the prophets.
⁷ ἀργυρίου δὲ
And of money
   καὶ ἱματισμοῦ
   and of clothing
   καὶ παντὸς κτήματος
   and of all possessions,
      λαβὼν τὴν ἀπαρχήν,
      take the firstfruits,
         ὡς ἂν σοι δόξῃ,
         however you deem worthy,
         δὸς
         and give (them)
            κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν.
            according to the commandment.

Notes

The progression from chapter 11 to chapter 13 is clear. True teachers have been distinguished; those foreigners entering the fellowship have been tested to see if they will work for their keep. Verses 1-2 sum this up: "true" prophets and teachers (you know, the ones who jive with what's described in chaps 11-12) are "worthy" just as those who work for their food are worthy.

The "prophets" are to receive the "firstfruits". Much like Israelite society of old took care of the priests via offering of firstfruits, so the Didachist's community (communities?) are to take care of the prophets (and teachers, I'd guess) through the offering of firstfruits. Several categories are hit: produce of the winepress, threshing floor, sheep and oxen; bread, olives, wine; money clothing and "of all possessions". The approach is the same as found in the NT lists of vice and virtue; mention some of the larger items and areas intended, even overlapping (e.g. "produce of the winepress" and later "wine") and follow it up with a catch-all: "of all possessions".

Also note that communities that had no prophet were to similarly give of firstfruits, but instead were to give the produce to the poor.

Next up: Didache 14. We're in the home stretch, three chapters left. But the last one (Did 16) is a doozy!

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

¹ Πᾶς δὲ ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου δεχθήτω·
But everyone coming in the name of the Lord let be received:
   ἔπειτα δὲ δοκιμάσαντες αὐτὸν γνώσεσθε,
   When you have examined him, you will know him,
      σύνεσιν γὰρ ἕξετε δεξιὰν καὶ ἀριστεράν.
      for you will be able to distinguish [whether he is] true or false.

² εἰ μὲν παρόδιός ἐστιν ὁ ἐρχόμενος,
If the one coming is a traveler,
   βοηθεῖτε αὐτῷ, ὅσον δύνασθε·
   help him, as far as you are able.
   οὐ μενεῖ δὲ πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰ μὴ δύο ἢ τρεῖς ἡμέρας,
   but he shall not remain among you more than two or three days,
      ἐὰν ᾖ ἀνάγκη.
      if there is need.

³ εἰ δὲ θέλει πρὸς ὑμᾶς καθῆσθαι,
If he desires to stay with you,
   τεχνίτης ὤν,
   being an artisan,
   ἐργαζέσθω καὶ φαγέτω.
   let him work and eat.

⁴ εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔχει τέχνην,
But if he has no craft,
   κατὰ τὴν σύνεσιν ὑμῶν προνοήσατε,
   take this into consideration according to your understanding,
   πῶς μὴ ἀργὸς μεθ ̓ ὑμῶν ζήσεται Χριστιανός.
   that nobody who is idle shall live among you as a Christian.

⁵ εἰ δ ̓οὐ θέλει οὕτω ποιεῖν,
If he will not do this,
   χριστέμπορός ἐστι·
   he is trading on Christ:
      προσέχετε ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων.
      stay away from such as these.

Notes

This is a logical follow-up to Didache 11, which dealt with discerning true teachers from false teachers. This is a further corollary, it seems. Those who come to the fellowship are to be received. If they're just Christians passing through, that's fine. They can hang out for two, maybe three days at the maximum. But if they want to stay with the fellowship, they must have something to contribute.

My sense (as I'm writing this, I haven't thought about it more than when I translated it a few days ago) is that the bit in verse 1 about "examining" is referring to the previous section, Didache 11. In other words, the Didachist is saying, "When you check out this new person -- you know, like I just showed you -- you'll know if they are fellow believers, or if they're not."

If it is a fellow believer who is just passing through, then the fellowship is to help meet the traveler's need as they are able. If the "traveler" wants to make an extended stay, this is a clue that they could be a freeloader whose only interest in Christ is room and board. In that case, the traveler must be put to the test: Is he willing to work for his keep? If he is, then he is to be welcomed. If he is unable, he must be reminded that freeloading isn't an option and they must come to some equitable arrangement.

If the traveler wants to stay, but will not work, he is to be removed from the fellowship and sent along his way.

The word I translated "trading on Christ" could literally be translated "Christmonger". The idea is that this person is using the name of Christ for his own needs. He is no Christian, he only acknowledges the teachings for his own ill-gotten gain. These, says the Didachist, are to be avoided.

Preach it.

It's advice like this that is so practical and sensible that endears me to the Didache.

Next up: Didache 13.

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Ὃς ἂν οὖν ἐλθὼν διδάξῃ ὑμᾶς ταῦτα πάντα τὰ προειρημένα,
Therefore whomever comes and teaches you all these things mentioned before,
   δέξασθε αὐτόν·
   receive him:
ἐὰν δὲ αὐτὸς ὁ διδάσκων στραφεὶς διδάσκῃ ἄλλην διδαχὴν εἰς τὸ καταλῦσαι,
But if the teacher himself turns away and teaches a different teaching to destroy (all these things mentioned before),
   μὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε·
   do not listen to him.
εἰς δὲ τὸ προσθεῖναι δικαιοσύνην καὶ γνῶσιν κυρίου,
But if (his teaching) is for the increase of righteousness and knowledge of the Lord,
   δέξασθε αὐτὸν ὡς κύριον.
   receive him as the Lord.

Περὶ δὲ τὼν ἀποστόλων καὶ προπητῶν,
Concerning the apostles and prophets,
   κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὕτω ποιήσατε.
   according to the ordinances of the gospel, in this way act.

πᾶς δὲ ἀπόστολος ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς δεχθήτω ὡς κύριος·
Let every apostle coming to you be received as the Lord.
   οὐ μενεῖ δὲ εἰ μὴ ἡμέραν μίαν·
   Do not let him remain more than one day;
      ἐὰν δὲ ᾖ χρεία, καὶ τὴν ἄλλην·
      and if it is necessary, another.
   τρεῖς δὲ ἐὰν μείνῃ,
   But if he stays three days,
      ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστίν.
      he is a false prophet.

ἐξερχόμενος δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος μηδὲν λαμβανέτω εἰ μὴ ἄρτον,
When an apostle goes out from you, let him accept nothing but bread
   ἕως οὗ αὐλισθῇ·
   until he finds lodging.
   ἐὰν δὲ ἀργύριον αἰτῇ,
   If he asks for money,
      ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί.
      he is a false prophet.

Καὶ πάντα προφήτην λαλοῦντα ἐν πνεύματι οὐ πειράσετε οὐδὲ διακρινεῖτε·
Any prophet speaking in a spirit do not test or judge;
   πᾶσα γὰρ ἁμαρτία ἀφεθήσεται,
   for every sin shall be forgiven,
      αὕτη δὲ ἡ ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται.
      but this sin shall not be forgiven.

οὐ πᾶς δὲ ὁ λαλῶν ἐν πνεύματι προφήτης ἐστίν,
But not everyone who speaks in a spirit is a prophet,
   ἀλλ ̓ ἐὰν ἔχῃ τοὺς τρόπους κυρίου.
   but only if he has the manner of the Lord.

ἀπὸ οὖν τῶν τρόπων γνωσθήσεται ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης καὶ ὁ προφήτης.
Therefore one's manner will distinguish the false prophet from the (true) prophet.

καὶ πᾶς προφήτης ὁρίζων τράπεζαν ἐν πνεύματι οὐ φάγεται ἀπ ̓ αὐτῆς,
And every prophet who orders a meal in a spirit will not eat from it,
   εἰ δὲ μήγε ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί.
   if he does otherwise, he is a false prophet.

πᾶς δὲ προφήτης διδάσκων τὴν ἀλήθειαν,
But every prophet who teaches the truth,
   εἰ ἃ διδάσκει οὐ ποιεῖ,
   if what he teaches he does not do,
   ψευδοπρφήτης ἐστί.
   he is a false prophet.

πᾶς δὲ προφήτης δεδοκιμασμένος,
But every prophet having been tested
   ἀληθινός,
   and found true;
   ποιῶν εἰς μυστήριον κοσμικὸν ἐκκλησίας,
   (who is) making a worldly mystery of the church,
      μὴ διδάσκων δὲ ποιεῖν,
      but not teaching (others) to do
         ὅσα αὐτὸς ποιεῖ,
         what he himself does,
      οὐ κριθήσεται ἐφ ̓ ὑμῶν·
      he shall not be judged by you:
         μετὰ θεοῦ γὰρ ἔχει τὴν κρίσιν·
         For with God he has his judgment;
            ὡσαύτως γὰρ ἐποίησαν καὶ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι προφῆται.
            just as it was with the ancient prophets.

ὃς δ ̓ ἂν εἴπῃ ἐν πνεύματι·
But whomever says in a spirit:
   δός μοι ἀργύρια ἢ ἕτερά τινα,
   "Give me silver or some other thing",
οὐκ ἀκούσεσθε αὐτοῦ·
you shall not listen to him.

ἐὰν δὲ περὶ ἄλλων ὑστερούντων εἴπῃ δοῦναι,
But if concerning others who are in need he says to give (to them),
   μηδεὶς αὐτὸν κρινέτω.
   no one should judge him.

Notes

This section has to do with those who come to the community purporting to have roles of authority (i.e. prophets or apostles). I think that the "apostles" in mind here are more akin to the normal use of the word (those sent from one church to another) and not having to do with the title of apostle claimed by Paul and the eleven original disciples of Jesus. 

There's a large part of me that thinks that "Christian" television networks (ahem: TBN and others) should run this text on the half-hour as a public service announcement, reminding those watching that the ones proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ are to preach Christ, they're not to be asking for stuff for themselves (you know, like "seed money"). Also, the ones proclaiming the gospel are the ones who hold to their own teaching and evidence their own teaching in their day-to-day actions.

The first line is interesting, mentioning "all these things mentioned before". The true teacher is to affirm the teaching of the Didachist; if a teacher brings contrary teaching, he is suspect.

The third verse, "Concerning apostles and prophets ... " is also worthy of (at least) brief discussion. As I read it, it is a preface to the guidelines that follow. The phrase "in this way act" looks forward to the prescriptions in the following text as they deal with apostles and prophets. The "ordinances of the gospel" are not specified though I'd guess they're in line with the general principles established in the following verses.

Also note that in verses 4 and 6, the text starts out specifying "apostles" who have arrived from a church/fellowship/community and who are sent out. These "apostles" (ones sent out) are to be considered "false prophets". It's interesting that they're not to be considered "false apostles" but "false prophets". These are basic guidelines for recieving someone sent by another church, or for those apostles sent out by a particular church as they're traveling.

So, what sorts of actions would lead a believer to consider an apostle or prophet to be a "false prophet"?

• If an 'apostle' remains for more than two days, he is a false prophet.
• If an 'apostle' accepts something besides food while traveling, he is a false prophet.
• If a 'prophet' speaks in a spirit in a manner not "of the Lord", he is false.
• If a 'prophet' requests a meal while in a spirit, and eats of that meal, he is false.
• If the teaching of a 'prophet' does not match his actions, he is false.
• If a 'prophet' requests money or valuables or some other thing for himself, he is false.

What about true apostles or prophets?

• If an apostle stays for a day, perhaps two, he is true.
• If an apostle only accepts food while traveling, he is true.
• If a prophet happens to order a meal while 'with a spirit' and does not eat of it, he is true.

There is a third option; where prophets are not to be judged positively or negatively:

• If an apostle or prophet's teaching jives with the Didachist's, he's in the clear.
• If a prophet says to give to those in need, he is not to be judged.

One major question I have after looking at this chapter has to do with how missionaries and mission organizations present themselves to individual believers and local bodies of believers (churches). I realize the Didache isn't scripture, but these warnings are sensible. How do we evaluate such presentations that, while detailing specific ministries and their impact, are really little but requests for funding? It really makes me think that I should be more aware of how much a given person or organization is about simply proclaiming the Lord, and not how much it is about helping social situations supposedly in the name of the Lord. This requires more thought ...

Next up: Didache 12

In reading Jefford's The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament, I noticed a citation that sounded interesting:

Finally, this volume is not designed to be a methodical, text-critical comparison of the New Testament texts with parallels from the apostolic fathers, focusing upon the variations in manuscripts and sources. In that vein, several worthy efforts have already been made to cover the entire corpus of the apostolic fathers in the past, including the early work of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology in 1905 ... (Jefford 3)

A footnote goes on to descibe this volume:

A Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford: Clarendon, 1905).

On a whim, hoping to find more information about this title, I googled for it. And I was amazed when I saw an archive.org link in the results, because that usually means that an edition of the work is available. And it is! PDF (10 megs) is sitting on a server waiting for you to grab it and devour it.

I'd recommend clicking on the "Keyword" links to search for other available items.

Update (2007-01-08): The folks here at Logos figured this would be a good "Community Pricing" title. See the product page for more info.

Also, for those longsuffering ones out there who have been waiting for the Logos editions of the Apostolic Fathers in Greek and English, please know that I'm working on it right now (sorting out some issues with morphological annotations of each edition) and hope to make good progess on it in the near-term. It's probably 2/3 of the way there, though sometimes the last bit can be a bit of a push.

I've begun to work Clayton N. Jefford's latest book from Hendrickson Publishers' Academic imprint into my reading schedule. The book is The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament. Full disclosure: the book was sent to me by Hendrickson Academic. And I was happy to receive it; I'd noticed the title a few months back and almost picked up a copy at SBL but I decided not to.

So as I read a chapter or two, I'll blog about the book. I've read the introduction and the first chapter, so I'll start with those — after I post the Table of Contents. Note that Hendrickson have the TOC, the Introduction and a sample chapter on their web site. The sample chapter is chapter 1.

• Introduction: How to Talk about the Apostolic Fathers?
• Chapter 1: Finding a Time and Place for the Texts
• Chapter 2: The Authority of Texts and Traditions
• Chapter 3: Codes of Conduct and Christian Thinking
• Chapter 4: Imagery of the New Testament Faith
• Chapter 5: The Question of Christians as Jews
• Chapter 6: The Question of Christians as Citizens
• Chapter 7: How Persons and Places Influence History
• Conclusion: The Significance of the Apostolic Fathers for New Testament Study
• Index of Subjects
• Index of Ancient Sources 

At this point in my reading of the book, my summary is: "Helpful information in an approachable format. A good place to start if you're a student of the NT entering into study of the Apostolic Fathers".

Jefford's information is good and he surveys the landscape fairly well in Chapter 1. One thing I've noticed, however, is the apologetic tone of the book. A good book should convey to me the author's research, findings and conclusions unapologetically. Some authors, however (particularly in academic settings, and often in conference papers and such where presentations can be defensive in nature) have a need to state that they're telling you their opinion, then state their tidbit, then remind you that this was only their opinion and that critical minds diverge on the issue. This is fine (to some degree) in an introduction where one is stating methodology and intent and also when surveying large amounts of data where there are ranges of views and no clear, succinct data points. So in Jefford's introduction and first chapter this is OK, though I do think he does this overmuch. He does it at the start of chapter 1:

"The present chapter is offered as a means by which to differentiate where and when the texts of the apostolic fathers were penned, at least as I understand the situation. I am fully aware that a variety of views may be found within the secondary literature. ... (Jefford 7)

The above fine and helpful (though I'm not a fan of first-person singular dialogue in the context of academic writing). But it goes on for three paragraphs, and again in each subsection conclusion of the chapter. Please don't get me wrong; the information is good and likely helpful as an introduction to the Apostolic Fathers for students of the NT. But when almost everything is couched in this type of permission-asking terminology, it makes me wonder about the author who is writing the material. I've given him permission to tell me his opinion and/or conclusions by reading the book; he shouldn't have to come to me sheepishly with his material.

I don't want to be too harsh, and, as I said, that sort of thing can be appropriate in introductions and surveys. I'm hoping it tones down as the book progresses. I'll keep y'all posted as I read.

Update: I finished the book up. I had a slight criticism of the first few chapters: Jefford seemed apologetic in making his views known as opinions. I'm pleased to say that the balance of the book didn't exhibit that same degree of apology. Overall the book was good and it provides decent introduction and discussion particularly on the issues of "Christians as Jews" (chapter 5) and "Christians as Citizens" (chapter 6).

Also note that Danny at Deinde reviews Jefford's work as well. Do check out his take. 

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἐμπλησθῆσαι οὗτως εὐχαριστήσατε·
But when you have been satisfied with food, in this way give thanks:

   Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, πάτερ ἅγιε,
   We give thanks to you, O Holy Father,
      ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἁγίου ὀνόματός σου,
      according to your holy name,
         οὗ κατεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν,
         which you caused to dwell in our hearts,
      καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς γνώσεως καὶ πίστεως καὶ ἀθανασίας,
      and according to the knowledge and faith and immortality
         ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν
         which you made known to us
            διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου·
            through Jesus your child;
      σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
      to you be glory forever.

   σύ, δέσποτα παντοκράτορ,
   You, all-powerful master,
      ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός σου,
      created all things for the sake of your name;
      τροφήν τε καὶ ποτὸν ἔδωκας τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἰς ἀπόλαυσιν,
      both food and drink you gave to people for their enjoyment,
         ἵνα σοι εὐχαριστήσωσιν,
         so that they might give thanks to you;
      ἡμῖν δὲ ἐχαρίσω
      but to us you have graciously given
         πνευματικὴν τροφὴν
         spiritual food
         καὶ ποτὸν
         and drink
         καὶ ζωὴν αἰώνιον
         and life eternal
            διὰ τοῦ παιδός σου.
            through your child.

   πρὸ πάντων εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι,
   Above all things we give thanks to you,
      ὅτι δυνατὸς εἶ·
      because you are powerful;
      σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
      to you be glory forever.

   μνήσθητι, κύριε, τῆς ἐκκλησίας σου,
   Remember, Lord, your church,
      τοῦ ῥύσασθαι αὐτὴν
      to deliver it
         ἀπὸ παντὸς πονηροῦ
         from all evil
   καὶ τελειῶσαι αὐτὴν
      and to perfect it
         ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου,
         in your love
      καὶ σύναξον αὐτὴν
      and gather it
         ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, τὴν ἁγιασθεῖσαν,
         from the four winds, in its holiness,
         εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν, ἣν ἡτοίμασας αὐτῇ·
         into your kingdom, which you prepared for it;
      ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
      for yours is the power and the glory forever.

   ἐλθέτω χάρις
   Come, grace
      καὶ παρελθέτω ὁ κόσμος οὗτος.
      and let this world pass away.

   Ὡσαννὰ τῷ θεῷ Δαυείδ.
   Hosanna to the God of David!

   εἴ τις ἅγιός ἐστιν,
   If anyone is holy,
   ἐρχέσθω·
      let them come.
   εἴ τις οὐκ ἔστι,
   If anyone is not,
      μετανοείτω·
      let them repent.

   μαρὰν ἀθά·
   Maranatha!

   ἀμήν.
   Amen.

τοῖς δὲ προφήταις ἐπιτρέπετε εὐχαριστεῖν ὅσα θέλουσιν.
But allow the prophets to pray as they desire.

Notes

Upon reading the first line, my first question was to wonder if the "satisfaction" referred to had to do with meals in general, or if it had to do with the Lord's Supper in specific since that section immediately precedes this. I wonder further based on the reference to "spiritual food and drink" later on. I'm not sure what to think about this and am open to any insight or comment. Niederwimmer, in his Hermeneia volume on the Didache, states that the meal in question takes place "between chaps. 9 and 10" (Niederwimmer, 155) and refers to a meal that fully satisfies. But if the context is that of the Eucharist, a spiritual meal, how couldn't that meal fully satisfy its purpose? Seems to me this isn't as clear-cut as Nederwimmer makes it out to be.

Anyway, I'm still thinking about that and if you have insight I'd love to hear it.

Next I noticed the role of "the name" in this passage. Note the model prayer starts with giving thanks to God "according to" or "on behalf of" his "holy name"; and that it is "the name" that is "caused to dwell within our hearts". Interesting, particularly in light of the role of the name in the Hebrew Bible. And later we have almighty God creating all things "for the sake of" his name. I suppose these could be shades of reference to the Lord's Prayer ("hallowed be your name") or perhaps areas like Mt 10.22, "in my name's sake". Similar instances are found elsewhere in Matthew (18.5, 20; 19.29; 21.9; 23.39; 24.9) and similar passages in the balance of the Gospels. I'm not sure if there is anything there since the passages aren't exactly analogous, but I thought I'd bring it up.

Another interesting thing was the repetition of the line "through Jesus your child" indicating as the agent through which God gave or made known. Thus, according to the Didachist, the "knowledge of faith and immortality" was made known to us by God through his child Jesus and also the "spiritual food and drink and life eternal" through his child (the same child though the name isn't repeated).

Each verse in the Lake numbering from verse 2 through verse 5 is a sentence and a logical section. Note that verses 2 and 4 end with "to you be glory forever" and verse 5 ends with a similar mini-benediction, "for yours is the power and the glory forever". What's up with verse 3? Well, verse 4 is pretty short and refers to God via pronoun reference. Perhaps verses 3-4 form one unit of the prayer instead, with the units as v. 2, 3-4, 5 with the closing benediction(s) in v. 6. This would allow for v. 5 to wrap it up with its somewhat different form.

Verse 6 is also interesting as it is a series of five short statements, at least as I've broken it up. The image of grace moving into and the world moving away (using ἐλθέτω and παρελθέτω) is nice.

The next statement, "Hosanna to the God of David" sounds like someone was reading the Psalms. Indeed, I don't find any use of "God of David" in the NT. The only personal names used to qualify "God" (θεός) in the NT are those of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The next statement sounds something along the same lines as Re 22.17 but not quite. I don't think there's a parallel there, but the saying sounds similar to something I think I should remember but can't.

The μαρὰν ἀθά could allude to 1Co 16.22 (and also Re 22.20?). But that saying could be so prevalent in the developing church that a direct allusion is not necessary, I'd think. Note Niederwimmer sees parallels between this statement and the previous and 1Co 16.22.

After all of this specification on how to pray following a meal (again, could that be referring to the eucharist proper?) the note of the Didachist in verse 7, allowing the prophets to pray (after a meal, I'd guess) as they wish is curious. Is the model prayer more of a guideline and less of a prescription? And who are these "prophets" and what role did they play in the early church?

Final note: The Coptic witness to the Didache has an insertion after v. 7. According to Niederwimmer (excursus, p. 165), the insertion is as follows:

“But (δέ) because of the word of the oil of anointing (? [ⲥⲧ]ⲓⲛⲟⲩϥⲓ: see immediately below) give thanks, saying: ‘We thank you, Father, for the oil of anointing (? ⲥⲧⲓⲛ[ⲟⲩ]ϥⲓ) that you have made known through Jesus your Son (ϣⲏⲣⲓ; the Coptic has the same word also in 10.3 end; but at this point, as in 10.3, the Coptic word was certainly intended to reflect παῖς). Thine is (the) glory forever. Amen (ἀμήν).’ ”
Niederwimmer, K., & Attridge, H. W. (1998). The Didache : A commentary. Facsims. on lining papers. Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible (165). Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

I only add this as it is interesting; I have no plans to discuss it.

Next up: Didache 11. Hopefully it won't take as long to get to that as it did to get to Didache 10.

Nothing new this year. Here are my Reformation Day posts from the past two years:

• Reformation Day Reading (2005): Links to a PDF copy of the 95 Theses
• Reading on All Hallow's Eve (2004): Links to each chapter of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, in both English and Greek.

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Περὶ δὲ τῆς εὐχαριστίας, οὕτως εὐχαριστήσατε·
Concerning the Eucharist, Eucharistise* in this way.
   πρῶτον περὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου·
   First, concerning the cup:
      Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι,
      We give thanks to you,
         πάτερ ἡμῶν,
         our Father,
         ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας ἀμπέλου Δαυεὶδ τοῦ παιδός σου,
         for the holy vine of David your son,
            ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου·
            which you made known to us through Jesus your son;
      σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
      glory to you forever.

   περὶ δὲ τοῦ κλάσματος·
   Next, concerning the broken bread:
      Εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι,
      We give thanks to you,
         πάτερ ἡμῶν,
         our Father,
         ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ γνώσεως,
         for the life and the knowledge
            ἧς ἐγνώρισας ἡμῖν διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ παιδός σου.
            which you made known to us through Jesus your son;
      σοὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
      glory to you forever.

ὥσπερ ἦν τοῦτο τὸ κλάσμα διεσκορπισμένον ἐπάνω τῶν ὀρέων
Just as this broken bread had been scattered over the mountains,
   καὶ συναχθὲν ἐγένετο ἕν,
   was brought together and has become one;
οὕτω συναχθήτω σου ἡ ἐκκλησία
likewise bring together your church
   ἀπὸ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς
   from the ends of the earth
      εἰς τὴν σὴν βασιλείαν.
      into your Kingdom.
   ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δόξα
   So yours is the glory
      καὶ ἡ δύναμις
      and the power
         διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
         through Jesus Christ
      εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
      forever.

μηδεὶς δὲ φαγέτω μηδὲ πιέτω
But none shall eat or drink
   ἀπὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ὑμῶν,
   from your Eucharist,
   ἀλλ’ οἱ βαπτισθέντες
   but those baptised
      εἰς ὄνομα κυρίου·
      in the name of the Lord;
   καὶ γὰρ περὶ τούτου εἴρηκεν ὁ κύριος·
   for concerning this the Lord said:
      Μὴ δῶτε τὸ ἅγιον τοῖς κυσί.
      “Do not give what is holy to dogs”.

* “Eucharistise” simply verbs the noun to keep the Greek wordplay in the English. It could also be translated partake in the Eucharist.

Notes

First off, the structural consistency of the section regarding the cup and the section regarding the bread is obvious, moreso in the above indented view.

Also interesting is the seemingly inverted order of the Eucharist. The cup is given thanks for first, then the bread. Today, Communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist services (that I'm aware of, anyway) typically take the bread first, as the gospels (Mk 14.22-25 || Mt 26.26-29 || Lu 14.14-23) and First Corinthians (1Co 11.23-34) testify.

The opportunity to pray for the unity of the Church is also refreshing. This isn't unity in the way we hear of today ("can't we just all get along?") but unity in end: We are saved, and we will enter into his Kingdom. The Eucharist points toward this, reminding us of the sacrifice of Christ and of the redemption his blood purchases for us. This redemption is powerful and sacred; it glorifies Christ as he assembles his own, building his kingdom.

It would be most wonderful if this aspect of "unity" was preached more frequently, and if the other aspect ("let's just agree to be tolerant look the other way on topics we disagree on") were preached on far, far less frequently.

Because the Eucharist is sacred, it is only to be celebrated (yes, celebrated!) by those who have been redeemed; only by those who proclaim Christ as their Saviour. Mt 7.6 is quoted in support of this practice.

Next up: Didache 10

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Αἱ δὲ νηστεῖαι ὑμῶν μὴ ἔστωσαν μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν.
Do not have your fasts with the hypocrites.

νηστεύουσι γὰρ δευτέρᾳ σαββάτων καὶ πέμπτῃ·
For they fast on the second day after the sabbath [Mondays], and the fifth [Thursdays].
   ὑμεῖς δὲ νηστεύσατε τετράδα καὶ παρασκευήν.
   But you are to fast on the fourth day [Wednesdays] and the day of preparation [Fridays].

μηδὲ προσεύχεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί,
Neither are you to pray as the hypocrites,
   ἀλλ ̓ ὡς ἐκέλευσεν ὁ κύριος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ αὐτοῦ,
   but as the Lord commanded in his gospel,
   οὕτω προσεύχεσθε·
   pray in this way:
      Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
      Our Father who is in Heaven,
      ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου,
      Let your name be holy,
      ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου,
      May your kingdom come,
      γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου
      Let your will be done
         ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς·
         as in heaven so on earth;
      τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸ ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον,
      our daily bread, give us daily,
      καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἡμῶν,
      and forgive us our debts,
         ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφίεμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν,
         as we forgive those indebted to us,
      καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν,
      and do not lead us into temptation,
      ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ·
      but rescue us from the evil one,
         ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας.
         because yours is the power and the glory for the ages.

τρὶς τῆς ἡμέρας οὕτω προσεύχεσθε.
Pray in this way three times daily.

Notes

This short chapter provides information on when to fast. The Christian is to differentiate fasting practice from the "hypocrites" by fasting on different days.

Additionally, the prayer of the Christian is to differ from the prayers of the hypocrites. No information on the prayer of the hypocrites is given, but a sample prayer is given to the baptismal candidate. It is the Lord's Prayer in the form we find it in Matthew (Mt 6.9-13) with one or two small differences ("in the heaven" Did 8.2 vs. "in the heavens" Mt 6.9).

The Christian is to pray this way three times daily. So, in the past few chapters, we've got a bit of insight into the life the baptismal candidate was expected to live. He was to fast for a few days before the baptism. He was to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. And he was to pray the Lord's prayer three times daily.

Looking in this light, we begin to see that the Didache had information on how one who claims Christ should live. The practices described by the Didache are very practially oriented. Now, I don't want to get into legalism and works-based salvation, but sometimes it is good to be reminded -- as the Didache reminds us -- that our confession of Christ is to have visible effect in our lives. The Didache, then, recommended ways for Christians in the early church to evidence their confession.

Next: I'll probably have a short digression comparing the Didache's form of the Lord's Prayer to that found in Matthew and Luke. Or not. Maybe I'll just dive into Didache 9.

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος,
Concerning baptism,
   οὕτω βαπτίσατε·
   baptise in this way:
      ταῦτα πάντα προειπόντες,
      Having first reviewed all of these things,
      βαπτίσατε
      Baptise
         εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς
         in the Name of the Father
            καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ
            and of the Son
            καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος
            and of the Holy Spirit
         ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι.
         in running water.

ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν,
If you do not have access to running water,
   εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον·
   Baptise in other water.
εἰ δ ̓ οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ,
If cold water is not available,
   ἐν θερμῷ.
   then [baptise] in warm [water].

ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς,
If you have neither,
   ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ
   pour water onto the head three times
      εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς
      in the Name of the Father
         καὶ υἱοῦ
         and of the Son
         καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος.
         and of the Holy Spirit.

πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος
And before the baptism
   προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπτίζων
   the baptiser should fast beforehand,
   καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος
   and the one being baptised,
   καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύνανται·
   and any others who are able.
κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον
Call upon the one being baptised to fast
   πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.
   beforehand one or two days.

Notes

Chapter 6 was a transition from teaching on the way of life and the way of death, underscoring the importance to the reader/baptismal candidate of adhering to the way of life. The baptismal candidate was to do everything, or, do as much as possible.

Now the Didachist moves into specific instruction on baptism. I find the intro to the topic interesting. He doesn't move straight into the nuts and bolts of the process of baptism, he first ensures that the baptismal candidate has reviewed "all these things". This refers to the content of chapters 1-6. After that, the Didachist moves on to the formula for baptism. And it is pretty clear: Baptise in the name of the Trinity. This has implications for development of the doctrine of the Trinity depending on where you place the Didache chronologically. Here the basic formula agrees with Mt 28.19.

Also interesting to me is the discussion of what type of water to baptise in. The basic thought is for the baptizer to use the best he's got, but to not put off the baptism because he doesn't have the best water. The way in which the Didachist deals with mode of baptism is refreshing in light of some of the debates on the subject these days (immersion vs. sprinkling). Baptise where you can, when you can, in the best way you can -- but baptise.

The other interesting aspect involves fasting. Both the one baptising and the one being baptised are to fast. Others are to fast too, if they can. This underscores the seriousness of the act of baptism. It represents a breaking with the old ways (the way of death) and an assent to pursue the way of life. It should not be undertaken flippantly or unthinkingly. One should enter into it with seriousness, knowing that keeping on the way of life (bearing as much of the "Lord's yoke" as possible, as Did 6.2 puts it) will involve much diligence, effort and sacrifice.

Next up: Didache 8

Last week, Ben C. Smith of TextExcavation emailed me to tell me he's using my Apostolic Fathers Lookup Tool as a reference to a parallel English/Greek display for his Apostolic Fathers resource pages -- like this one for the Didache.

While he set up his linking, Ben located a few bum links and notified me of them so I could fix them up. Thanks, Ben. Be sure to check out his work if you're unfamiliar with it.

Also, Ben blogs with the group over at Thoughts on Antiquity. And Ben just commenced a series on canon lists with a post on the Marcion canon. Do check it out!

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Ὅρα, μή τίς σε πλανήσῃ ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς διδαχῆς,
See to it that no one might lead you astray from the way of this teaching,
   ἐπεὶ παρεκτὸς θεοῦ σε διδάσκει.
   for that one teaches you outside of God.

εἰ μὲν γὰρ δύνασαι βαστάσαι ὅλον τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ κυρίου,
For if you are able bear the whole of the Lord's yoke,
   τέλειος ἔσῃ·
   you will be perfect.
εἰ δ ̓ οὐ δύνασαι,
But if you are not able,
   ὃ δύνῃ,
   whatever is possible,
   τοῦτο ποίει.
   do this.

περὶ δὲ τῆς βρώσεως,
And concerning food,
   ὃ δύνασαι βάστασον·
   Bear what is possible;
ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ εἰδωλοθύτου λίαν πρόσεχε·
but of food offered to idols, be scrupulously on your guard,
   λατρεία γάρ ἐστι θεῶν νεκρῶν.
   for this is worship of dead gods.

Notes

After discussing "the way of life" in depth, and after treating "the way of death" in a somewhat more brief manner, the Didachist sums up and transitions. The next section begins more of a manual, detailing baptism, fasting and the Eucharist.

He begins by referring to the previous content, and exhorts the reader to make sure he minds the teaching, running from whomever would teach contrary. He urges the reader to adhere to the whole of what has been taught ("If you are able to bear the whole of the Lord's yoke, you will be perfect") but anticipates that this will not be possible ("... if you are not able [to bear the yoke], whatever is possible, do this.") The new convert is to keep his eyes on living according to the whole teaching, doing as much as is possible.

A specific instruction is given regarding food offered to idols; that food offered to idols should be avoided as much as possible. The act of offering food to idols is worship of dead gods, thus the food should be avoided. But that's not to say that one sins by eating such food; we do have 1Ti 4.1-5 for guidance in this area.

The bottom line: The Didachist instructs the reader to do as much as can be done, and for what is lacking, rely on the Lord.

Next up: Didache 7.

I was just poking around in Second Clement. Here is §3, in Lake's translation:

1. Seeing, then, that he has shewn such mercy towards us, first that we who are living do not sacrifice to the dead gods, and do not worship them, but through him know the father of truth, what is the true knowledge concerning him except that we should not deny him through whom we knew him?
2. And he himself also says, “Whosoever confessed me before men, I will confess him before my Father”;
3. this then is our reward, if we confess him through whom we were saved.
4. But how do we confess him? By doing what he says, and not disregarding his commandments, and honouring him not only with our lips, but “with all our heart and all our mind.”
5. And he says also in Isaiah, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” (2Cl 3)

This is interesting to me because of the progression through references; the homilist here uses both OT and NT references to convey to his reader (hearer) the benefit of confessing Christ, who has saved us from certain death  (recall §1 of Second Clement), before men. If Christians confess Christ before others, then Christ will confess us before his Father.

And how do we confess him? The homilist tells us we confess him in our words and in our actions:  "By doing what he says, and not disregarding his commandments, and honouring him not only with our lips, but 'with all our heart and all our mind.' "

Then comes the quote from Isaiah (actually introduced as a quote from Isaiah ... that's nice). And then we go into §4, where the homilist urges Christians to not be like the people Isaiah was describing:

1. Let us, then, not merely call him Lord, for this will not save us.
2. For he says, “Not everyone that saith to me Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that doeth righteousness.”
3. So then, brethren, let us confess him in our deeds, by loving one another, by not committing adultery, nor speaking one against another, nor being jealous, but by being self-controlled, merciful, good; and we ought to sympathise with each other, and not to be lovers of money. By these deeds we confess him, and not by the opposite kind.
4. And we must not fear men rather than God.
5. For this reason, if you do these things, the Lord said, “If ye be gathered together with me in my bosom, and do not my commandments, I will cast you out, and will say to you, Depart from me, I know not whence ye are, ye workers of iniquity.” (2Cl 4)

Again, the application is simple: If the people that confessed with lips but not heart are far from the Lord, then we be must people that confess with lips and with heart. Thus we confess with our deeds, by adhering to the commands set before us (note the homilist's list sounds like Pauline lists of vice/virtue).

In this way we show that we do not fear men over God; for our actions reflect God's leading and commands. In this way, the homilist bases his teaching on both OT and NT passages and makes his teaching practical to those who will hear him.

The quotations in §4 are, according to Lake, likely from the Gospel of the Egyptians, though no real evidence for that is available.

Here's a gem from Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians. The translation is that of Michael Holmes.

For everyone "who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist"; and whoever does not acknowledge the testimony of the cross "is of the devil"; and whoever twists the sayings of the Lord to suit his own sinful desires and claims that there is neither resurrection nor judgment—well, that person is the first-born of Satan. Therefore let us leave behind the worthless speculation of the crowd and their false teachings, and let us return to the word delivered to us from the beginning; let us be self-controlled with respect to prayer and persevere in fasting, earnestly asking the all-seeing God "to lead us not into temptation," because, as the Lord said, "the spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak". (Poly 7.1-2)

What's interesting to me in this section is how Polycarp uses references from First John, First Peter and Matthew to provide basis of his condemnation of those who teach and subscribe to improper doctrine. This is interesting in light of Hill's thesis that Polycarp might be Irenaeus' anonymous presbyter, doing the work of heresiologist and perhaps even providing Irenaeus with the foundation to do the work he later did against heresy.

I was just reading through Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans. The first few chapters read almost like a creed. Here's chapter 1 in Kirsopp Lake's translation:

¹ I give glory to Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you; for I have perceived that ye are established in faith immovable, being as it were nailed on the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, in flesh and in spirit, and firmly grounded in love in the blood of Christ, fully persuaded as touching our Lord that He is truly of the race of David according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and power, truly born of a virgin and baptized by John that "all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him," ² truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch (of which fruit are we—that is, of His most blessed passion); that "he might set up an ensign" unto all the ages through His resurrection, for His saints and faithful people, whether among Jews or among Gentiles, in one body of His Church. (ISm 1)

Be sure to check out ISm 2 and ISm 3 as well. Remember, this was likely written in the very early 100's (probably before 115).

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Ἡ δὲ τοῦ θανάτου ὁδός ἐστιν αὕτη·
And the way of death is this:

πρῶτον πάντων πονηρά ἐστι καὶ κατάρας μεστή·
First of all, it is evil and full of cursing,
   φόνοι,
   murders,
   μοιχεῖαι,
   adulteries,
   ἐπιθυμίαι,
   lusts,
   πορνεῖαι,
   fornications,
   κλοπαί,
   thefts,
   εἰδωλολατρίαι,
   idolatries,
   μαγεῖαι,
   magical acts,
   φαρμακίαι,
   potion use,
   ἁρπαγαί,
   robberies,
   ψευδομαρτυρίαι,
   false witnessing,
   ὑποκρίσεις,
   hypocrisy,
   διπλοκαρδία,
   double-heartedness,
   δόλος,
   fraud,
   ὑπερηφανία,
   pride,
   κακία,
   malice,
   αὐθάδεια,
   stubbornness,
   πλεονεξία,
   greediness,
   αἰσχρολογία,
   obscenities,
   ζηλοτυπία,
   jealousy,
   θρασύτης,
   arrogance,
   ὕψος,
   haughtiness,
   ἀλαζονεία.
   boastfulness.

διῶκται ἀγαθῶν,
Persecutors of the good,
μισοῦντες ἀληθειαν,
haters of truth,
ἀγαπῶντες ψεῦδος,
lovers of falsehood,
οὐ γινώσκοντες μισθὸν δικαιοσύνης,
not knowing the reward of righteousness,
οὐ κολλώμενοι ἀγαθῷ
not cleaving to the good
   οὐδὲ κρίσει δικαίᾳ,
   nor the righteous judgment,
ἀγρυπνοῦντες οὐκ εἰς τὸ ἀγαθόν,
not caring for the good,
   ἀλλ ̓ εἰς τὸ πονηρόν·
   but [caring for] the evil:

ὧν μακρὰν πραΰτης καὶ ὑπομονή,
From whom gentleness and patience are far removed,
μάταια ἀγαπῶντες,
lovers of vanity,
διώκοντες ἀνταπόδομα,
pursuers of reward,
οὐκ ἐλεοῦντες πτωχόν,
not having mercy for the poor,
οὐ πονοῦντες ἐπὶ καταπονουμένῳ,
not toiling for the one who is downtrodden,
οὐ γινώσκοντες τὸν ποιήσαντα αὐτούς,
not knowing who has made them,
φονεῖς τέκνων,
murderers of children,
φθορεῖς πλάσματος θεοῦ,
seducers of God's creatures,
ἀποστρεφόμενοι τὸν ἐνδεόμενον,
rejectors of the ones in need,
καταπονοῦντες τὸν θλιβόμενον,
oppressors of the afflicted,
πλουσίων παράκλητοι,
defenders of the rich,
πενήτων ἄνομοι κριταί,
lawless judges of the poor,
πανθαμάρτητοι·
people steeped in sin:

ῥυσθείητε, τέκνα, ἀπὸ τούτων ἁπάντων.
Be delivered, children, from all such as these.

Notes

Recall Did 1.1: "There are two says, one of life and one of death; there is great difference between the two ways". From 1.2 through the end of section 4, the first way — the way of life — was discussed. In this chapter the way of death is discussed. And it is done in, essentially, two lists. The first is a list of qualities that reflect actions, preferences and values of those who are following the way of death. The second is a list of sorts of people that are following the way of death. These people and the values they espouse are to be avoided. Irenaeus hints at this in his Proof of the Apostolic Preaching when he writes,

For the road of all those who see is a single upward path, lit by heavenly light; but the ways of those who see not are many and dark and divergent. The former road leads to the kingdom of heaven by uniting man with God, but the others bring down to death by severing man from God. Therefore must both you, and all those who look after the salvation of souls, make your way by faith, without deviation, with courage and determination, lest through lack of tenacity or perseverance you remain at a standstill in material passions, or even be led astray and turn aside from the straight path. (Irenaeus, Proof, paragraph 1)

The Didachist is making this same point. The way of life, discussed in §§1-4, is that which brings us closer to God. The way of death, discussed here, is that which leads us away from God. This is why the Didachist's closing plea in §5 is that the baptismal candidates be as far removed from those on the way of death as possible. The straight path, the path of life, is preferred.

As far as the qualities and sorts of people on these lists, not much can be said. Translating lists like this, particularly where there are similar items and qualities listed (and infrequently used words to boot) is a difficult slog that is never well rewarded. There is always semantic overlap so choice of translation is a bit of a pain. The thing to remember in these lists is that each item points toward painting the picture of the sorts of people and the kinds of actions that those who profess Christ are to avoid being influenced by.

Next we get into Did 6, which is a transition of sorts.

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Οὐκ ἀρεῖς τὴν χεῖρα σου ἀπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ σου ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς θυγατρός
Do not lift your hand against your son or against your daughter
   ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ νεότητος διδάξεις τὸν φόβον τοῦ θεοῦ.
   but from their youth teach them the fear of God.

οὐκ ἐπιτάξεις δούλῳ σου ἢ παιδίσκῃ,
Do not command your male or female slaves
   τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν θεὸν ἐλπίζουσιν,
   who are hoping in the same God,
   ἐν πικρίᾳ σου,
   in your bitterness,
   μήποτε οὐ μὴ φοβηθήσονται τὸν ἐπ’ ἀμφοτέροις θεόν·
   lest they cease to fear the God who is over you both.
   οὐ γὰρ ἔρχεται κατὰ πρόσωπον καλέσαι,
   For he does not call according to circumstance,
      ἀλλ’ ἐφ’ οὓς τὸ πνεῦμα ἡτοίμασεν.
      but [calls] those whom the Spirit has prepared.

ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ δοῦλοι ὑποταγήσεσθε τοῖς κυρίοις ὑμῶν ὡς τύπῳ θεοῦ
And you who are slaves be subject to your masters as to a copy of God
   ἐν αἰσχύνῃ καὶ φόβῳ.
   in reverence and fear.

Μισήσεις πᾶσαν ὑπόκρισιν καὶ πᾶν ὃ μὴ ἀρεστὸν τῷ κυρίῳ.
Hate all hypocrisy and all that is not pleasing to the Lord.

οὐ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς ἐντολὰς κυρίου,
Do not forsake commandments of the Lord,
   φυλάξεις δὲ ἃ παρέλαβες,
   but guard that which you have received,
      μήτε προστιθεὶς
      neither adding
      μήτε ἀφαιρῶν.
      nor taking away.

ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἐξομολογήσῃ τὰ παραπτώματά σου,
Confess your wrongdoings in the church,
   καὶ οὐ προσελεύσῃ ἐπὶ προσευχήν σου ἐν συνειδήσει πονηρᾷ·
   and do not enter into your prayer with an evil conscience.

αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ὁδὸς τῆς ζωῆς.
This is the way of life.

Notes

There are several groups within this overall section. The first has to do with interaction with others, it is broken into two groups. The first group is children. Christian parents are not to instill fear of themselves into children, they are to instill fear of God into children. A child might obey if punishment from a parent is feared. But this is not proper for the baptismal candidate. Instead, his children must fear God because in fearing God children will honor parents and glorify God.

A similar plea is made to the second group, slaves. Christians who have slaves that are believers must treat those slaves as brothers and sisters. For God is the one who places people into their respective situations. There is nothing prohibiting slaves from becoming believers, so if they are confessing brothers and sisters they must be recognized as such. This, however, is not a free pass for slaves. Slaves, likewise, have been placed in their circumstance by God so they should honor their masters and therefore honor God.

After the instruction on slaves and children comes a statement that helps in transitioning to a new section: "Hate all hypocrisy and all that is not pleasing to the Lord". This is transitionary because it applies to the previous section — parents who instill fear of parents into children, masters who mistreat slaves, and slaves who disonor masters, if they claim to be Christian, are hypocrites. Their actions do not align with their confession. Similarly, points that follow outline proper action and the baptismal candidate should not depart from them.

The following section, then, builds off of this with two primary points:

• keep the commandments
• confess transgressions

But these really boil down to the same thing: Obey, and confess when you don't obey. The emphasis is obedience. The hypocrite is the one who professes to obey but doesn't, and then doesn't confess his disobedience as wrong and seek forgiveness.

Each of these primary points is augmented a bit. Only the commandments received are to be adhered to; the baptismal candidate should be wary of the one who comes bringing new commandments to obey. Likewise, the commandments that are given are not to be subtracted from. If a teacher comes along professing that commandments do not apply, the baptismal candidate should be wary.

Regarding confession, it is interesting that wrongdoings (or transgressions) are to be confessed in the church. There is, it appears, some accountability and public confession going on. The baptismal candidate is to take responsibility for his wrongdoings and confess of them. He is also to not "enter into his prayer with an evil conscience". This is interesting as well. Is this directly related to his confession? Does this mean that as he confesses, he is not to do so with haste and disgust or even hatred at those keeping him accountable? Perhaps.

The whole section (from Did 1.2 through Did 4.13) ends with an inclusio, repeating the same text that started the section: "This is the way of life". This bounds the whole section, so we know that the Didachist's life-giving teaching ends here.

The next section will begin the flip side: the way of death.  

About six weeks ago, I blogged about the first part of Charles E. Hill's book From the Lost Teaching of Polycarp, where he argues (somewhat convincingly) that Polycarp is the source of Irenaeus' anonymous presbyter in AH 4.27-32.

I read the second part of the book today. Amy is at a bridal shower, so after I got some chores 'round the house done (mowed the lawn, pressure-washed the driveway and front walk) I figured I could sit down with a book for awhile and get lost. Since I'd been meaning to get back into Hill's book (disclaimer: I took a year of Greek and a class on the Johannines from Dr. Hill when he was at Northwestern College) it seemed the thing to pick up.

As Hill himself mentions, the links between Polycarp and the work known as the Epistle to Diognetus (henceforth ad Diognetum) are largely circumstantial and cannot, with current data, be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That said, Hill makes a strong case. As a result of reading his work, I'm more ready to say that the work likely came from a Smyrnaean milieu, though a specific, direct tie to Polycarp is another matter.

For me, there are just too many jumps to make in order to get there. Each step seems legitimate, but as a group the whole seems rickety. Granted, there are few if any other theories about the authorship of ad Diognetum that do as well as Hill's in covering bases. But the textual jumps are, I think, too strained. They could be used as evidence with other more certain proof, but standing on their own they are inconclusive.

What are they? I'll say first off that Hill has many more parallels (textual, cultural, epigraphic, and geographic) than I'll list here. If you're interested, you need to read the book.

The primary jump -- the initial one Hill makes, anyway -- seems to be from the Martyrdom of Polycarp to chapters 11-12 of ad Diognetum. Hill makes a strong case that Polycarp was known as a "disciple of the apostles", language in common between Martyrdom of Polycarp and ad Diognetum. But from here we have to jump back from the Martyrdom -- an account of Polycarp's death with some reported speech that may or may not be accurate -- to Polycarp himself. And we have to jump over the large lacunae between chapters 10 and 11 of ad Diognetum.

Hill does this well. He makes a strong case for the unity of the ad Diognetum, positing that the lacunae are missing sheets from the same document, not a work of someone else pasted on the end of the ad Diognetum.* Hill also then makes the case that ad Diognetum is protreptic, that is, it is a work that was read by the author in the presence of Diognetus; it wasn't a letter. Hill finds other similarites between reported speech of Polycarp in the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

And again, it all could be, but to me it seems too stretched to stand on its own. Hill's thesis is worthy of consideration, but it, with current knowledge, cannot be proven. Even Hill admits that. In his preface he writes:

At the outset I will state that the two cases [i.e., Polycarp as source of AH 4.27-32 and Polycarp as source of ad Diognetum] rest on quite different sets of evidence; each case is presented and should be evaluated separately. The first will render results which, I will suggest, may be treated as a certainty. The results of the second rest, I believe, high in the realms of probability, though perhaps not quite at the same level as the first.

From my perspective, I can agree with this. That is, I think Polycarp as source of ad Diognetum is within the realms of probability as a result of reading Hill's work; but I do think it is still far from certain.

If you have an interest in the Apostolic Fathers, particularly in Polycarp, the ad Diognetum, or Irenaeus; or if you have an interest in authorship studies or general texutal analysis, I recommend Hill's work with enthusiasm.

Update (2006-06-04): Stephen C. Carlson (Hypotyposeis) asks about where Polycarp's epistle to the Philippians fits into this whole theory. It does fit in, but Hill finds more parallels in the martyrdom because it is more contemporary with ad Diognetam in Hill's view. The martrydom happened in 155 or 156 (likely); Hill places ad Diognetam in the 140s. The epistle, however, is much earlier (30 years earlier, at least, perhaps 40). Hill also sees differences in genre. The epistle is just that, an epistle. The ad Diognetam is apologetic and intended to be given as an address to convince. This is why Hill focuses more on the reported speech sections of the Martyrdom; if they are accurate of Polycarp's style of debate and presentation, then they will likely show more parallels. Hill does have a whole section (pp. 136-140) on the corresponences between Polycarp's epistle and ad Diognetam. One major item of correspondence is discussion of Christ's atoning as substitutionary, which Hill says "is not at all comon elsewhere in the second century": Poly 1.2, Poly 8.1, Poly 9.2 compared to Diog 9.2-5.

* I think the case is strong enough that the adherents of the general consensus that chaps 1-10 and 11-12 are from different documents need to respond to the case presented by Hill.

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Μὴ γίνου πρὸς μὲν τὸ λαβεῖν ἐκτείνων τὰς χεῖρας,
Do not first reach out your hands to receive,
   πρὸς δὲ τὸ δοῦναι συσπῶν.
   only to draw back from giving.

ἐὰν ἔχῃς διὰ τῶν χειρῶν σου,
If you have something because of your hands,
   δώσεις λύτρωσιν ἁμαρτιῶν σου.
   offer it as a ransom for your sins.

οὐ διστάσεις δοῦναι οὐδὲ διδοὺς γογγύσεις·
Do not hesitate to give nor grumble while giving:
   γνώσῃ γάρ,
   for you will know,
      τίς ἐστιν ὁ τοῦ μισθοῦ καλὸς ἀνταποδότης.
      who is the good paymaster of the reward.

οὐκ ἀποστραφήσῃ τὸν ἐνδεόμενον,
Do not reject the needy one,
   συγκοινωνήσεις δὲ πάντα τῷ ἀδελφῷ σοῦ
   but share everything with your brother
      καὶ οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι·
      and do not say anything is your own:
   εἰ γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἀθανάτῳ κοινωνοί ἐστε,
   for if you are sharers in the immortal,
      πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἐν τοῖς θνητοῖς;
      how much more in things that will die?

Notes

These three verses center on materialism. They speak about giving and receiving. The Didachist teaches that in order to receive, one must give. The one who is receiving should be giving. The bit about offering up the work of our hands "as a ransom for your sins" seems a bit strange, though. The Didachist's point, though, is that the baptismal candidate shouldn't clutch to the tangible things of the world, but he should realize that nothing is his, all belongs to the Father, so sharing with the brothers bestows the benefits upon the community.

Almost sounds communist, though.

The basic idea is that the material things should have no pull on the actions of the Christian. They are not ours, they have only been entrusted to us for a short time. We should, then, use such resources wisely and appropriately.

The paragraph closes off with a stunning concept: "if you are sharers in the immortal, how much more in things that will die?" Christians have and share in the incredible gift of salvation and eternal life. In light of that, lesser things should be just that: lesser.

Update (2006-06-01): Tim Wegener (Madabar) writes in to refer me to Ex 30.11-13 on the idea of the work of our hands offered up as a ransom for our sins. He also (rightly) points me away from thoughts of communism by reminding me "Perhaps the difference is that the sharing is done freely, rather than through force, regulation, legislation or coercion". True, true. It seems when I see things like "share things freely" my economics major kicks in and considers economic systems instead of what the text really says. Thanks for bringing the discussion back to what's important, Tim!

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Τέκνον μου,
My child,
   τοῦ λαλοῦντός σοι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ
   the one speaking to you the word of God,
   μνησθήσῃ νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας,
   remember him night and day,
   τιμήσεις δὲ αὐτὸν ὡς κύριον·
   and honor him as the Lord:
   ὅθεν γὰρ ἡ κυριότης λαλεῖται,
   for where the Lord's nature is discussed
   ἐκεῖ κύριός ἐστιν.
   there the Lord is.

ἐκζητήσεις δὲ καθ ̓ ἡμέραν τὰ πρόσωπα τῶν ἁγίων,
But seek out each day the presence of the saints,
   ἵνα ἐπαναπαῇς τοῖς λόγοις αὐτῶν.
   so that you may find comfort in their words.

οὐ ποθήσεις σχίσμα,
Do not strive after schism,
   εἰρηνεύσεις δὲ μαχομένους·
   but bring peace to the ones who fight:
   κρινεῖς δικαίως,
   judge justly,
      οὐ λήψῃ πρόσωπον ἐλέγξαι ἐπὶ παραπτώμασιν.
      do not show favortism in bringing sins to light.

οὐ διψυχήσεις,
Do not be double-minded,
   πότερον ἔσται ἢ οὔ.
   whether this occurs or not.

Notes

Didache 4 begins with positive statements concerning fellowship and the ones who lead the fellowship, followed with cautions regarding dissention, schism and unity.

I find it telling that unity is stressed but it is not unity as we would tend to think about it today. The unity discussed here involves unity in obedience, not unity in tolerance. The "ones who fight" are not brought to peace simply with an agreement to end the discussion without addressing the underlying cause. The "schism" or disagreement is resolved, but it is resolved with honor and propriety -- bringing sin to light and rebuking it.

This is all prefaced with positive statements regarding the pratice of praying for an honoring the one "speaking the word of God" to the community. There is a focus on honoring that leadership and in following that leadership.** Additionally there is a focus on fellowshipping with other believers: "each day seek out the presence of the saints". The reason given for doing this is to "find comfort in their words".

When a properly-ordered community does these things -- praying for, supporting and honoring leadership along with seeking out fellowship -- then when difficulties and disagreements come, the disagreement can be reconciled and not simply plastered over in a vain attempt at 'unity'. After all, the goal isn't unity for unity's sake. The goal is loving God who made us (Did 1.2). When the difficult situations arise, if the community is properly focused on loving God (and therefore loving the ones who "speak the word of God", Did 4.1) then one side effect will be a serious effort toward unity in love of God when difficult situations arise. Without the underlying love of God, the love and honoring of leaders, and the respect of fellow saints, any effort toward unity is hopeless.

Thus, in the context of instuction for a baptismal candidate (which the Didache very well may be) the importance of underscoring this is evident for the well-being of the community in achieving its primary purpose, to love God.

** A random thought (and not a serious proposal): I find it somewhat interesting that terminology such as 'overseer' or 'elder' isn't used here in light of later portions of the Didache that serve as an ecclesiastical manual for practices such as the Eucharist. Perhaps that helps in establishing a date for the Didache that is earlier than, say, the letters of Ignatius?

Scot McKnight begins a three-part series on the problems of Ehrman & Pagels and their approach toward orthodoxy. McKnight calls it "The Gospel of Niggle". Here's the intro on his post:

I gave this paper sometime ago, but it pertains to The DaVinci Code movie. What I do is deal witih the proposals of heresy and orthodoxy behind the book, and the two major proponents of these theories today: Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman. It is a bit hard-hitting at times, but I think it is warranted. I’ll do this over three days. I thought I had posted this before, but didn’t find it.

Check it out:

• The Gospel of Niggle 1
• The Gospel of Niggle 2
• The Gospel of Niggle 3

Kevin P. Edgecomb of the biblicalia blog has started in translating First Clement. He's posted the first three chapters.

Be sure to give him some feedback on his translation. First Clement is one of the larger documents of the Apostolic Fathers corpus. It will be fun to see how his translation develops.

Thanks, Kevin!

Update: Kevin now has chapters 4-6 posted.
Update II (2006-05-30): Chapters 7-15 are posted. Only 50 more to go!
Update III (2006-06-01): Chapters 16-19 are posted.
Update IV (2006-06-02): Chapters 20-22 are posted.
Update V (2006-06-03): Chapters 23-32 are posted. Also, check out Kevin's long-term plans regarding future translation projects.
Update VI (2006-06-04): Chapters 33-42 are posted.
Update VII (2006-06-04): Chapters 43-58 are posted.
Update VIII (2006-06-06):  Chapters 59-65 are posted. That's the end.
Update IX (2006-06-06): Kevin posts a followup to the translation process along with some thoughts. He also posts a page with the whole translation that may be updated in the future.

Thanks again, Kevin!

I think one of my favorite writings in the corpus known as the Apostolic Fathers is the one generally known as "Second Clement".

On Friday, I went to grab lunch from a teriyaki place just up the street from Logos. I ordered my beef yakisoba to go. While waiting for the order, I read through the first chapter of Second Clement. I was reading the Loeb edition from Lake, as it was handy on my shelf at the office. And I read it in the Greek, using the English on the facing page to help out in the places I got stuck.

Second Clement is awesome. You really should read it. If you read Hebrews in the NT and respond with a general "whoa!", then you need to read Second Clement. It is an awesome example of an early Christian homily.

There are two clauses in particular that hit me in this reading. The first was in 2Cl 1.6: "Our entire life was nothing if not death". The best way our lives, prior to Christ's involvement in them -- the best way they could be summed up would be to say that they were death.

The second was the last verse, 2Cl 1.8: "For he called us when we did not exist and he willed us out of non-being to be." Wow! And the clause previous to it: "We had not an ounce of hope of becoming saved if not through him." The one who created us, who called us out of non-being into being, he is the only one that can save us.

This morning, with 2Cl 1.6 still in mind, I worked through the first chapter in the Greek again, this time to work on a translation. It still needs work, but I thought I'd post it below. If you've never read Second Clement, give it a chance. If you have read it