The majority of times one runs into αλλα in the NT (and the Apostolic Fathers, for that matter) it occurs with a negator of some sort. The default case is to negate something in order to highlight that which follows. That is, when we say “not that, but this” we’re typically wanting “this” to be the important bit in the context. There is typically some sort of implicit contrast between “that” and “this” (e.g., dark vs. light, big vs. small, etc.) as well. We bring “that” on the table, then negate it, then say, “no, not really that, but this other thing”. In the vast majority of these instances, the “not that” portion can be completely removed and the clause has no inherent change in meaning. It’s just dull.

Enter Rom 3.31, which ends a section that most are very familiar with:

νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως; μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ νόμον ἱστάνομεν. (Rom 3.31 NA27)
So do we nullify the law through faith? Certainly not! Instead we uphold the law. (Rom 3.31)

Here αλλα is the hinge between nullifying the law and upholding it. So the contrast is between getting rid of something, and having that something remain in force.

Interesting here is how the negation happens. It isn’t a simple negative. We get the Pauline emphatic negation of μὴ γένοιτο or “Certainly not!”. This amps up the rhetoric even more. Talking about abolishing or nullifying the law was serious stuff, but it fit the context where Paul was talking about how the gentiles were justified by faith, not by works of the law. The logical conclusion is that the law is no longer necessary. But Paul anticipates this conclusion, baits his reader/hearer, and then smashes him back down with “Certainly not!” and then, using αλλα makes his contrasting conclusion, that the law is actually being upheld in all of this.

Note that the same exact facts could’ve been communicated with “Therefore we uphold the law.” But that would’ve been boring. Instead Paul not only used a point/counterpoint (cf. Runge’s DGGNT) he also amped up the negation. On top of an already rhetorically heated section.

I just started re-reading Paul after working through the Gospels and Acts. Paul, how I’ve missed you!

I just read an interview Dan Wallace gave over on the Broadcast Depth blog.

Wallace has his fingers in everything, but what I didn’t expect were his multiple mentions of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

[Disclaimer: Yes, I hope to publish an interlinear of the Apostolic Fathers (pre-order here, more info here), but I think I would’ve linked and excerpted this stuff anyway, though perhaps not as quickly or as pointedly. RWB]

Here are some excerpts from the interview. “BD” means “Broadcast Depth”, “DW” means “Dan Wallace”. Emphasis is mine. Again, note these are excerpts; there is much more at the interview proper, so do check it out!

BD: Can you divulge any information on any new publication or project on which you are working?

DW: I’m under contract for half a dozen books right now. ... But I can tell you that they involve textual criticism, canonicity, Apostolic Fathers, and the historical Jesus. …

…

BD: What about your Exegetical Syntax? I’ve heard rumors of a new edition. Is there any credibility to that? If so, what should we expect in the new edition?

DW: It’s still a ways off. But the new edition will have a comprehensive syntax of the Apostolic Fathers with hundreds of references to the AF, and will bring up to speed what has happened in Greek grammatical studies in the last fifteen years. …

…

BD: What areas do you think New Testament Greek scholars will have to focus on in the next ten years?

DW: … There are also key areas in NT study that are heating up, issues that need to be honestly examined in the next couple of decades by all sides. Among these are the relation of the Apostolic Fathers to the NT (in terms of quotations from the NT, emerging canon consciousness, ecclesiological developments, the Fathers’ view of grace, and whether the AF and the NT reflect the earliest form of Christianity or just that form that became the dominant one). …

Excellent stuff, and great to see the emphasis on the importance of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. All the more reason for more resources to help folks as they read and familiarize themselves with these writings!

Yes, it’s true. I hope to produce The Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear, which will be an interlinear edition of the Greek portions of the Apostolic Fathers. Given enough interest, it will be published electronically by Logos Bible Software.

I pitched this idea internally at Logos awhile back, and it was decided to “pre-pub” the work to see if it would gain enough interest. If you’re not familiar, in Logos-speak, a “pre-pub” is a way to announce a potential project and let people indicate their willingness to purchase it. If there is enough interest, then we produce it, and folks get a great introductory price on a resource they want. (more info on “The Making of a Pre-Pub”, if you’re interested)

The pre-pub for my Apostolic Fathers Interlinear hit today. This is real, and I’ve already started the work (wonder why I did translations of the Didache and Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians recently?)

There are a few distinctives to this project. In addition to including a generic short gloss of the dictionary form and a context-sensitive grammatically-informed gloss (along with sequence numbering where necessary), I will also be classifying each word according to its Louw-Nida Semantic Domain and article. (I did something similiar with Louw-Nida references for the Pastoral Epistles a few years ago) Where words in the Apostolic Fathers do not exist in Louw-Nida’s lexicon (which really doesn’t happen that often) these will be noted. Louw-Nida really isn’t extensible—articles within domains proceed from generic to specific, as the domains themselves do, so adding to the taxonomy really isn’t supported. So I am not planning on shoe-horning things into their classification but simply noting when items are not accounted for. I also have a bunch of information I’ve compiled regarding cross-references, both with the New Testament, the LXX and also within the writings of the Apostolic Fathers themselves. These references will also be included.

Yes, I know there are interlinear haters out there (and that you’re reading my blog). And I know I’m not going to change your mind on the issue of interlinears. Frankly, I’m not looking to change your mind. I’m looking to get folks into the text of the Apostolic Fathers because I think the writings are important for all sorts of reasons, like: seeing how they deal with Scripture and what they consider “Scripture” to be; seeing how they handle delicate issues; seeing how they interact with the world around them; seeing how they teach; seeing how they live. I also think the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are a goldmine for comparative studies at the word and phrase level. They get our head out of the text we’re conditioned to understand in a context we’re conditioned to understand (the New Testament) and allow us to see other native usages in contexts we’re not familiar with.

It is this particular aspect that I think an interlinear Apostolic Fathers can help with, particularly for those who are not strong in their Greek. If it can help someone stretch their Greek muscles, I’m for it. Yes, I’m aware of the atrophy argument, and that folks won’t go further (blah blah blah) but if people move from wiggling or crawling to walking with a crutch, and that’s all the further they ever get … well, I think it’s a good thing. They’re not crawling anymore.

Finally, here’s an endorsement from a friend of mine, Johnny Cisneros, who is an all-around smart guy, a new Daddy (yay!) and who is also working on a video series on “Using Biblical Greek” for Logos:

Rick Brannan's work with Greek resources over the past fifteen years at Logos Bible Software has given him a rare internalization of the Greek language. We're fortunate that he's applying this knowledge to a careful analysis of the Apostolic Fathers in the production of The Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear. His pioneering contribution will leave many students and scholars of Koine Greek in his debt.

So please check out the prepub. If you’re interested, then sign up for it and get it at its cheapest price. And let me know if you have further questions.

The title is more far-reaching than I can really support. It’s just a notion I have for now as a result of working through the Greek text of Matthew and now the first three chapters of Mark in comparison with the NIV and other translations.

I get the sense that there are three ‘registers’ to the NIV translation. Yes, I know ‘register’ isn’t exactly the right word to use here, but it conveys what I mean. I guess that I want to say I think the ‘dynamicity’ (is that a word) of the NIV appears to be correlated in the following manner in Matthew and at least the first three chapters of Mark:

• OT Quotes in NT: Fairly literal in translation
• “Normal” text: Dynamic
• Words of Jesus (text in red): Fairly dynamic

I can see the OT quotations as being in a sort of higher register, a “thus saith the Lord” style of register. Appealing to older wisdom, quoting an esteemed source authoritatively. Sorta like we appeal to KJV-ish speech sometimes (e.g., “we all could do that kind of thing; remember, ‘but for the grace of God, there go I.’ ”).

The words of Jesus caught me off guard though. Yes, they’re not always translated “fairly dynamically”. But check out Mark 3:28:

NA27: Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πάντα ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ αἱ βλασφημίαι ὅσα ἐὰν βλασφημήσωσιν·

NIV: I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.

LEB:* Truly I say to you that all the sins and the blasphemies will be forgiven the sons of men, however much they blaspheme.

ESV: Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter,

(* LEB = “Lexham English Bible”, a new translation under way by Logos Bible Software. The NT is complete).

The differences aren’t picked up in surrounding contexts either. For whatever reason — and I must stress that my report here is anecdotal in what I’ve seen and noticed and not comprehensive — this sort of smooshing the text seems to happen more frequently (not exclusively) in words attributed to Jesus in the NIV. No, I have not checked the TNIV — one can only check so many translations.

Anyone else notice similar sorts of things? Am I on to something? Any theories as to why?

I'm presently reading E.P. Sanders’ Paul: A Very Short Introduction (amazon.com), which is part of Oxford University Press’ wonderful series called “Very Short Introductions”.

I happened across the following, though:

We should pay special attention to the degree to which Sin is treated by Paul as an enemy power. This is most clearly the case when the noun hamartia, sin, is the subject of a verb other than “to be”, as it is in Romans 5-7. (Sanders, 42)

Sanders goes on to list some instances of this phenomenon:

• Ro 5.12, Sin “entered the world”
• Ro 5.21, Sin “reigned in death”
• Ro 6.12, Sin may ‘reign’ in one’s body
• Ro 6.14, Sin may ‘have dominion’ over one
• Ro 7.8, Sin “wrought in me all kinds of covetousness”
• Ro 7.9, Sin ‘revived’
• Ro 7.11, Sin found “opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me”
• Ro 7.13, Sin “worked death in me through what is good”

All quoted text from Sanders, p. 42.

I figured “wow, I really missed out on this—never noticed this before” and figured I’d look to see where αμαρτια is the subject of a clause where the verb is not ειμι. This is a relatively straightforward syntax search in Logos 4.

What did I find? The primary place this occurs is in Ro 5-7. I also excluded αφιημι from the subject. In doing this using the Cascadia Syntax Graphs, I found 20 locations; 13 of them were in Ro 5-7:

• Ro 5.12, 13(2x), 20, 21; 6:12, 14; 7:8(2x), 9, 11, 13(2x)

The kicker is that I’d expected, especially based on Sanders’ comment quoted above, that most of the rest of the occurrences would be in the Paulines as well (and that there would be more of them). Guess what?

• Jn 9.41; Ac 3.19; 1Ti 5.24; Jam 1.15; 1Jn 3.4, 5; Rev 18.5.

Only one more instance in Paul, and that in the heavily disputed First Timothy, where “the sins” of some are “evident, preceding them into judgment”.

If I narrow it down to where αμαρτια is singular (we’re talking about “sin” and “sins”, right?) we end up with 17 hits:*

• Romans: Ro 5.12, 13(2x), 20, 21, 6:12, 14; 7:8(2x), 9, 11, 13(2x)
• Elsewhere: Jn 9.41; Jam 1.15; 1Jn 3.4, 5.

In other words, the Romans hits stay the same, but we lose Acts 3.19, 1Ti 5.24 and Rev 18.5. Sanders’ comments still puzzle me. I’ll repeat them again:

We should pay special attention to the degree to which Sin is treated by Paul as an enemy power. This is most clearly the case when the noun hamartia, sin, is the subject of a verb other than “to be”, as it is in Romans 5-7. (Sanders, 42)

It’s not his conclusion, it’s the way he sets it up: “as it is in Romans 5-7”. This leads me to think what he’s describing happens with frequency, but really, it’s just centered in Ro 5-7. In Jn 9.41, “your sin/guilt remains”. Jam 1.15 is helpful and seems to jive, “sin, when it is fully grown, brings forth death”. 1Jn 3.4-5 don’t seem too applicable, v. 4 is “sin is lawlessness”; v. 5 is “in him there is no sin”.

If you’re talking about sin, Romans 5-7 is important. You don’t need to appeal to some grammatical structure to make Romans 5-7 worth discussing, particularly when that structure doesn’t really appear to happen outside of Romans 5-7 (outside of perhaps Jam 1.15).

* A search for similar structure (w/singular αμαρτια) in the OpenText.org database returned 14 hits: Jn 9.41; Ro 5.12, 13, 20, 21, 6:12, 14; 7.8, 9, 11, 13 (2x); Heb 10.8; Jam 1.15. So most of the double hits in Romans were not returned, one hit in Hebrews was added, and the 1Jn hits were lost. In Heb 10.8, the structure that OpenText.org classifies as a subject is classed as an object by the Cascadia Syntax Graphs analysis, and Cascadia’s analysis seems proper to me too.

That’s “government” for those not in the know.

I dug around ERIC (the “Educational Resources Information Center”) and found four older papers by Stephen H. Levinsohn, at least one of which sounds particularly interesting. Most of them appear to be from older SIL “work papers” volumes. Here they are:

• The Definite Article with Proper Names for Referring to People in the Greek of Acts. (paper here) A study examined the presence or absence of the article with proper names for people in the Bible's book of Acts, using four categories of description, including: (1) the unmarked patterns involving the first mention of a participant and further references to the participant in the same incident; (2) the reintroduction of participants after an absence; (3) further references to a participant in the same incident that are anarthrous as contrasted with arthrous; and (4) the use of the article with names in reported speeches. It is proposed that, in different contexts, the four situations illustrate the principle that anarthrous references to particular, known participants either mark the participant as locally salient or highlight the speech that he or she utters. A list of twelve references is included.

For the others, I’ll just list the title:

• Preposed and Postposed Adverbials in English
• Unmarked and Marked Instances of Topicalization in Hebrew
• The Interrogative in Inga (Quechuan)

Just type “Stephen Levinsohn” into the search box, and you’ll find ‘em.

No, I don’t have any insightful new conclusions on this, but I did run across a very interesting instance that warrants further study and research.

First, note that most grammars portray πλην as a strengthened form of αλλα, and portray αλλα as a “strong adversative” in comparison to δε, which they class as “adversative” (at least in one of the typically myriad senses). I’m not happy with that. I get the idea of a cline here, but it just seems sloppy. What, there’s an “adversative”, a “strong adversative” and a “stronger adversative”? How does that help? How does that not simply mistake contextual cues for lexical/grammatical function?

I think the insights from Stephen Levinsohn, Steve Runge and Discourse Grammar help a bit more. That is, δε indicates development; αλλα is a marker of contrast and indicates correction or replacement (again, see my αλλα paper).

But what does πλην do, then? Muddying up the works is the notion that πλην can function as a conjunction (most common) or as a preposition (Ac 15.28, cf. Robertson XIII.VIII(ai), p. 646), or as a simple adverb (Ac 20.23; Php 1.18, again cf. Robertson).

One approach is to see how the same author uses these two function words. Last night, while working through the text of Mt 26, I came upon the following that screams out to me for further examination/research:

αὶ προελθὼν μικρὸν ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ προσευχόμενος καὶ λέγων· πάτερ μου, εἰ δυνατόν ἐστιν, παρελθάτω ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο· πλὴν οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω ἀλλʼ ὡς σύ. (Mt 26.39, NA27)

and going forward a bit, he fell upon his face praying and saying, "My Father, if it is possible, remove from me this cup; πλην not as I desire αλλʼ as you [desire]." (Mt 26.39, my own)

The synoptic parallels are interesting (thanks for pointing them out, Steve), particularly depending on how you view their composition histories. Me? I think ‘Q’ is a load of hooey, and think considering Mark as the first written and also as a source for both Mt and Luke makes sense. So here’s what Mark and Luke (respectively) have:

καὶ ἔλεγεν· ἀββα ὁ πατήρ, πάντα δυνατά σοι· παρένεγκε τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ· ἀλλʼ οὐ τί ἐγὼ θέλω ἀλλὰ τί σύ. (Mk 14.36, NA27)

and he said: “Abba Father, all things are possible with you. Take this cup away from me, αλλʼ not what I desire, αλλα what you [desire].” (Mk 14.36, my own)

λέγων· πάτερ, εἰ βούλει παρένεγκε τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ· πλὴν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γινέσθω. (Lu 22.42 NA27)

saying, “Father, if you wish, take this cup away from me, πλην not my desire αλλα your [desire] be done.” (Lu 22.42, my own)

So Mark uses αλλα … αλλα while Luke (along with Matthew) use πλην … αλλα. That’s very interesting too; it means that examining the higher-level discourse of all three gospel writers in this instance could shed some light on why Matthew and Luke both prefer πλην … αλλα.

Might have to consider digging into this for the ETS NW Regional meeting. It’s in February, and it’s only in Tacoma.

Update: For those keeping score at home, note that Margaret Thrall addresses this very issue in her book Greek Particles in the New Testament. Whether proper or not, you can grab a copy of Thrall from archive.org (search "Texts" for "Margaret Thrall"). The gist, apparently, is that she sees Mark as the strongest formulation, with πλην in Mt & Luke functioning conditionally in this instance. Her discussion runs from pp. 67-70. Davies & Allison (ICC Matthew vol. 3) agree with Thrall; Luz (Hermeneia Matthew 3) disagrees saying in a note "Here the adversative sense dominates". I'm inclined to go against Thrall as well but will actually read the section first (of course).

I took a bit of an extended vacation over the holidays (four vacation days, three holiday days, and two weekends = 11 days total) and during that time wanted a project to focus on completing, so I whipped through the Greek text of Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (Lake’s text, since it is in the public domain), and ended up with a new translation and notes of Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians.

I’d translated chapter 1 earlier (late October? Early November? I don’t remember) so I finished out with the Greek portions over the week between Christmas and New Years Day. As some likely know, Polycarp’s letter has some portions only extant in Latin. I don’t know Latin, so I didn’t translate those; instead I made slight changes to Kirsopp Lake’s Latin text in consult with Holmes’ and Ehrman’s editions.

The style is the same as that of my earlier Didache translation, including notes on cross references and on some lexical and translation issues.

The result is Polycarp to the Philippians: A Translation. Feel free to download the PDF; I’d love to know what you think about it.

What’s next? Well, I have a larger project to do that will require going through the whole Greek NT (again) that takes priority. After that, I hope to perhaps dig into Ignatius’ letters.

One of the reasons why I like Robertson’s big grammar is stuff like this:

(f) THE QUESTION OF Αὑτοῦ.  This is somewhat knotty. It seems clear that as a rule αὐτοῦ and not αὑτοῦ is to be printed in the N. T. A number of reasons converge on this point. The older Greek often used αὑτοῦ rather than ἑαυτοῦ as shown by the aspiration of the prepositions like ἀφʼ αὑτοῦ, etc. In the N. T. there is not a single case of such aspiration after elision save in a few single MSS. Add to this the fact that the N. T. uses the reflexive pronoun much less than the earlier Greek, “with unusual parsimony” (Hort). Besides the personal pronouns of the first and second persons are frequently employed (Buttmann) where the reflexive might have been used. Buttmann urges also the point that in the N. T. we always have σεαυτοῦ, not σαυτοῦ. The earliest uncial MSS. of the N. T. and the LXX that use the diacritical marks belong to the eighth century, but they all have αὐτοῦ, not αὑτοῦ. Even in the early times it was largely a matter of individual taste as to whether the personal or the reflexive pronoun was used. Blass (p. 35) indeed decides absolutely against αὑτοῦ. But the matter is not quite so easy, for the κοινή inscriptions give examples of ὑφʼ αὑτοῦ in first century B.C. and A.D. Mayser also gives a number of papyri examples like καθʼ αὑτοῦ, μεθʼ αὑτοῦ, ὑφʼ αὑτῶν, where the matter is beyond dispute. Hort agrees with Winer in thinking that sometimes αὑτοῦ must be read unless one insists on undue harshness in the Greek idiom. He instances Jo. 2:24, αὐτὸς δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευσεν αὑτὸν αὐτοῖς, and Lu. 23:12, προϋπῆρχον γὰρ ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ὄντες πρὸς αὑτούς. There are other examples where a different meaning will result from the smooth and the rough breathing as in 1 Jo. 5:10 (αὑτῷ), 18 (αὐτόν, αὐτοῦ), Eph. 1:5 (αὐτόν), 10 (αὐτῷ), Col. 1:20 (αὐτόν), 2:15 (αὐτῷ). W. H. print αὑτοῦ about twenty times. Winer leaves the matter “to the cautious judgment of the editors.”
A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research ( (Logos, 1919; 2006)), 226.

BDF was not clear at all when discussing this (§31(1), according to the index).

Have you ever stopped to notice how Cornelius was introduced in Acts 10?

First, Acts 10.1-2 (the translation is a draft from the Lexham English Bible, which is almost complete now):

Now there was a certain man in Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Cohort, devout and fearing God together with all his household, doing many charitable deeds for the people and praying to God continually. (Ac 10.1-2, LEB draft)

What do we know about Cornelius after these verses?

• Lives in Caesarea
• A centurion
• with the “Italian Cohort”
• Devout and God-fearing (was he a “God-fearer”?)
• His “household” feared God too (interpret that as you will)
• He did many “charitable deeds” for the people
• He prayed to God “continually”

That’s a lot to introduce someone into the discourse. He must be important to the story. For comparison, look at what we know about “Simon the tanner”, whose house Peter was staying at (cf. 9.42; 10.6) — not even enough to know if “tanner” described his trade, or if it was just a surname (e.g. “Simon Berseus”).

That’s not all. When does Cornie come into the story next? See Ac 10.22 for his next introduction/resumption:

And they said, “Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man—and well spoken of by the whole nation of the Jews—was directed by a holy angel to summon you to his house and to hear words from you.” (Ac 10.22 LEB draft)

Again, what is known/reiterated about Cornelius?

• A Centurion
• A “righteous and God-fearing man”
• Well spoken of by “the whole nation of the Jews”
• Received directions from an angel to summon Peter

Must be pretty important to have all this info about this dude. I don’t think it was an accident that the event where Peter was summoned by Cornelius (a non-Jew, a centurion, for that matter, but one who was a God-fearer and who was accepted by Jews) in this episode where Peter’s conclusion (Ac 10.34-35) is:

So Peter opened his mouth and said, “In truth I understand that God is not one who shows partiality, but in every nation the one who fears him and who does what is right is acceptable to him. (Ac 10.34-35 LEB draft)

This episode ends with the Holy Spirit being poured out on the Gentiles, Ac 10.44-48:

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who were listening to the message. And those believers from the circumcision who had accompanied Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter said, “Surely no one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as we also did!” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days. (Ac 10.44-48, LEB draft)

Who was Cornelius? Seems he was pretty important. I guess that’s why he was super-qualified in his introduction (vv. 1-2) and reintroduction (v. 22).

It’s funny when you notice things that scribes noticed as well.

I was reading through Acts and came across Acts 9.23-25:

23 When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.  (Acts 9:23–25, ESV)

I thought, “huh. Didn’t realize Saul had disciples.” Here’s the Greek of v. 25:

25 λαβόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ νυκτὸς διὰ τοῦ τείχους καθῆκαν αὐτὸν χαλάσαντες ἐν σπυρίδι. (Ac 9.25, NA27)

Then I looked at the NA27 apparatus to see if there were variants here. Other people have thought the same thing I did, and figured they needed to fix it.

Some MSS simply remove αὐτοῦ thus removing the issue with “his” (“and the disciples took him by night”). Others change οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ to αυτον οἱ μαθηταὶ, thus making explicit the formerly implicit object “him” in “took him by night” and removing the “his” from “his disciples”). Note that the text behind the KJV follows this latter option: “Then the disciples took him by night”.

Ain’t this fun?

This is a bit of a tag-along to my previous post on Mt 17.8.

No extended discussion, just text. First, the Greek from the NA27 for Jn 5.19. I’m interested in the second half of the verse.

19 Ἀπεκρίνατο οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα· ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ. (Jn 5.19, NA27)

Next, from the NIV:

19 Jesus gave them this answer: “I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.  (Jn 5.19, NIV)

The only difference in the TNIV is “Very truly I tell you” instead of “I tell you the truth”.

Here’s the same verse in the present draft of John’s gospel for the Lexham English Bible (LEB) which is being published electronically by Logos Bible Software (my employer; further disclaimer that I’m deeply involved in the project). The draft of John isn’t public yet, but Romans-Revelation has been released (and is in Logos 4!) and a little birdie told me that Matthew and Mark may be released in the next few weeks, at which point an auto-update will distribute the updated resource and reverse interlinear to all who have it.

Anyway, here’s John 5.19 in the LEB:

19 So Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly, truly I say to you, the Son can do nothing from himself except what he sees the Father doing. For whatever that one does, these [things] also the Son does likewise. (Jn 5.19, LEB [draft])

So, the NIV supplies “the Father” as the demonstrative pronoun. OK. That’s fine (though I would prefer keeping the demonstrative). The kicker is in the end of the verse: NIV has “the Son also does” which conveys the basics; a more literal approach like the one taken by the LEB kicks it home: “these things also the Son does likewise.” The repetition is important, and it just kind of gets lost here in the NIV (and TNIV). For comparison, here’s the ESV (which conveys some of the repetition):

19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. (Jn 5.19, ESV)

And here’s the NASB, which does better:

19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. (Jn 5.19, NASB95)

And, to round it out, here’s the NET, which is very close to the ESV:

5:19 So Jesus answered them, “I tell you the solemn truth, the Son can do nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. (Jn 5.19, NET)

OK, so you know, I’m not going to be one of those guys who only complains about a particular translation. Translation is hard work. Good translation is even more difficult. And the NIV is a good translation. (There, I said it, and I stand by it). But one of the things I look for in a translation (for my own purposes, which may not align with everyone else’s) is transparency. That is, transparency to the underlying text. It doesn’t have to be word-for-word literal; sound like Yoda it must not. But it should also be somewhat transparent to the underlying text. What, like it wasn’t somewhat repetitious to the Greeks reading it and hearing it initially? Of course it was. That’s the point, and that’s why I like to see stuff like this come through in a translation as well.

It’s stuff like Matthew 17.8. Here’s the NIV:

“When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.”

While this does communicate the basics, it completely blandifies the underlying text. Yes, I verbed “bland”. And you completely understood it.

Here’s the context: Jesus has just been up on the mountain with his three primary dudes, Peter, James and John. While they were up there, Moses and Elijah show up, and Jesus, Mo’ and Eli get to talkin’. The disciples are freaking out. Then a cloud surrounds them, and a voice shouts out from the cloud (it’s God) and it says that Jesus is his son, and he’s pretty daggum awesome, and that everyone should listen to Jesus. The disciples are more freaked, they fall face down to the ground, and are probably pretty sure they’re gonna die.

After this, we have vv. 7-8. The NIV, again: “but Jesus came and touched them. ‘Get up,’ he said. ‘Don’t be afraid.’ When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.”

Yeah, that’s a great ending to the story. Not. That is super bland, and while it communicates the basics of what happened, it has no soul. There is no life to it. Here’s the Greek (the Greek the NIV is based on in this verse has no variations from the NA/UBS text):

7 καὶ προσῆλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἁψάμενος αὐτῶν εἶπεν· ἐγέρθητε καὶ μὴ φοβεῖσθε. 8 ἐπάραντες δὲ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν οὐδένα εἶδον εἰ μὴ αὐτὸν Ἰησοῦν μόνον. (Mt 17.7-8)

And a rather wooden translation, but you get the gist. Pay particular attention to the end of v. 8:

7 and Jesus came, and touching them he said: “Get up, and do not be afraid!” 8 and lifting up their eyes, they saw nobody except him: Jesus alone.

So, in vv. 1-6, Peter, James and John basically thought they were gonna die and were scared out of their wits. They hid, they shook, and they covered their eyes, likely hoping it would just end. They were freaked. If you read vv. 1-6 carefully, even in the NIV, you can tell that this is somethin’ mighty strange and fearful going on. Moses and Elijah chattin’ with Jesus; this funky cloud surrounds them and the voice of God booms from it? I’d cower on the ground and hide my face too! But in vv. 7-8, all of a sudden all that stuff is gone. Verse 8 underscores this, and that’s why it makes it so plain that only Jesus (no cloud, no Moses, no Elijah) is there. They’re gone. Only Jesus is with them.

There’s no reason to not include the “alone” in the translation. Is it technically redundant in the English, communicating information already known? Yes, but that’s the point. That’s why it’s in the Greek: to highlight this information so you know it is important. It also (and perhaps more importantly) keeps the sense of wonder that is present throughout the passage — you get the sense, even at the end, that Peter, James and John still really don't know what's going on even though the cloud and Mo' and Eli are gone (vanished, even).

To be fair to the NIV-folk, you can find stuff like this in every translation in every language ever done. (Even translations I’ve done!) But when I happen to see it in cases like this, it just makes me wonder what the translation committee was thinking.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled programming.

I never realized that both Matthew and Hermas use αλλην παραβολην (or some form thereof) to indicate a shift to a new parable.

• Matthew: Mt 13.24, 31, 33; 21.33
• Hermas: Sim II; III; IV; V (Hermas 51-54 in the BCV scheme)

Current Epigraphy reports a new blog started up at Oxford’s Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents (CSAD).

The CSAD blog reports “First Texts from MAMA XI Available”:

The first sample texts from the MAMA (Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua) XI project have been posted online. The project, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), will publish approximately 600 new inscriptions recorded by Sir William Calder and Dr Michael Ballance in Phrygia, Lycaonia and Cappadocia. The first two inscriptions come from Akmoneia in central Phrygia and Brouzos in the Phrygian Pentapolis.

Monuments, epigraphs, etc. are a very important source for understanding ancient cultures, particularly Asia minor (aka the Mediterranean). This was driven home to me when reading Peter Lampe’s From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries. There’s not much on the MAMA XI site yet (two texts, complete with Epidoc source) but any contributions in this area are very welcome.

I know, like the world needs yet another translation of the Didache. But I wanted to do it, so here it is: The Didache: A Translation with Notes.

Now, I’ve worked through the text of the Didache before, and have placed a translation on my web site before. This, however, is a new translation (albeit influenced by previous work). Here’s the preface.

I've worked through the text of the Didache before (see my Phrasal Interlinear) but that work was done over one year, in fits and starts, and it shows. I wanted to work through the text again, only this time in a much shorter time period and, hopefully, with a bit more consistency. Thus, in August 2009 I once again worked through the text of the Didache.

While this translation is indebted to my earlier work on the Phrasal Interlinear, the translation is new and not a simple revision. I have consulted existing translations (Lake, Lightfoot, Holmes, Ehrman and Varner) and lexica (BDAG, Louw and Nida, LSJ, Spicq) along the way and they have been most helpful. Additionally, several notes on matters of translation, textual criticism and cross references to the New Testament have been added. Much like myself, this translation is a work in progress. It will be revised, particularly with an eye to matters of punctuation and paragraphing.

On translation philosophy, my hope is to be readable yet somewhat transparent to the underlying Greek text. Thus some places may be awkward to the reader, yet this awkwardness hopefully points to phrase, clause and discourse structures in the original. I have used [square brackets] to indicate where English words are supplied to assist in the translation. Similarly, {curly braces} indicate either an idiom or where a series of Greek words was smoothed into something not immediately transparent. In all {curly brace} instances, the underlying “literal” text is provided in a footnote.

It is my prayer that those who read this translation will find it useful, and will be able to get a glimpse into the thought and practice of those earliest days of the Christian church, and be encouraged by the steadiness and grace of our Lord.

Once again, the link: The Didache: A Translation with Notes. I’d love to know what you think about it. Interested in any other writings of the Apostolic Fathers? I’m thinking of doing the Greek portions of Polycarp to the Philippians next.

You may think “Huh?! Finally?!! I just heard about Logos4!” but Logos4 has been my life for at least the past 18 months. But now I can talk about it to whomever I please. Logos4 is public. Released. Not a beta. You can buy it now. You can cross-grade, upgrade, or flat-out buy it today. Download the whole thing if you want. That’s pretty awesome.

If you haven’t heard, please check out the Logos4 web site. Oh, and don’t forget about the iPhone app, either. Yes, there is a Logos iPhone app. I’m not making this up.

Logos4 is a complete change. It is new from the bottom up. It does things differently. I’ve fallen in love with the windowing system, rule-driven collections mean my collections can finally keep up with my library, floating windows are a dream on multi-monitor setups, and there are a ton of new resources too.

Instead of all that stuff (which others will cover, I’m sure), I just wanted to point to a few things dear to my heart in Logos4.

• The Apostolic Fathers Reverse Interlinear
• Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the New Testament
• Templates for Syntax Searching
• Grammatical Relationships in Bible Word Study
• Facilitate Serendipitous Discovery

1: The Apostolic Fathers Reverse Interlinear. Logos4 has a great selection of reverse interlinears (OT and NT for ESV, NRSV, NKJV, KJV, NASB95; an alignment of the LXX and BHS; and the in-progress Lexham English Bible (LEB) is also reverse-interlinearized for the available content [Rom-Rev]). But reverse interlinears aren’t just for Bible text anymore, they can be implemented on non-Bible text as well. Really all that is needed is a text and its underlying source. So a few years back I pitched the idea of having a reverse interlinear of the Apostolic Fathers text (English with underlying Greek; sorry, no Latin). Our first editor was unable to take on the project due to personal circumstances. I wanted this one so much I ended up doing the reverse interlinear alignment myself as a side project! It was fun, and now you can use a reverse interlinear with Greek text outside of the NT.

This brings up another feature that works with all texts that share a common alignment text (or are the alignment text): Something called “Sympathetic Highlighting”. For you Logos old-timers, this is “Navigate to Associated Word” on steroids. Basically, you highlight something in one text, and the other text highlights it too. You can see this above; I’ve highlighted text in the English, the underlying Greek gets highlighted too. This works in the OT and NT. Highlight something in the ESV and see how the NASB95 treats it. Even better: Highlight something in the LXX and see it highlight in the BHS (!)

2: Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the New Testament. If you’ve followed Logos at all over the past five years, you know that we’ve been very innovative in applying syntactic analyses (analysis above the word level) to the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament. Logos4 continues this innovation with the Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the New Testament. These are based on work done by the Asia Bible Society in their Greek Syntactic Treebank Project. They use simple, approachable terms (like “Subject”, “Indirect Object”, “Clause”, “nominal phrase”, “prepositional phrase”, etc.) for their structures.

The Syntax Search dialog has been completely revamped as well. For example, below is a query for the Cascadia Syntax Graphs that locates where a prepositional phrase has φοβος as its object:

In comparison with LDLS3 (and OpenText.org), Cascadia needs fewer properties, uses more approachable terminology, and is conceptually easier in structure.

3: Templates for Syntax Searching. As much as I love syntax searching, I’m enough of a realist to know that it is a great feature with a very limited audience. Most folks just want to know when something is the subject, or the object, or where it occurs as the main verb. Or even perhaps what sorts of adjectives modify the word. Templates provide this. From the syntax search, hit the query drop-down. Templates are on the left. Select one, and go. Let’s say I want to find where the verb φοβεω is negated (so, “do not fear” instead of “fear”):

Click “Go” when the word is there (select from the list or hit enter), and you’re doing a syntax search.

Alternately, you could open the desired template for the desired database from the syntax search editor. This would open the actual structure to search. From here, just fill in as necessary.

4: Grammatical Relationships in Bible Word Study. The primary difference between v3 and v4 in Grammatical Relationships is speed. In Logos4, it’s faster. Much faster. Like, real fast. But there’s this new section that shows up (where applicable) called Preposition Use. This is where the study word is the object of the preposition. There’s this cool graphic used to help show how the preposition is used. Here is an example with φοβος (fear) as the study word:

Fret not, there’s a Preposition Use chart for Hebrew too.

5: Facilitate Serendipitous Discovery. Go to the command bar. Start to type in “Facilitate”. You should see:

What does it do? Try it. Let me know what you find. Need some background? Try this three-and-a-half year old blog post.

What am I not mentioning?

There’s all sorts of stuff I’m not mentioning, including:

• Scads of new resources available in the new “LE” collections.
• Maps. Awesome maps. Zoomable maps. Linked to dictionaries maps. Linked to the text maps. Linked to Google maps maps.
• Infographics. Images of all sorts. Images in Dictionaries are integrated. Stereoscopic images.
• Customizable Guides. Ever wanted to create your own Passage Guide from a template of options? Now you can. Same for Exegetical Guide and Bible Word Study Guide.
• Passage Analysis. This is cool. OK, I’ll give you a picture of this one:

There is so much other stuff, I’ve just gotta stop now. There is not enough time to mention it all in a blog post. Check it out for yourself.

I’d been meaning to talk with my friend at Hendrickson about Bernard Taylor’s Analytical Lexicon of the Septuagint (amazon.com) (ALS), but as fate would have it a different friend passed a copy along to me on Friday. So I figured I’d take a peek at it and blog a bit about it as well.

First, a disclaimer: I’m the one that put together the Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, so I’ve mucked about the waters of analytical lexicons. Conceptually, analytical lexica like these are easy. Just dump the database and sort it, right? Realistically, they are much more difficult because they involve a tremendous amount of checking, sorting, reviewing, laying out, and other things. I understand completely how much work Bernard Taylor has done here, and he should be commended for the work.

Second, a story: When one of the editors of a text that Logos puts out (who will remain anonymous) came to the office to walk us through his work, we heaped adoration upon him for the years of work that was represented in what he’d done. He took this as an opportunity to tell us that all long-term database driven work really needs is “sitzfleisch” (dunno if I spelled that correctly), meaning someone’s gotta sit down and do it. For the LXX, Taylor sat down and did it. The world needs more Bernard Taylors.

Now, with all of that said, there’s really not that much to an analytical lexicon, presentation-wise. You should be able to look up your word (any word in the text) and get to a decent definition or gloss. Parsing is extra, and Taylor gives that too.

Taylor’s definitions are actually the translation equivalents from Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie’s Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (LEH), so they are recently published and have some history behind them.

The problem? The definitions are too brief. But more than that, there are no example citations listed at all. A lexicon of a corpus that has no references whatever to that corpus. No sample citations for senses. This is a problem.

Further, I have problems imagining anyone in this day and age of analyzed texts available electronically through numerous Bible software providers would actually use this lexicon in the way it seems intended to be used, by physically looking up the word in print. I could be wrong (or myopic, my gainful employment is in making these things available and accessible electronically) but I just don’t see it happening with any frequency. About the only reason to buy this book is to make sure you have an LXX lexicon on your shelf that you can look at when you can’t find the information anywhere else. And it is well-priced for that market (and could possibly steal the graduate student sales from LEH).

The problem is that I see another better presentation of the data. Instead of an analytical lexicon, this sort of data needs to be presented Sakae-Kubo style as a Reader’s Lexicon. Order it by the text, filter out words based on NT frequencies (since NT readers would be most likely to use such a work) and perhaps overall frequencies. Have volumes for Pentateuch, Prophets, etc. since they’re likely to be bigger than the present 600pp.

Of course, one further problem is that software providers are doing things similar to that. Logos has an “Exegetical Guide” which does pretty much that same thing.

So while overall I’m impressed with the amount of work and detail of the work that has gone into this volume, I have a hard time seeing how it could be used by anyone, outside of the use-case of simply needing an LXX lexicon on the shelf for reference. For that, the price is good — although one might be better off saving that money for an electronic version of an LXX Lexicon (LEH is available from several, including Logos).

Text-critical wisdom from Gunther Zuntz, Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (amazon.com):

Readings are either right or wrong. Their theoretical implications largely depend upon this elementary fact. Agreement in genuine readings is normal; possibly significant only where it is confined to few witnesses or where it recurs frequently in well-defined groups; agreement in error suggests some relationship. These theoretical implications apart, we want to know which readings are true. No statistics can tell that: we have got to use our critical faculties and methods. (Zuntz 59)

This is after some paragraphs on the dubious usefulness of “statistical methods” in evaluating and comparing texts/manuscripts where Zuntz has another memorable line:

Variant readings can fruitfully be compared and grouped on more than one principle, but they cannot reasonably be added up or reduced to percentages like the factors of an arithmetical sum. What is the sum total of, say, an egg plus a grape plus a unicorn? (Zuntz 58)

This isn’t a passive, read-before-you-go-to-bed book. Zuntz is a tough slog; you’ve gotta work your mind while reading him in order to get the most from him; consulting the text is necessary too. To grok him more fully I’ll have to read it a few more times (still working on my first slog). But there is a ton of useful stuff in here about the practical application of textual criticism to the real problems one runs into when evaluating variants. I don’t think Zuntz is right about everything, but I do think that if you’ve got any desire to do textual criticism, then Zuntz should be near the top of your list after intros like the Alands Text of the NT and Metzger’s Text of the NT and after you read (really read) the NA27 intro and do some scanning of the consistently-cited witnesses. Zuntz could come before or after Westcott & Hort’s intro (amazon.com) as well. <speaker voice=”yoda”>But read them all you must if textual criticism you desire to practice</speaker>.

One problem with associating an English gloss or two with a Greek word and then proceeding to “read” a text by doing a decode-o-rama followed quickly by a de-yoda-ification (I speak as one with deep, intimate knowledge of this mystical practice) is that you end up throwing context to the wind if you’re not careful, and many times even if you think you are being careful.

After some brief examination of lexicons and dictionaries, one might think it is reasonable to generally associate the gloss “lust” with the Greek verb επιθυμεω. After all, that seems to be the sense one runs into in the NT. If not “lust”, then perhaps “strong desire” or something else of such ilk, with a nod to being general and non-specific, but really knowing that “desire” has to do with that of the sexual sort; and if not that then at least the desire of something sinful or wrong. Oh, there might be exceptions (1Ti 3.1 talks of “desiring a good work”) but the word (and cognate group, especially the noun form) really has to do with sexual lust … at least, that’s the approach that I’ve heard and have seen, and that’s the word-study trap that’s easy to fall into.

Here’s the problem: Look up επιθυμεω in BDAG, and check out the citations for sense 1 (“to have a strong desire to do or secure something, ‘desire’, ‘long for’”) and compare those to sense 2, the “lust” sense. Sense 1 has many more citations and a broader range of cited material. But even in sense 1, many examples seem to be negative (“desiring” unwholesome things). Then, assuming you’re being diligent and looking up citations because you really want to understand and you’re not just cherry-picking to bolster your pre-conceived notions, you run into Poly 1.3:

“Even without seeing him, you believe in him with an inexpressible and glorious joy that many long to experience. For you know that you have been saved by a gracious gift—not from works but by the will of God through Jesus Christ” (Ehrman).

The bold bit is translated as “which many desire to experience” by Holmes. Lake has “many desire to come”; Lightfoot has “many desire to enter in”. The word translated “desire” or “long to” is … yep, you guessed it … επιθυμεω. There is nothing about “lusting” in a sexual sense here. The context here has to do with “longing to” experience the joy one experiences as a result of belief and trust in Christ. The joy experienced by the Philippians is “strongly desired” to be experienced by others.

You don’t even need to go to the Apostolic Fathers for the non-lusty sort of επιθυμεω; some responsible reading of the BDAG definition gets you there only with NT citations. 1Ti 3.1 and Mt 13.17 are great examples, but the killer to the επιθυμεω-means-sexual-lust argument has got to be Lk 22.15, where Jesus “strongly desires” to eat the passover with his disciples.

Bottom line: It’s a chicken-and-egg proposition, just like reading in English. You only know what επιθυμεω means by reading lots of stuff and building up a concept of what επιθυμεω means. Lexicons like BDAG help, but it’s easy to be myopic in word-study land where even though a “word” is being studied, it is usually prompted by a particular instance in a particular context one wants to understand. It is this local context that is important; not the word. Context is how the author constrains the variables. If one says “lust after her” or “desire her”, it’s easy. In Poly 1.3, is essentially telling the Philippians that “there are many who really want to experience that joy you’re experiencing”. In Poly 1.3, Mt 13.17 and Lk 22.15, the formula is επιθυμεω + infinitive verb where the infinitive verb (and its associated items) help one determine the nature of the “desire”. In the same way the object of επιθυμεω when not used with an infinitive (thus typically a genitive or accusative, as we see in 1Ti 3.1; check BDAG) help dial in this constraint … not anything innate in the word itself. Be very careful what local context you import into the definition of a word to apply elsewhere (go back and re-read your Exegetical Fallacies), and be even more careful about how glosses perpetuate false conceptions of word meaning.

No matter what, when your understanding of επιθυμεω is limited to one or two-word English glosses (“lust, strong desire”) your understanding of the Greek text will be similarly limited. So make it a goal to read and work through lots and lots and lots of text. I can’t tell you how helpful this has been to me! Then when you hit επιθυμεω, you’ll think in your head “επιθυμεω” and not “lust, strong desire”. And that’s a step in the right direction.

These guidelines are nearly as old as the New Testament (some who date the Didache in the 40s/50s would say older than the NT) but the thoughts behind them still ring true today. Below is the most recent form of my translation of this chapter:

1. But everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, let [him] be welcomed. And then, having tested [him], you will know him. Then you will be able to distinguish [whether he is] true or false.
2. If the one coming is a traveler, help him as much as you are able. But he shall not remain among you more than two or three days, if he has need.
3. And if he desires to stay with you, being an artisan, let him work and let him earn his keep.
4. And if he has no craft, take [this] into consideration according to your understanding, how he shall live among you [as] a Christian without [being] idle.
5. And if he does not want to act in this way, he is a Christmonger. Beware of such as these.

Basically, welcome everyone who comes, but don’t let them take advantage of you simply because they say they are a prophet or a teacher. If he wants to stay longer than a day or two, he’s gotta work. And if he’s not willing to work, then be on your guard, he is using the name of Christ to his own material advantage.

The discourse structure is fairly interesting. Verse 2 uses a μεν with the first ει and the δε in the latter half (which I translated “But”); vv. 3-5 each use δε additively, building up all of these different qualifications (hence my translation using “and” in these instances).

I think it’s obvious, but “on the one hand” for μεν in v. 2 and “on the other hand” for the following δε just would’ve been hideous. (see my earlier post on Louw & Nida and the particle μεν). Besides, it’s not an either/or option. In either case, you help. The Didachist is just using the μεν/δε structure to note the important point: Only give these guys 2-3 days of help, then cut your losses if the dude is a couch potato.

This is less than helpful. Screen capture taken from the Logos Bible Software version of Louw-Nida. This is the Greek index, Vol 2 p 159.

No, I don’t have anything better. I can still complain, though.

I will say that they at least acknowledge the μεν .. (other particle/conjunction) correlation in a way that is visible and obvious (which shouldn’t surprise anyone who has read much from either Louw or Nida or has any knowledge of the South African textlinguistics school/approach). And at least the referenced article focuses on the contrast that is marked in these situations.

But μεν .. αλλα, μεν .. δε, and μεν .. πλην are not identical in function and it is virtually impossible to narrow any of them down to a suitable gloss, let alone the always-horrible “on the one hand/on the other hand”. If you ever use that, you should think twice about it, and then change it anyway.

It’s less about translation into English (or any other language) and more about how the discourse/information is structured in Greek. This is one of the more prominent problems with trying to stick English glosses on everything to decode it and then “smooth it over” into a translation (hey, I’ll admit I do that frequently; it’s still wrong). I’m not saying that Louw and Nida are doing that, I am saying that doing that is one very easy (and very wrong) way to utilize the information they provide in their lexicon.

Check Denniston’s Particles, but before you do that do yourself a favor and check out the sample from Steve Runge’s forthcoming Discourse Grammar on his web site. (Look for the Sample PDF on his publications page) The section on conjunctions is your friend.

Another snippet from his short grammar:

As a rule German editors punctuate too freely according to German ideas rather than those of the Greeks.

Robertson, A. T. (2009). A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament, for Students Familiar with the Elements of Greek (16). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Remember, Robertson wrote that in the 1908 (100 years ago!). This was interesting to me because of a note I made on a post on punctuation/accent almost two years ago now:

Pure speculation and likely irrelevant and misguided, but I'm wondering how the punctuation in NA27 compares with how one would punctuate a somewhat literal German translation — and how punctuation in UBS4 compares with how one would punctuate a somewhat literal English translation.

His Short Grammar,* Part II, Chapter III is on orthography. Section 2 of that chapter is on accent.

He starts the section: “This is a thorny subject.”

Hoo-boy.

* A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 13. I got my copy in Logos Bible Software's A.T. Robertson Collection (15 Vols.)

The Greek conjunction και is one of those words that seems easy to understand (it means “and”, right?) and then again not so easy (“Why is there a και here?”). From my reading and study,* και is essentially additive, and one forgets this at his peril when evaluating και in context.

Here’s a simple example from Didache 7.4 to reinforce the basic idea.

πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπτίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύνανται· κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.

I’ll leave other aspects of the information structure to Steve Runge (though there is some cool stuff, notably the prepositional phrase before the primary verb forming a temporal frame and also the function of δε linking to previous the previous clause indicating development). Here’s the same formatted a bit differently with translation below:

   πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος
   And before the baptism
προνηστευσάτω
he should fast beforehand
   ὁ βαπτίζων
   the one baptizing 
   καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος
   and the one being baptized
   καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύνανται·
   and any others who are able.

κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον
Call upon the one being baptized to fast
   πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.
   beforehand one or two days.

There is some interesting text-critical and form-critical stuff going on here, but my interest isn’t (immediately) there. Read Niederwimmer for those details. Regarding και, my interest is in simply seeing how a group is formed using και to add one group element to the existing, known group. While I translated “and” above, you could also do something like “along with” or even “and also”.** The important bit about καιʼs function here is that after the initial group element is introduced (“the one baptizing”), και is used to build that up.

If we just have και associated with the gloss “and” in our minds, we may pass the test and translate the above correctly. But has it been understood? Understanding what function words like και (and δε, and my favorite, αλλα) are up to allows us to better approach the Greek text as Greek instead of as a jumbled set of wooden, English, yoda-speak glosses that need to be decoded and smoothed over in order to be understood.

* Most helpful have been portions of Steve Runge's Discourse Grammar, Heckert's Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles (amazon.com), and Denniston's Particles (amazon.com).

** Ehrman really scrambles the word order to work a “both … and” into it: “But both the one baptizing and the one being baptized should fast before the baptism, along with some others if they can.”

From the introduction to his “Short Grammar”:

The genius of the Greek language itself must constantly be sought. It is easy to explain a Greek idiom by the English or the German. This is the vice of many grammars. The Greek must be allowed to be itself and have its own point of view. Good Greek may be very poor English and vice versa. It is imperative for a just and sympathetic appreciation of Greek to look at the language from the Greek standpoint. The consistent application of this principle will prevent one from explaining one preposition as used “instead” of another, one tense “for” another, etc.

Robertson, A. T. (2009). A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament, for Students Familiar with the Elements of Greek (4). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

I just downloaded and installed the “A.T. Robertson Collection (15 volumes)” recently released by Logos Bible Software (disclosure: I work for Logos); the short grammar is one of those titles. Looking forward to checking out the structure and reading through some portions.

Here’s the Greek:

5 οὐκ ἔσται ὁ λόγος σου ψευδής, οὐ κενός, ἀλλὰ μεμεστωμένος πράξει.

Here’s my translation [at present]:

5 Your speech should not be false or empty, but filled with action.

The key here for me, given the presence of αλλα, is the contrast between κενός and μεμεστωμένος, which is why I translate the portion following αλλα as “filled with action”. In my view, αλλα marks contrast and also indicates the portion following the αλλα corrects or replaces the portion before it. The above is an instance of correction, what you say should be backed up by what you do.

The basic idea of μεστοω [according to BDAG, anyway], is that the speech/word is “made full” by one’s action. This is where the idea of completed/fulfilled/confirmed comes from. It’s as if one’s actions verify that his words/speech is worthy of being listened to. The idea is almost as if one’s actions verify that one’s speech it true.

Given the innate contrast, it seems better (at least to me) to play off of that contrast by using “filled” to translate μεμεστωμένος and using “with action” to translate πράξει.

Here’s how others I know of translate the verse:

Thy speech shall not be false nor vain, but completed in action. (Lake)

Thy word shall not be false or empty, but fulfilled by action. (Lightfoot)

Your word must not be false or meaningless, but confirmed by action. (Holmes)

Your word will not be false or empty, but will be fulfilled in action. (Varner, who follows the Greek text of Rordorf & Tuilier’s 1978 edition, which was republished in 1998 as part of Sources Christiennes)

Your word shall not be false or empty [but shall be fulfilled by deed]. (Niederwimmer, he sees the brackets as a later addition)

Your word must not be empty or false. (Ehrman, who apparently takes the reading of the Apostolic Confessions over Heirosolymitaunus [as does Niederwimmer, apparently]; note his Greek text is a modified version of Bihlmeyer)

These guys all have (or had while alive) more Greek in the tip of their left pinkie toe than I’ve got in the entirety of my being, but given contrast marked by αλλα and the notion of correction, I still think I like “filled with” better; though “fulfilled by” is a pretty close second (that I could actually be convinced of).

Steve Runge mentioned a comment I made to him yesterday in a blog post he posted this morning:

I am working my way through Con Campbell’s Verbal Aspect, The Indicative Mood and Narrative, currently in the section on the present tense form. He has made some great observations about the kinds of verbs that are found in the historical present (HP), viz. that most are either verbs of speaking/communication, or verbs of propulsion i.e. movement. However, Rick Brannan pointed out that these two semantic classes of verbs are also the most frequently occurring, based on the LN semantic domains. Notwithstanding Rick being the precise contrarian, some hay can be made from Campbell’s point, but a bit further on.

Since Steve mentioned me above, I thought I'd provide some numbers on this assertion. These are all based on the Louw-Nida annotation including in the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, which also provides LN domain.article references for every word in the NT.

When I made the comment to Steve, I was thinking particularly of domains 33 (Communication) and 15 (Linear Movement). These are two of the largest domains in terms of division into subdomains. Domain 15 has 56 subdomains; Domain 33 has 35 subdomains. This division is one indicator of their frequency. But I did some searches too. First note there are 28,000+ verbs in the NT.

• Items with Domain 33 (Communication): 7819 items total, 5469 are verbs
• Items with Domain 15 (Linear Movement): 3517 items total, 3416 are verbs

For comparison, Domain 88 ("Moral and Ethical Qualities") has 38 subdomains (highly divided), there are 2129 words classified as belonging to that domain, but only 488 of them are verbs. Domain 79 ("Features of Objects") has 29 subdomains, 544 instances, with 172 of them verbs. These domains (15, 33, 79, and 88) are the most highly subdivided.

If you want to get a glimpse of instances of domains within pericopes, see my Distribution of Semantic Domain by Section in the Pastoral Epistles (note I do not include domains for particles, articles, prepositions, contractions, etc.; only verbs nouns and adjectives). You'll see that domain 33 is very frequent, which, on afterthought, it is not surprising in written communication that the author would be using language in the semantic domain of communication.

So, while Campbell likely is onto something, that verbs of speaking or movement are common HP instances doesn’t seem too surprising seeing as how verbs of speaking and movement seem to be generally common within the NT literature.

As my regular, very intelligent, highly esteemed, and most worthy readers know, I spent a lot of time dealing with the conjunction αλλα in 2008; the results of which are in the paper I wrote for the 2008 national ETS meeting (paper here).

Today I was doing a quick read the text of First Thessalonians (reconciling English with Greek) and I noticed some good examples of αλλα, so I thought I’d blog them. There are 13 examples. I’ll list each briefly and offer (hopefully brief) comments. Actually, I only got through eight before I stopped (not enough time), but hopefully you get the picture.

My basic premise is that αλλα indicates either correction or replacement. That is, the item following αλλα corrects or replaces the item preceding; and that additionally these items are contrasted such that the latter item is highlighted. In other words, the second item in the contrast is the more important information; it is what the structure puts in the spotlight. After the Greek is a very quick and not well thought out translation of relevant text (but not all of the Greek, I’m trying to work quickly here). Also, since I am working quickly, note I haven’t proofed/revised/rewritten anything, this is pretty much a raw dump — please offer feedback on whatever you see.

1 Thess 1:5
ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν ἐν ὑμῖν δι ̓ ὑμᾶς 
that our gospel did not come to you in word alone, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with much certainty,…

Here the correction is in how the gospel came to the Thessalonians: It didn’t just come in word, but it came (that’s the correction) in power, with the Holy Spirit, and with much certainty (and that’s the important part). It was more than mere words. This “not only/but also” is a frequent formula and typically indicates correction. 

1 Thess 1:8
ἀφ ̓ ὑμῶν γὰρ ἐξήχηται ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου οὐ μόνον ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἀχαΐᾳ ἀλλ ̓ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν ὥστε μὴ χρείαν ἔχειν ἡμᾶς λαλεῖν τι 
For from you the word of the Lord has sounded forth not only in Macedonia and in Achaea but in every place your faith, that which is in God, has gone out, so that we have no need to say anything

Again, we have correction and the “not only/but also” formula. The word of the Lord didn’t just go through Macedonia and Achaia; it went everywhere the news about the Thessalonians went. The important part is how this news has spread.

1 Thess 2:1-2
Αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε ἀδελφοί τὴν εἴσοδον ἡμῶν τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὅτι οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν ἀλλὰ προπαθόντες καὶ ὑβρισθέντες καθὼς οἴδατε ἐν Φιλίπποις ἐπαρρησιασάμεθα ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν λαλῆσαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι
… that it was not in vain, but after we had already suffered and been poorly treated, just as you know, in Philippi, we had the courage in our God to speak to you the gospel of God, in much opposition/conflict.

Here Paul is clarifying/correcting that his (and Timothy, and Silas, see the prescript (1Th 1.1) arrival in Thessalonica was not in vain or in error; but that it was — after what happened in Philippi — indeed meant to happen. Paul is saying that it wasn’t an accident, instead it was intended of God for them to bring the Thessalonians the gospel in this way, after the incident(s?) in Philippi. Note the next clause group is another αλλα statement.

1 Thess 2:3-4
ἡ γὰρ παράκλησις ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ ἀλλὰ καθὼς δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον οὕτως λαλοῦμεν οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες ἀλλὰ θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν
For our appeal does not from error, or from impurity, or with deceit, but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so that we speak not as people-pleasers but as to God, the tester of our hearts.

Here there are two different αλλα statements. Paul is first clarifying the source; the word he brings comes not deceitfully but in fact they have been “approved” by God to do this. That’s pretty much the opposite of deceit. Secondly, as to motive, Paul corrects that they come not to please people, but to please God. The important bits are that Paul’s message comes from God, and that Paul speaks not so that people will be pleased, but so that the one who tests Paul’s heart will be pleased with the results of the test.

1 Thess 2:7
δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι ἀλλὰ ἐγενήθημεν νήπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα
While we could have made demands as Christ’s apostles, instead we became as infants in your midst, as a nursing mother cherishes her own children.

The first portion of the αλλα statement may actually run up to the start of v. 5 (see Runge, Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament) but this is enough to get the idea. Note the contrast between making demands as apostles and instead being as infants. While they could’ve made demands, they instead took the more gentle route, and this is what Paul desires to highlight in the context. He gets their attention with the first statement, and then turns it on its head with the second (now more salient) statement.

1 Thess 2:8
οὕτως ὁμειρόμενοι ὑμῶν εὐδοκοῦμεν μεταδοῦναι ὑμῖν οὐ μόνον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς διότι ἀγαπητοὶ ἡμῖν ἐγενήθητε
In this way longing for you, we determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own souls/life 

The correction is in what was shared. They didn’t just share the gospel (cf. 1Th 1.5 above) but they shared their whole lives, so it was evident how the gospel had affected them. This again, by heightening the contrast, puts the spotlight on the second portion of the statement. If you’re preaching this, the important part is that Paul/Timothy/Silas shared their whole souls/lives with the Thessalonians. That’s how they were able to model the gospel to them.

1 Thess 2:13
Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ ̓ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον θεοῦ ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν
… you accepted it not as the word of men but just as it truly is, the word of God

Again, remember my premise: correction or replacement is involved, and the second item is highlighted (prominent) in the current context. Here there is contrast innate between “the word of men” and “the word of God”. Paul had gone to pains earlier (using αλλα) to note the source of their preaching and the motive of their preaching (cf. 1Th 2.3-4 above): It was from God, to please God. Note also the “just as it truly is” statement. This puts even more prominence/importance on the second half of the structure.

So, to recap my position on αλλα, which I’m hoping the above discussion has made evident:

• it indicates correction or replacement
• it involves comparison/contrast between two items: the first premise and the following correction or replacement of that premise
• as such, the correction/replacement is the more important information. If you’re preaching, that is the thing you should focus on, because that is what the author (here Paul with some help from Silas and Timothy) has highlighted in the immediate context.

Outside of having started a jaunt through the New Testament in Greek (beginning with the Paulines), here’s what I’ve been reading:

Steve Mason, Josephus, Judea and Christian Origins: Methods and Categories (amazon.com). Right now I’m in chapter five, which is probably one of the more important essays in the book. It’s on understanding Ιουδιαοι as “Judeans” instead of “Jews”, at least for that particular era. He’s almost convinced me, and I’m rather conservative when it comes to these sorts of things.

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Ephesus: Texts and Archaeology (amazon.com). Several ancient texts concerning Ephesus in one way or another conveniently pulled together in one volume in English translation, as well as some commentary/discussion and writing on archaeology. I figured I needed to get a bit more well versed on the history of Ephesus. Not so long ago I pored over Paul Trebilco’s The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (amazon.com), which I highly recommend, followed by Peter Lampe’s From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (amazon.com) which I also recommend if you want some understanding of Christianity in Rome. Books like these reinforce how weak I am in my understanding of the setting in which Paul’s epistles were written and lived. Hopefully I’m improving.

Steve Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction to Discourse Features for Teaching and Exegesis. Steve is a good friend and co-worker, so I’ve been lucky enough to read through pre-release drafts of his stuff. His work has helped me understand conjunctions sooooooooo much better it isn’t even funny. If you have Logos Bible Software, you should probably consider this book. If you have Steve’s previous work, The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament, then his discourse grammar is a no-brainer.

I’m also reading some articles from Filologia Neotestamentaria, but won’t list them here.

Recently I noticed that Re 20.4 appears to be the verse in the Greek NT with the most words (that is the longest verse, though I’ve not verified that with a count of letters in the verse). So I figured I’d do a word count of every verse in the Greek NT to verify it. These counts are based on the NA27. “Word” is defined as a space-delimited token (with punctuation stripped), so a crasis (e.g. καγω) is counted as one word.

58 Words: Re 20:4
52 Words: Mk 16:8;* Re 3:12
50 Words: Re 5:13; Re 9:20
48 Words: Re 17:8
47 Words: Lk 6:42; Jn 8:44
46 Words: Jn 20:25
45 Words: Re 6:8
44 Words: Re 11:18; Re 12:10
43 Words: Re 14:18; Re 19:20
42 Words: Jn 18:36; Jn 18:37; Ac 21:11; 1 Jn 2:27
41 Words: Lk 10:21; Re 4:8
40 Words: Mt 2:13; Mt 18:8; Ac 28:17
----------------------
* Mk 16.8 here includes the shorter ending of Mark, accounting for the length of the verse.

Why does Revelation appear to have so many long verses? Was Stephanus getting near the end of his carriage ride and pushing to get to the end? (yes, that’s a joke).

I should note that a length of 15 words (again, according to NA27) appears to be by far the most popular count (over 500 times).

[NB: Since I haven’t posted much recently, I thought I’d cross-post this post from PastoralEpistles.com here as well. —RB]

Our pastor has commenced working through Second Timothy (one of the reasons for my recent jaunt through Second Timothy) and today’s text was 2Ti 1.9-10 (he’d discussed the larger section, 2Ti 1.8-12, last week). But I really don’t see the rationale for splitting this out from the larger unit because it is all one sentence (in the Greek) with components building one upon the other to the crescendo of v. 12. Below is my translation of these verses:

And so do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, or of me his prisoner, but suffer together with me for the gospel according to the power of God, who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace, which has been granted to us in Christ Jesus from times eternal, and now has been revealed through the appearance of our Savior Christ Jesus, who indeed abolished death and brought to light life and immortality through the gospel into which I was appointed herald and apostle and teacher. For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that he is quite capable to guard my deposit until that day. (2Ti 1.8-12)

On my reading, Paul’s first bit about not being ashamed of the testimony or being ashamed of Paul is an attention-getter that is then immediately trumped. This isn’t about Timothy being ashamed, it is about Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to “suffer together” with him for the gospel. In the underlying Greek, the portion after this initial “but” corrects. Timothy is not to be ashamed of Paul’s suffering (or the gospel for that matter), he is instead to join with Paul in his suffering for the gospel.

From here, Paul gives further information on how Timothy can in his right mind sign up for such suffering: the power of God is what will enable him.

As if that’s not enough, Paul then describes what God has already done: he’s saved them (the start of v. 9). In addition to that, he has called them with a “holy calling”.

But what is the holy calling? Paul explains that too. The holy calling is not one given because they are worthy based on the merit of their own works, they are worthy because God has called them to it. God has his own purpose and his grace will enable him to meet that purpose to which he has called Timothy (and Paul).

But Paul isn’t done; he next has to get in some explanation of how this grace works to enable for the holy calling. The grace has been in place since the foundation of time, only recently revealed in Jesus Christ.

And again, Paul isn’t done.

Note how Paul doesn’t just refer to “Jesus Christ”, but to “our Savior Jesus Christ”. This as well is for a reason, it is so Paul can remind Timothy once again of what Christ did. He abolished death (by his grace saving from eternal death) and brought life. He is the life-bringer. And this was done “through the gospel” (remember that thing Paul initially exhorted Timothy to not be ashamed of?). (this is the end of v. 10)

Still, Paul has more.

This gospel, the accounting of how our Savior provided for our deliverance, is what Paul has been called to proclaim. He is a “herald” (a proclaimer), an apostle and a teacher of the gospel. He proclaims it, he advocates it, he practices it and he teaches it.

Paul continues, “For this reason …”. This is Paul’s justification of his suffering. Paul doesn’t hide his suffering, he embraces it. And he wants Timothy to embrace it too. Again, as when the section started, there is a contrastive “but”: “I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed …”. This as the same contrast as the beginning of the section, between suffering and being ashamed of the suffering. Paul offers himself as an example to Timothy: “I’m embracing the suffering, you should too.” (an aside: recall 2Ti 1.7, immediately previous to this whole section, where Paul reminds Timothy that “God has not given us a spirit of cowardice, but of power and love and self-discipline”.)

Paul then gives reason for his embracing of the suffering he finds himself in: He knows that the one who saved him will bring him through it until “that day” (which is, in my opinion, an eschatological reference).

The whole section progresses, each clause or phrase expanding some portion of the previous one, making Paul’s case. And it ends up right where it started, advocating the embrace of suffering for the gospel over against being ashamed of the gospel.

From here, Paul will begin to contrast the gospel against the false teaching prevalent in Ephesus, holding up the standard of the gospel. But before then, Paul needs to make the reader aware that there is a choice between the hard way (holding to the gospel and undergoing the suffering which will come) and the easy way (letting go of the gospel and not challenging the false teachers). Paul makes Timothy aware of this choice, encouraging his embrace of the gospel and related suffering, before getting into the ramifications of it.

Also interesting (at least to me) is that throughout this section, Paul is exhorting Timothy to join together with him in this suffering for the gospel; he is not exhorting Timothy to take his place in this suffering. So many times Second Timothy is read as “Paul’s last will and testament” but, at least here, we see that Paul has no hint of wanting to let go of the reins. Timothy is joining together with Paul, he isn’t taking Paul’s place.

The NA27 apparatus lists the following contents for P99 (dated as “ca. 400”, currently held in the Chester Beatty Library). I’ve given the references in an English-based system (though I still use “.” for a chapter/verse separator, instead of “:”, because I’m lazy and don’t like to hit the shift key unless I really have to), translated from the German system in the printed NA27 apparatus appendix.

Ro 1.1; 2Co 1.3-6; 1.6-17; 1.20-24; 2.1-9; 2.9-5.13; 5.13-6.3; 6.3-8.13; 8.14-22; 9.2-11.8; 11.9-23; 11.26-13.11; Gal 1.4-11; 1.18-6.15; 1.14-2.4; 2.5-3.19; 3.19-4.9; Eph 1.4-2.21; 1.22(?); 3.8-6.24

I have two questions, actually.

First, what’s up with Galatians? Why the large range covering most of the book (1.18-6.15) followed by subranges amounting to 1.14-4.9? Is this content duplicated in the papyrus? I’ve searched online for other contents listings of P99 only to see the same exact list duplicated in numerous locations. I’m confused as to what the duplication might be indicating—or if it is a typo of some sort (it feels like a book name is missing, but Galatians and Ephesians are in canonical order, so it can’t be that … I don’t think).

Second, what’s up with Ephesians? Why is “1.22(?)” appended? Is it that it occurs out of order after 2.21?

Just trying to get a handle on what’s listed in this particular entry and why. P99 is not in Comfort & Barrett (too late for them, apparently) so I can’t check there; it is also not in Tischendorf because, well, Tischendorf is just far too early. Other ranges in the NA27 appendix do not have overlapping ranges (well, not up through P99 nor through the uncials). Poking through the site for the Chester Beatty Library was a dead end as well (though I’d love to be proved wrong).

If you have any help for me, I’m all ears.

If you’ve been following my series on Translating Second Timothy over at PastoralEpistles.com, you know that I’ve made it through the epistle. (In less than three months, not bad, huh?)

I’ve gathered all of the posts into one PDF file. Grab it if you’re interested. If you have further interest in the material (specifically in distributing it or publishing it in some way) please contact me for further information.

• SecondTimothyTranslationAndNotes.pdf (402.15 KB)

I’m very interested in any feedback you may have. Feel free to email me at rick at pastoral epistles dot com with any comments, encouragement, criticism or flat-out disagreement.

Here’s the paper I presented at BibleTech:2009:

Stylometry and the Septuagint: Applying Anthony Kenny’s Stylometric Study to the LXX

In 1986, Anthony Kenny wrote a book called A Stylometric Study of the New Testament which gives details for compiling and comparing book-by-book stylometric statistics for the Greek New Testament given a morphologically tagged corpus. This exploratory study proposes to apply Kenny's method to the LXX, using the Logos Bible Software LXX Morphology, to analyze style.

While Kenny's primary application of his method was in the area of authorship studies, this paper is more interested in the general style of the LXX, and not at all interested in authorship theories or assigning a 'hand' to different passages. For better or worse, this paper treats the LXX as a corpus, and has little interest in its relationship with the underlying Hebrew text.

Once the analysis has been detailed, some points of interest (known only when the analysis is complete as the nature of the study is exploratory) will be further explored. Areas in which the work could be further developed will also be reviewed.

If you actually read it, and then actually have feedback, then please let me know what you think.

In a nutshell, after looking at book-level and chapter-level distributions of part of speech, case/number/gender, tense/voice/mood; I have a worked example of future tense in Leviticus (and then in the Pentateuch). My conclusion: In the Pentateuch, anyway, future tense verbs appear in concentrated groups. The application is when you read or work through these works, then, you should pay attention to the clustering of the future tense to determine what is going on (law-giving, prophetic stuff, whatever). And, if you run across an isolated instance of the future tense, you should pay double attention to that because it is not normal.

At some point in the future, the audio from the talk will be on the BibleTech website.

J. Harold Greenlee, The Text of the New Testament (amazon.com). Hendrickson 2008. 130pp. ISBN 1598562401.

Thanks to Hendrickson Academic for sending along the review copy (amazon.com).

This is a slim volume (130 pp.) that gives a very basic, very general background to the practice of textual criticism as applied to the Greek New Testament.

First off, it is probably best to say what this book is not: It is not, from all I can tell, intended to compete with the similarly-named volumes from Metzger (now Ehrman/Holmes) or Aland & Aland (tr. Erroll Rhodes). Those are both more academic and comprehensive introductions to textual criticism. Greenlee is geared toward a completely different audience. In this, I think Greenlee’s book is unfortunately named because it will, I believe, be misjudged by textual critics. Actually, it already has been. It was reviewed by the Review of Biblical Literature by none other than Keith Elliott, and was not reviewed positively. After this, it was discussed on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog (here for a comment by Greenlee on Elliott’s review, also here and here for Elliott’s response to Greenlee; check the comments of all posts too).

Despite all of that, to understand Greenlee’s book, one must understand the audience he intends to hit. He is not aiming at an academic audience. This much is obvious in the second paragraph of the book blurb (from Amazon.com, emphasis is mine):

Geared to the lay person who is uninformed or confused about textual criticism, Greenlee begins this volume by explaining the production of ancient manuscripts. He then traces the history of the development of the New Testament text. Readers are next introduced to the basic principles of textual criticism, the concept of variant readings, and how to determine which variant has the greatest likelihood of being the original reading. To illustrate the basic principles, several sample New Testament texts are examined. The book concludes by putting textual criticism in perspective as involving only a minute portion of the entire New Testament text, the bulk of which is indisputably attested by the manuscripts.

This is important to understanding what Greenlee is up to in this book. I’d highly recommend that any pastor/teacher keep Greenlee’s Text of the New Testament (amazon.com) on his short list (near the top, if not at the top) of books to recommend to parishioners who ask questions like: “Why is the KJV New Testament different in spots, and does it matter?” or “Why are there all of these footnotes about ‘other manuscripts’, and what do they mean?” Greenlee’s book is short, to the point, and is pretty much the anti-Ehrman. It will build up, not destroy, the faith of the one asking the questions. (For the record, I’d also put Comfort’s New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (amazon.com) on that pastor/teacher’s short list of books to recommend).

If Greenlee intended to write a book to make textual critics happy, to compete with standards like Metzger and Aland & Aland, then he surely failed, and Elliott’s review is spot-on. But Greenlee didn’t do that. He wrote a book for the average person, sitting in the pew, with some basic questions about the text. Greenlee paints in broad strokes and gives general answers to the questions, which is what his desired audience needs.

Academics and textual critics can continue to nitpick Greenlee’s book, but don’t pay attention to them. If you need something on textual criticism for a basic layperson audience, Greenlee is your go-to book.

A side note: Greenlee is no slouch; check out the range of topics he has authored on over the years.

Before I start this, I should say that I greatly appreciate Bill Mounce and all of the work he's done. It's not easy to write a first-year grammar that anyone besides yourself can productively use. And have you ever really dug into his Morphology of Biblical Greek book? While not my cup of tea, there's an astounding amount of work and understanding distilled in there. So Bill, if you ever read this, know I greatly appreciate your efforts.

But did anyone else skim the Koinonia blog "Mondays with Mounce" this week and find themselves saying "huh?" after the first few paragraphs? Here's the text I'm talking about:

In Mark 5:7 the demon says to Jesus, "I adjure you by God (horkizo se ton theon), do not torment me" (ESV). The TNIV says, "In God’s name don’t torture me!" There are two issues here. The accusative ton theon is an accusative of oath, the name by which the oath is taken. That is why you can translate an accusative with "by," an idea normally connected with the dative.

The other issue is horkizo. BDAG lists its meaning as, "to give a command to someone under oath, adjure, implore." It is more than just a command or a strong request from the demon. The demon wants Jesus to take an oath not to torment him. This explains the "adjure" and "In God’s name." Pretty bold of the demon—asking the Son of God to swear an oath in the name of God.

The bold part is the part that threw me. An "accusative of oath"? Now, I have to admit, I don't have Wallace's grammar handy, so I don't know if he actually lists that one in his accusative categories. But the translation logic, at least as written and briefly argued here, astounds me: We are permitted to translate the accusative with "by" in this instance because τον θεον is an "accusative of oath"? Actually, I guess we're permitted to translate the accusative article τον with "by" because of this label?

Funny, I thought the verb ορκιζω had something to do with that. There's nothing about τον θεον in and of itself here that would cause one to label it as "accusative of oath". We know oaths are involved here because ... well ... the verb ορκιζω is put in the mouth of the demon. In other words, it's the context, not just the accusative.

While we typically wouldn't use "by" to put a Greek accusative structure to English, for some reason the Greeks did use accusatives in such contexts. The Greeks used one particular structure to accomplish this; in English we use a different structure. It doesn't mean we need to give it a fancy label to clue us in to "English" it as if we are translating a standard Greek dative into English; like we need to appeal somewhere for permission or something. We just need to understand the whole structure.

True, BDF §149 describes "Accusative with verbs of fearing, etc., and of swearing", including Mk 5.7 as an example (though in a section on "The Simple Accusative of the Object", not as double accusative, which is discussed in §§155-158). Robertson (p. 483, XI.VII(i)), at least at the point cited by BDAG, takes the causative route here and notes the double accusative in that context.

But all of that stymies me. I'm really supposed to know (and recall?) all that hooey before I can translate ὁρκίζω σε τὸν θεόν as "I implore you by God"? The label doesn't help me understand the Greek any better, it gives one shorthand to English it (lemma + parsing/declension + force labels == English translation). Actually, I may even be understanding the Greek less because I'm relying on the label to tell me how to English something instead of actually understanding the Greek itself. Doesn't the occurrence of ορκιζω along with the double accusative (σε + τον θεον) clue me in to something different going on without having to label the blasted thing "accusative of oath"?

You know, I'm liking some aspects of Robertson's grammar more and more each time I pull it off of my Logos Bible Software bookshelf.

But I don't begrudge BDF for including §149; it is very useful for the information it provides. I do, however, begrudge the notion that I need to have a label in order to justify a translation, because the labels quickly move from explanation of translation to prescription for translation. It's not, "Oh, oaths and stuff, particularly ορκιζω, are "causative" verbs, and they typically take double accusatives — so they get translated like so-and-so" (and yes, I'm not even really a fan of calling the verb "causative"); it is "well this is an accusative of oath, so we translate it using 'by'". Assigning the label becomes the task, with understanding (and translation) following; when the reverse of that process should really be what's going on.

So, in closing, I'll again say I appreciate Bill Mounce's work. And I'll end the post with some words from (near) the end of his post:

The point is this: languages are not codes. You can’t go neatly from one into the other. Words don’t have exactly the same meanings, and neither do grammatical constructions. All translation is both science and art.

[NB: cross-posted from PastoralEpistles.com since I thought folks here might be interested too. I've written two posts already, Second Timothy 1.1-5 and Second Timothy 1.6-7. I will not update this thread, but will update the index post on PastoralEpistles.com as the work progresses. RB]

I think I'm going to begin something that I may or may not finish. I always hesitate announcing a new "series" because I may never finish the series. But, I find myself thinking about Second Timothy now, and thinking about an analysis and discussion of the text.

One initial step I take in thinking about a text is to translate it. But I don't just translate, I also think about the structure of the text. When I did this for the Didache awhile back, I ended up with what I called a "Phrasal Interlinear". I'm starting the same thing with Second Timothy. I may or may not finish. The good news is that I already translated Second Timothy five or six years ago, though it needs some work.

Consulted Resources

I'd be stupid not to consult existing resources for this sort of thing. And there are many. Here are a few of the best. Thankfully, I have all of these (except for Comfort's new textual commentary) in Logos Bible Software.

Texts

Runge, Steven. The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament. Logos Bible Software. (Uses UBS4 text as primary, includes in-context glosses from the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament)

Porter, O'Donnell, Reed, Tan. The OpenText.org Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament: Clause Analysis. Logos Bible Software.

Commentaries

Knight, George. Pastoral Epistles (amazon.com) (NIGTC). Eerdmans.

Marshall, I. Howard. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (amazon.com). T&T Clark.

Mounce, William. Pastoral Epistles (amazon.com) (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 46). Thomas Nelson

Towner, Philip. The Letters to Timothy and Titus (amazon.com) (NICNT). Eerdmans

Lexicons

BDAG, LSJ, Louw Nida.

Monographs

Van Neste, Ray. Structure and Cohesion in the Pastoral Epistles (amazon.com). Sheffield Academic.

Text-Critical Material

NA27 apparatus

Comfort, Philip W. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (amazon.com). Tyndale.

Metzger, Bruce W. Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (amazon.com). United Bible Societies

[NB: cross-posted from PastoralEpistles.com since I thought folks here might be interested too. RB]

One of the catchword arguments that P.N. Harrison uses in his book The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (amazon.com) has to do with how Paul usually expresses thanks. Here's Harrison:

In expressing his thankfulness to God, Paul consistently uses the word ευχαριστεω (Ro 1.8; 1Co 1.4; 2Co 1.11; Eph 1.16; 5.20; Php 1.3; Col 1.3; 1Th 1.2; 2Th 1.3; 2.13; Phm 4); this author never writes that word, but uses instead the Latinism χαριν εχω (= gratiam habeo) 1Ti 1.12; 2Ti 1.3. (Harrison, 28-29)

I've always been intrigued by this. First, because Harrison assumes his conclusion in the first sentence where he mentions what "Paul consistently uses"; second because he's right about the discrepancy (not Pauline authorship). The Pastorals don't use ευχαριστεω in thanksgiving sections, other Paulines do.

Why bring this up? This morning I began digging back into my translation of Second Timothy, and I ran into 2Ti 1.3, where χαριν εχω is used. And I have a few thoughts on this now.

Some of Harrison's cited instances (Eph 1.16; 5.20) use ευχαριστεω as a participle in a series of modifications, not as the primary verb. His 2Co 1.11 instance may implicitly refer to God as receiving the thanks, but is doesn't explicitly state it. And note that 2Th 1.3; 2.13 use ευχαριστεω as an infinitive, modifying the verb οφειλομεν. Again, not an exact syntactic parallel for the phenomenon under discussion. Note also that Harrison missed 1Co 14.18, which should be added to his list.

Of course, I'd suppose that Harrison (and others) would see these as evidence that Ephesians and Second Thessalonians aren't Pauline either. In any case, the are not direct examples of the phenomenon he is trumpeting, so they shouldn't be listed as evidence for or against his lexical/syntactic argument here.

In the non-Pastorals usage at the head of thanksgiving sections, ευχαριστεω always takes "God" as its complement: "I give thanks to God". More specifically, it is ευχαριστεω τω θεω. In 1Ti 1.12, it is not "God" that Paul thanks with χαριν εχω, it is "the one who has empowered me, Christ Jesus our Lord". Still in the dative, but not quite apples-to-apples.

But that still leaves 2Ti 1.3, which has χαριν εχω τω θεω (compare to ευχαριστεω τω θεω in Ro 1.8; 1Co 1.4; 14.18; Php 1.3; Col 1.3; 1Th 1.2; Phm 4). This is actually Harrison's stronger counterexample (though he doesn't mention it).

My thoughts? Well, εχω (present active indicative first-person) + dative is not unknown in Paul (Ro 12.4; 15.17; 1Co 2.16; 7.25; 8.1; 9.4, 5, 6, 17; 11.16; 12.21; 2Co 3.4; 4.7; Gal 6.10; Eph 1.7; 2.18; 3.12; Col 1.14; 2.1; 2Th 3.9), so it is a structure that Paul could've used. I haven't examined these instances so I don't know exactly what contexts they occur in, if they take references to the deity as complements, etc.

But one interesting item that comes up is Luke 12.50 (yes, Luke). I've always been enamored with the theory that Luke was Paul's amanuensis for the Pastorals, and that his role may have even been closer to co-author. Luke 12.50 is as follows:

NA27: βάπτισμα δὲ ἔχω βαπτισθῆναι καὶ πῶς συνέχομαι ἕως ὅτου τελεσθῇ
ESV: I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!

This is mildly interesting to me because the same thing could be said a different way. In fact, it is said a different way in Mark 10.38:

NA27: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· οὐκ οἴδατε τί αἰτεῖσθε. δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω ἢ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι;
ESV: Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

In other words, in Luke's rewrite of this idea (sure, I think Luke used Mark as source (cf. Lu 1.1-2), but I also think Q is a load of hooey) he uses "I have a baptism" instead of "I am baptized". He uses an εχω construction instead of the plain verb.

I realize it's a reach built on next to nothing, but hey, this is a blog post so why not? Could Luke have done the same thing with Paul's words? Paul says ευχαριστεω τω θεω; Luke writes χαριν εχω τω θεω. Same idea, same stuff being communicated, just a different way of doing it. As Witherington posits, it's the voice of Paul but the hand of Luke.

I've always seen the amanuensis argument (whether it is Luke or not) as a strong one in favor of Pauline authorship/responsibility because we know that Paul uses an amanuensis in other letters. Many of the "style" arguments that seem so valid in challenging Paul's authorship can probably be seen (I'd say better seen) as pointing to different amanuensis situations, not to mention different roles of the amanuensis, influence of listed (and perhaps unlisted) co-authors, genre and the target of the letter.

Anyway, this is too long and I've gotta go. Perhaps more on this later (but perhaps not).

In a previous post, I threatened to do some comparisons between Comfort, Metzger, Omanson's rewrite of Metzger and (where applicable) Westcott & Hort's "Notes on Selected Passages". First, the list of books:

• Comfort: New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (amazon.com) (Tyndale, 2008)
• Omanson: A Textual Guide to the New Testament (amazon.com) (German Bible Society, 2006) This is a "geared towards translators" edition of Metzger's Textual Commentary.
• Metzger: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (amazon.com) (United Bible Societies, 1994)
• NET: NA27/NET Diglot (amazon.com) (Biblical Studies Press, 2004). I realize that the non-diglot NET has more notes and may have greater coverage, but the diglot is the only edition I have to hand at present.
• Westcott & Hort: The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction and Appendix (amazon.com) (Vol. 2). (MacMillan & Co., 1896)

In this post, I'll provide a list of readings covered in the book of First Timothy. I may expand upon some of the readings in subsquent posts. In this list, the following abbreviations are used: C = Comfort; O = Omanson; M = Metzger; NET = NET Bible TC notes; WH = Westcott & Hort

• 1Ti 1.1: C O M NET
• 1Ti 1.4a: C O M
• 1Ti 1.4b: C O M NET WH
• 1Ti 1.12: C
• 1Ti 1.15: O M
• 1Ti 1.17a: C O M
• 1Ti 1.17b: C M NET
• 1Ti 2.1: C O M
• 1Ti 2.7a: C O M NET
• 1Ti 2.7b: C
• 1Ti 3.1 segmentation: O
• 1Ti 3.1: C M WH
• 1Ti 3.3: C M
• 1Ti 3.16 segmentation: O
• 1Ti 3.16: C O M NET WH
• 1Ti 4.3: WH
• 1Ti 4.10: C O M NET
• 1Ti 4.12: C M
• 1Ti 5.4: C
• 1Ti 5.5: C
• 1Ti 5.16: C O M NET
• 1Ti 5.18: C O M
• 1Ti 5.19: M WH
• 1Ti 5.21: C
• 1Ti 6.3: C M
• 1Ti 6.5: C O M NET
• 1Ti 6.7: C O M NET WH
• 1Ti 6.9: C O M
• 1Ti 6.13: C O M NET
• 1Ti 6.17: C O M
• 1Ti 6.19: C O M
• 1Ti 6.21a: C O M NET
• 1Ti 6.21b: C O M
• 1Ti subscription: C M

Interesting standouts: First, Comfort's coverage is most thorough in number of variations handled. Outside of the "segmentation" issues only noted by Omanson, Comfort misses 1Ti 1.15; 4.3; 5.19. These are areas that are of some text-critical interest, but not necessarily where differences arise in translation. Items that Comfort alone handles include 1Ti 1.12; 2.7b; 5.4, 5, 21.

Westcott and Hort don't intend to be comprehensive (they only have 140 pages for the whole NT), but it is interesting that in 2 of the 5 places they show up, Comfort is silent: 1Ti 4.3; 5.19. The discussion in 1Ti 5.19 is about how a phrase in the Greek text is not found in some extant Latin witnesses. In the case of 1Ti 4.3, it is simply difficult extant text. While these are issues, it is pretty obvious that these sorts of things don't really fit the target that Comfort (and Omanson) are trying to hit. W&H give text-critical information to text critics; Comfort and Omanson translate the text-critical information for a larger audience. Metzger sort of sits in the middle of both.

I may dig further into some of these, particularly those that have examples in every listed source (perhaps 1Ti 1.4b or 1Ti 6.7? 1Ti 3.16 is so well-known as to be over-analyzed), just to compare the level of discussion and style of notes each edition has. Let me know if you're interested in that sort of thing.

Unbeknownst to many, Westcott and Hort published an Introduction (amazon.com) as a second volume to their epochal edition of the Greek New Testament. The Introduction (amazon.com) has a massively detailed description of their text-critical method (330 pages!). It is, essentially, them showing their work. (Oh that other editions ... you know which one(s) I'm talking about ... would follow their lead!)

Another component of the Introduction (amazon.com) is the first Appendix, "Notes on Select Readings", 142 pages of text-critical notes and discussion on problematic readings. Think of it as the precursor to Metzger's Textual Commentary (amazon.com).

I've never read the two (Metzger and WH) against each other. So imagine my surprise when I read the note for 1Ti 5.19 in both, I added the bold:

Westcott-Hort

v 19 ἐκτὸς ... μαρτύρων ] < Latin MSS known to Hier; also apparently Cyp Ambst, who quote no further than παραδέχου; not D2 r nor (<ἐπὶ) G3.

Metzger

5.19     ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων
These words, found in all extant manuscripts of the passage, were absent from some Latin manuscripts known to Jerome, and perhaps also from the copies used by Cyprian and Ambrosiaster, who quote no farther than παραδέχου.

I'm not accusing anyone of plagiarism; I would be surprised if Metzger hadn't consulted WH in writing his volume. This just surprised me.

Got some new books in the mail today (with some Christmas fundage from Mom & Dad B; thanks!). I'll likely be blogging about them as I read them. One of them is Philip Comfort's new (and, upon initial review, very excellent) title New Testament Text Translation and Commentary (amazon.com). This is like Metzger's Textual Commentary (amazon.com) only with English New Testament readers in mind as primary readers, though detailed text-critical and Greek variation data is included.

Here's a paragraph from the introduction; this is in the "makes you go hmmmmm ..." department:

Nonetheless, the reader will see that he NU and WH editions often agree on matters of major textual significance. Where the WH and NU diverge, however, NU far more frequently concurs with TR than does WH. Furthermore, where WH and NU differ, I am inclined quite frequently to agree with WH on the basis of documentary evidence. (Comfort, xxvi, bold emphasis added)

Did you catch that? According to Comfort, when WH and Nestle/UBS ("NU" in Comfort's abbreviation) disagree, NU agrees with the TR far more frequently than WH does. I find that very interesting, particularly for the derision and scorn the Alands seem to have for the TR text (second only to their dislike of WH, which for whatever you want to say, seems to me to be the basis of their text).

Appendix D has further information about this, particularly a critique of the "local-geneaological" method which NA/UBS follows. This is interesting as I just read another critique of the local-geneaological method last night in Fee & Epp's NT Texts volume.

Also, I may do some comparisons between Metzger, Roger Omanson's rewrite of Metzger, and Comfort (and, perhaps, W&H's introduction for passages that include material) just to see how they all compare to and complement each other. If that sounds interesting, let me know.

Longtime ricoblog readers may remember two years ago when I posted some on what is known as "Thorough-going Eclecticism", which is the method described, applied and advocated by J.K. Elliott. (Yet another unfinished series ... oh well)

I have to admit some admiration for thorough-going eclecticism, if only as a corrective to the "cult of the best manuscript" phenomenon. It reminds that there are all sorts of reasons for variants, and each one must be studied carefully in light of all sorts of information. For that, I like it. For it's dismissal of all external evidence, I'm not so happy.

I've been reading some in Epp & Fee's* Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (amazon.com). Chapter 7 in this volume is "Rigorous or Reasoned Eclecticism—Why"? In it, Gordon Fee responds strongly but charitably to the primary proponents of "Rigorous Eclecticism" (Kilpatrick and Elliott, one of his students). It is well worth the read. Here is Fee's final paragraph, with which I concur:

Rational eclecticism is indeed the currently reigning method, and it appears to be a valid one, for it takes seriously both internal questions and the manuscript evidence. Rather than search for a new method as some propose, or jettison historical study as rigorous eclecticism tends to, the present methodological task would seem to be the implementation and refinement of rational eclecticism. It is here that the labors of Professor Kilpatrick and Dr. Elliott should prove to be most useful. Their contributions as to various stylistic features of the NT authors as well as their isolation of the variants where Atticism might be a possible factor have not only increased our knowledge but also widened our perspective when asking the internal questions. For this we express unqualified appreciation.
Epp, E. J., & Fee, G. D. (1993). Studies in the theory and method of New Testament textual criticism (amazon.com) (140). Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans.

* How often can you find a volume edited by two people, each with three-letter last names, one of which is vowel-consonant-consonant and the other which is consonant-vowel-vowel?

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.

In his book A Stylometric Study of the New Testament, Anthony Kenny writes:

The Fribergs divide the Greek conjunctions of the New Testament into three classes. The two clauses or propositions of structures which are joined by a conjunction may be intended to have equal prominence in their context, or one may be given greater weight than another. Accordingly, the conjunctions which link them may be classed as co-ordinating (giving equal weight), as subordinating (introducing a clause less prominent than that to which it is linked), or as hyperordinating (introducing a clause more prominent than that to which it is linked). Thus every conjunction will be tagged either CC, CS or CH. (Kenny, 32).

Based on what I've learned about αλλα, my understanding is that αλλα should always be, in the Fribergs terminology, "hyperordinating". But an examination of their analysis shows that of the 638 NT instances, the Fribergs tag 553 of them hyperordinating (aka "superordinating"), 84 of them as coordinating, and one instance as subordinating. This post examines Rev 2.9, the lone "subordinating" αλλα in the NT.

Οἶδά σου τὴν θλῖψιν καὶ τὴν πτωχείαν, ἀλλὰ πλούσιος εἶ, καὶ τὴν βλασφημίαν ἐκ τῶν λεγόντων Ἰουδαίους εἶναι ἑαυτοὺς καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀλλὰ συναγωγὴ τοῦ Σατανᾶ. (Rev 2.9, UBS4)

I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. (Rev 2.9, ESV)

There are two αλλα in this verse; according to the Fribergs, the "subordinating" αλλα is the first, τὴν πτωχείαν, ἀλλὰ πλούσιος εἶ ("and your poverty (but you are rich)"). The second is "hyperordinating" (what would be expected).

So, what is it about the first instance that is different? Is it because the αλλα clause is seen as secondary to the primary clause; an in-stream parenthetical comment that doesn't seem to add much to the larger structure? The larger point seems to be built around the comparison between "your tribulation and your poverty and the slander ...", with the party doing the slandering further qualified as not Jews (though they confess to be Jews) but instead a "synagogue of Satan". In this latter instance, "the synagogue of Satan" has the prominence (indeed, Fribergs mark it as hyperordinating, thus it being the "more important" of the conjoined items). This is fairly standard with αλλα, the following statement offering correction to the first one and highlighting the correction.

[Note: The following paragraph has been added subsequent to the original post]

Upon further reflection, I believe the compared clauses are "I know your affliction and poverty" and "but you are rich". The corrective response is not simply to the note of poverty; "affliction" and "poverty" are one unit, joined by και (and perhaps too the genitive phrase following the αλλα?); the correction is to that unit, not simply to being poor.

[Back to the original post]

I'd argue the same thing for the earlier instance. In the context of the two conjoined items, "your poverty, but you are rich" it is the encouragement of the author to his audience. This is the letter "to the angel of the church in Ephesus", thus these words are from Christ to that church. While they find themselves temporally poor, they are to be encouraged that in fact they are rich in what matters. While their circumstances are tough, those circumstances will change—indeed, they already have begun to change. To me, this as well seems to be the basic "corrective" use of αλλα, correcting the first item and marking the correction as the important, salient bit in the comparison of elements.

I'd have to say that, at least with the first instance of αλλα in Rev 2.9, the Friberg's morphology should mark it as "conjunction, superordinating (hyperordinating)" instead of "conjunction, subordinating".

This as well serves as a case to show once again why I don't like such morpho-syntactic labels applied at the word level; it leads many who use such data to think there is something about αλλα itself in this instance that is "subordinating" or "hyperordinating". In reality, the conjunction morphology (part-of-speech) is just a convienent place to hang this item when it rightly belongs at a higher level of the annotation. But since "morphologies" only consider words as data tokens, they only have words to hang such data on—whether it rightly belongs on the word (as several "morphological" criteria do) or whether it rightly belongs at a higher level of the discourse (marking phrasal relations, clausal relations, or discourse-level relations).

While I am fairly sure that the Fribergs don't intend to mark αλλα itself as somehow morphologically producing a "hyperordinating", "coordinating" or "subordinating" result, less-informed use of such resources could easily make (and attempt to defend) such a conclusion. This is a common problem, and it is visible everywhere in everything. Calvin would (rightly) dispute against many who claim to be "Calvinists" as having misrepresented his thought; Darwin would also (rightly) dispute many who claim to be "Darwinists".

Anyway, enough from me. I don't know that I'll work through the 84 "coordinating" instances of αλλα to show how I would instead consider them to be "hyperordinating". But you never know. Maybe. In case you want to peek at them, here are the references:

Mt 24:6; Mk 3:27; 4:22; 6:9; 11:32; 13:7, 24; 14:28, 49; 16:7; Lk 6:27; 7:25, 7:26; 11:42; 16:21; 21:9; 23:15; 24:21, 22; Jn 1:31; 3:28; 5:42; 6:22, 36, 64; 8:26; 11:11; 14:31; 15:21, 25; 16:2, 4, 6, 7, 20; Ac 10:20; 19:2; 26:16; Ro 4:2; 5:15; 6:5; 10:2, 16, 18, 19; 11:4; 1Co 2:9; 3:2; 4:3, 4; 6:6, 11(3x); 1 Co 6:12(2x); 7:7; 8:7; 9:12; 10:5; 12:24; 15:35, 40, 46; 2Co 1:9; 7:11(6x); 8:7; 11:1; Ga 4:8; 4:23; Eph 5:24; Php 1:18; 2:17; 1Ti 1:16; Heb 3:16; Jas 2:18; 1Pe 3:16; Re 2:6; 10:7.

If you don't read Mike Aubrey's blog, ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ, then you should. His post of this morning "Challenges for Literal Translation: Lessons from 4 Maccabees" is excellent. He's thinking through translation issues, but using a non-canonical text (4 Maccabees) as his springboard.

Even though quoting one's self can be self-serving (hey, it's a blog ... it's supposed to be self-serving!), here's what I wrote as a comment to his post:

I think working through these issues in non-canonical text from roughly the same era is a valuable thing. It causes us to start focusing on the text itself and what it communicates, not on what our presuppositions and heritage have already determined it should say.

I’ve found similar exercises with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers extremely valuable.

And I have. The most recent example is the post previous to this, on EpDiog 5.7.

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.

Any ideas as to what this might be?

Hint: It has to do with my BibleTech:2009 paper. (If you're using a feed reader like Bloglines, you'll need to see the post on ricoblog for the details)

Any ideas?

Ok, I'll give. The above is a representation of parts of speech in the first five books of the LXX (so, the pentateuch). Yes, lots of refining to do, but you get the gist. The order is:

(particularly if you're in the Pacific Northwest / British Columbia region)

Because cool people are doing cool things. Mike Aubrey, a very smart and very motivated guy, is playing around with automated morphological tagging using some of SIL's existing tools. And he's giving a paper on it. (Go here for more info, then go here to register for BibleTech:2009)

If this sort of thing floats your boat, not only will you be able to hear the paper—you'll be able to sit down at a meal with Mike and talk with him more about it.

And that's what I like about BibleTech. Sure, there is learning new stuff from folks doing cool things. But there is also a sense of community where you can actually talk further (outside of a formal Q&A session) about stuff and get to know someone.

So consider attending, and please do register!

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?

I've mentioned the upcoming Bible Technologies Conference and the paper I plan on presenting there (also info here). I've recently realized that I've got a little more than two months to get the durn thing written.

I also realized that Kenny spent 124 pages talking about Stylometry in the New Testament; I'm giving a paper that is allotted perhaps 30 minutes (some portion of which is intended for questions) for a corpus that is roughly four times the size of the New Testament.

In other words, I'm realizing that I'll have to give a very high level overview with perhaps some glimpses at deeper-level data. Chances are I'll follow most of Kenny's lead, which means:

• Rough overview of distribution of major parts of speech (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, etc.)
• Rough overview of most common words and their distribution/frequency
• Perhaps some further look at things like conjunctions and articles

Kenny then used portions of his data in the evaluation of certain textual issues, mostly geared toward authorship (Luke/Acts, John/epistles/Revelation, Paulines). I'll have to determine an issue to examine further using the data pulled together, but I have some constraints:

• No examination of JEDP, whatsoever.
• No examination of authorship, whatsoever.
• No examination of translational theory, whatsoever.

Given these constraints, are there stylistic issues in the LXX that you would suggest I use for my example case study?

My own thoughts have to do with genre (say, look at stuff having to do with narrative versus stuff having to do with poetry to see if there are any sorts of things that seem to be indicative of one or the other). But I'm interested in what you might think or suggest. For an idea of the criteria/features I'm tracking, see this post.

Please feel free to leave a comment with your suggestion(s), or drop me an email (textgeek at gmail dot com). Thanks!

From Epp and Fee's Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (amazon.com), chapter 5, "The Twentieth Century Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism", (emphasis mine):

One response to the fact that our popular critical texts are still so close to that of WH might be that the kind of text arrived at by them and supported so widely by subsequent criticism is in fact and without question the best attainable NT text; yet every textual critic knows that this similarity of text indicates, rather, that we have made little progress in textual theory since Westcott-Hort; that we simply do not know how to make a definitive determination as to what the best text is; that we do not have a clear picture of the transmission and alteration of the text in the first few centuries; and, accordingly, that the Westcott-Hort kind of text has maintained its dominant position largely by default. Günther Zuntz enforces the point in a slightly different way when he says that “the agreement between our modern editions does not mean that we have recovered the original text. It is due to the simple fact that their editors … follow one narrow section of the evidence, namely, the non-Western Old Uncials”.
Epp, E. J., & Fee, G. D. (1993). Studies in the theory and method of New Testament textual criticism (amazon.com) (87). Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans.

The quote from Zuntz is from a book that's been on my Amazon.com wishlist for awhile, but I haven't yet obtained: The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition Upon the Corpus Paulinum: The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1946 (amazon.com). Yet another reason to think about buying it, I guess (I've seen it in footnotes a couple times in the past weeks).

I just installed the New Testament Textual Criticism Collection (6 Volumes) available from my employer, Logos Bible Software.

I'm stoked about this collection. There are six books, two of which (the first two listed) I'm particularly looking forward to:

• Eldon J. Epp and Gordon D. Fee, Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (amazon.com). Eerdmans, 1993.
• Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research (amazon.com). Eerdmans, 1995.
• Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze (amazon.com). T&T Clark, 2001
• David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (amazon.com). Baker Academic, 1994.
• Keith Elliot and Ian Moir. Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament (amazon.com). T&T Clark, 1995.
• Jack Finegan, Encountering the New Testament Manuscripts (amazon.com). Eerdmans, 1974.

I've had my eye on the Eerdmans titles for a long time, just never ponied up the dough for them. It'll be good to finally read some of the essays in those books, as well as consider the others (particularly Goodacre's).

Many thanks to Eric Sowell of Archaic Christianity for making available his in-progress work, A Reader's Version of the Protoevangelium of James.

You won't find a translation in Eric's work; should you need one to check yourself against, try CCEL's edition. Though you should really try to fight through it by yourself first.

On helps to get you reading Greek, I think so-called "Reader's Editions" are good things. I also think diglots are good, and I think that if you want to gain more reading facility you should read stuff that isn't the New Testament. On that note, I am also finding the present volumes immensely helpful:

• Michael Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (amazon.com) (Third Edition). Baker Academic. This is a diglot and the translation is good without being too idiomatic. Very helpful in working through text you may not be familiar with. The Gentium font is used, so it is very readable.
• Andrew E. Bernhard, Other Early Christian Gospels: A Critical Edition of the Surviving Greek Manuscripts (amazon.com). Continuum. Included here are transcriptions ("Critical Editions" and "Student's Greek Texts"; the student texts have normalized spelling and no apparatus) and translations of existing Greek sources for non-Canonical gospels. As such, the vocabulary is usually familiar enough but different enough to make you work. The included translations also help with providing a source to check your reading against. And there are Greek word indexes for each included document, but they're in the back so they are there, but not too handy.

I'd recommend both of them. If you're looking to increase your skill with Greek in 2009, these are good places to start. You also might want to try Rodney Whitacre's A Patristic Greek Reader (amazon.com).

Another little item that might be helpful is my "Phrasal Interlinear" of the Didache. It is a (mostly) phrase-by-phrase interlinear, not the typical word-by-word interlinear.

Also, a hint that has helped me recently: Don't read these things with translation as your primary goal. Read the words of the Greek text as phrases/clauses; don't try to translate word-for-word as you go. If you go by word, you'll end up stuck in a code/decode approach that is more about substituting word glosses and less about understanding the Greek text. Read a phrase or clause, and accept that you don't understand something. Many times, the bit that is confusing will make sense as the whole phrase or clause is unveiled—it gives you the context you need to make an educated guess on that unknown word or parsing. Reading is for understanding, not for parsing and gloss-lookup-ing on a word-by-word basis to piece together an incoherent jumble of Englished Greek.

Update (2009-01-04): Thanks to Tommy Wasserman (Evangelical Textual Criticism) for reminding us about the online critical edition of the Protevangelium:

And there is also an online mini critical edition to the Protevangelium Jacobi, including introduction to the manuscripts, etc., released last year by two doctoral students in Birmingham: http://www.sd-editions.com/protevangel/

Another comment, this one from me: Is it "protoevangelium" (which Eric uses in his title) or "protevangelium" (which is more familiar to me, and which the online critical edition uses)? Or does it matter?

First, I won't pretend to have all of the answers (or any of the answers, for that matter), but I would like to weigh in on how syntax searching of the OpenText.org Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament might help one get a grasp of the problem and the options.

Disclaimer: I work for Logos, and have blogged extensively on the OpenText.org Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament on the Logos Blog. I'm not writing this post to say that "danielandtonya" are right or wrong (though their approach seems sound to me and I'm guessing their results will be too), or to say that their data sets are somehow in error. I just want to try to assemble their data sets using syntactic searching (and any advantage that relying on syntactic relationship gives) instead of relying on proximity + agreement relationships, with or without exclusion—and see what differences there are and how important or unimportant they might be.

For the uninitiated, this debate is concerning Gal 2.16 (go ahead, read it, and make sure to check the Greek too).

Specifically, I'd like to interact with Hebrew and Greek Reader's three data sets delineated in their "The Jesus Faith - Vol. 3" post (but also described in the Vol. 2 post).

Here are their descriptions of their three data sets, from their Vol. 3 post:

• Data Set 1 - How many times in the GNT is πιστις (in any case) followed by Χριστος (in any case) within four words of each other?
• Data Set 2 - How many times in the GNT is a genitive noun followed by another genitive noun within four words?
• Data Set 3 - How many times in the GNT is πιστις in the genitive case followed by another genitive noun within two words (and words in between are not conjunctions or non-genitive nouns)?

On the first data set, danielandtonya report that the following references are included: Ro 3.22; Gal. 2.16 (2x); 3.22, 26; Phil 3.9; Col. 1.4; 1Tim 3.13; and 2Tim 3.15. My syntax search located one additional hit, James 2.1. The syntax search looks like this:

I'm searching for where πιστις is the "head term" of the word group (loosely, the "phrase"), and where it is either directly or indirectly modified by χριστος. The James 2.1 instance has four words between πιστις and χριστος, so the intervening range is larger than danielandtonya accounted for. I'm not sure that it makes any difference to the argument, and they may have known about it but weeded it out. I just mention it because it was in my results.

On the second data set, danielandtonya report 1,431 hits (in their Vol. 3 post). That's a lot of hits. The syntax search I created narrows it down to 452 hits.* The difference is that the syntax search locates where the second genitive is in some sort of direct relationship with the first genitive, not just where two genitives happen to be within two words of each other. Again, it is relying on the relationship, not the proximity of words (which essentially serves as a loose approximation of syntactic relationship). Whether this makes any difference for danielandtonya's argument I have no idea. But here's the search:

I should note that I'm constraining to nouns because that is the wording that danielandtonya's specification uses; I might also want to consider adjectives in one or both slots, but that's left as an exercise for the reader to complete.

On the third data set, danielandtonya haven't yet reported (at the time of my initial posting), so I'll have to wing it. In OpenText-ese, what they appear to be looking for is when a genitive noun is in close relationship with πιστεως (genitive form of πιστις), hence the two-word proximity constraint, and the further specification that no conjunctions or pronouns intervene. With a syntactic analysis, there is no necessity to consider the exclusion of certain intervening types (such as conjunctions or pronouns) because one is really searching for the relationship between things no matter what may intervene. Here again, between two nouns, a simple "modification" relationship fits the bill (from what I understand of danielandtonya's intent). So my third search is relatively similar to the previous, I've just added that πιστις should be the lemma of the first word in the series:

What did I get for results? Five hits: Ro 3.22; Ga 2.16(2x); 3.22; Col 2.12. All but Col 2.12 were in danielandtonya's first dataset.

And this is where I leave you. I don't have a dog in the "objective or subjective genitive" argument. I don't like any of the labels because they (at least to me) seem to be geared toward answering the "how do I translate it?" question instead of the "how was it understood?" question. Yes; the two are somewhat related, but the primary difference is the end. One seems to think about and try to understand Greek in terms of English; the other at least tries to think about Greek in terms of Greek. Thus, I'm not a fan of labeling things like this. From my view, the obvious ones are, well, obvious; and the debatable ones are debated ad nauseum to little ultimate benefit.

* If you allow for variation in the order of the head term word and modifier, then the count is 458. But as danielandtonya's specifications rely on order, I figured these should too.

At least, that's the book I'd like to see someone write. Mike Aubrey wrote a post called "On the Use of Linguistics In New Testament Studies". It's worth reading, so hop on over and give it a read.

I wrote in the comments:

In my background reading for the paper on αλλα, I found time and again that the dead grammarians had more insight to offer than a lot of the new stuff. Blass-Thackeray was more helpful to me than BDF. Funk’s BIGHG gave the stuff and had no fluff getting in the way. Robertson, when you could find the twelve places he mentioned something, was good. But most newer (published in the last 20 years, let’s say) had survey-itis and classification-itis. It was like listening to a player piano. All the notes were right, but the tune had no soul. The dead grammarians, for all their warts, have soul.

My undergrad degree is in economics. One book I had to read for a senior seminar had the best title ever: “New Ideas from Dead Economists”. I’ve been hoping against hope that someone would write a similar book for Hellenistic Greek, something like “New Ideas from Dead Greek Grammarians” or something like that.

Additionally, though, I have to say that some of the best stuff as an overview on discourse function of conjunctions was in Porter & O'Donnell's 1996 2006 LIABG paper. If you haven't read that, you should.

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.

[NB: I'll be blogging random things about my upcoming BibleTech:2009 paper; these posts will all be available in the "bibletech" category. If you're presenting a paper at the conference, might I suggest the same practice? That way they'll all be available by a search for 'bibletech' on Technorati or some other such service. —RB]

In his book A Stylometric Study of the New Testament (amazon.com), Anthony Kenny lists 99 features that he tracked across the corpus, using them as a guide to his analysis. His feature list is based on categorization of the Friberg morphology circa 1986. I believe the Friberg has undergone significant revision since then and is considered to be in at least its second edition; perhaps even the third edition. Kenny also includes some stock lexical items such as conjunction instances, preposition instances, and some specific words (e.g. θεος, λεγω). Note that Kenny did all of his counts by hand, from "the microfiche concordance ot the machine-readable version of the Analytical Greek New Testament"! (Kenny, "Note on Sources") He used a TI 58 statistical calculator for his numbers, also "the ICL 2988 machine in the Oxford University Computer Services". (Kenny, "Note on Sources").

Right now, I'm thankful for fast computers, XML and for Perl and/or C# (haven't figured out which language I'll use for the code yet).

In my paper for BibleTech:2009, I'm proposing to carry out a similar analysis, only of the LXX, using the Logos Morphology. There are several of the 99 categories that can be re-used (81, to be exact). Friberg has much more going on in adjectives, adverbs, and conjunctions than the Logos LXX Morphology; this accounts for much of the difference.

However, I think I'll be able to track up to 106 features, and perhaps more. How? Kenny did very little with participles, and even less with pronouns. I have no idea why he did little with participles because the Friberg morphology is rich in this area (even differentiating, at the 'mood' slot, between 'participle' and 'participle (imperative sense)', Kenny pp. 10-11, figure 2.1). It may have been because it would be too tedious (recall he counted by hand). But pronouns are simply a type of noun in this edition of Friberg, so Kenny's hands were tied (he tracked third-person pronouns in sum and also by case, but that's it).

Kenny also didn't track instances of the vocative case (for articles, nouns, and adjectives). But he did track optatives and pluperfects (indeed rare cases in the NT). Thus, to the 81 shared criteria, I'm considering adding 25 more for a total of 106.

If you're interested, the list of 25 additional features is below.

Because of differences in classification of voice
82. Number of occurrences of third-person singular indicative verbs in the either-middle-or-passive voice

Participles
83. Number of occurrences of verbs in the participle mood
84. Number of occurrences of participles in the nominative
85. Number of occurrences of participles in the dative
86. Number of occurrences of participles in the genitive
87. Number of occurrences of participles in the accusative
88. Number of occurrences of participles in the masculine
89. Number of occurrences of participles in the feminine
90. Number of occurrences of participles in the neuter
91. Number of occurrences of participles in the singular
92. Number of occurrences of participles in the plural
93. Number of occurrences of Proper Nouns

Interjections
94. Number of occurrences of Interjections (I)

Vocatives
95. Number of occurrences of vocative articles
96. Number of occurrences of vocative nouns
97. Number of occurrences of vocative adjectives

Other Pronoun Information
98. Number of occurrences of Relative Pronouns
99. Number of occurrences of Reciprocal Pronouns
100. Number of occurrences of Demonstrative Pronouns
101. Number of occurrences of Correlative Pronouns
102. Number of occurrences of Interrogative Pronouns
103. Number of occurrences of Indefinite Pronouns
104. Number of occurrences of Reflexive Pronouns
105. Number of occurrences of Possessive Pronouns
106. Number of occurrences of Personal Pronouns

There may be more, I just have to think about it a bit more. For instance, I could add case-specific instances of each pronoun type (so, relative pronouns in the nominative, in the genitive, etc.) but at present I'm thinking that's overkill. Of course, I may change my mind. I also need to consider if there are particular word instances to include in the feature list; I may have to do some word frequency analysis in order to determine candidates. I will also have to review LXX-specific conjunctions and prepositions to determine how those portions of the list might be expanded.

You've heard about it for months, now you can read it too. I've posted my ETS 2008 paper on my conference papers web site.

If you're interested in the background posts I've made regarding the paper over the past nine months or so, see the ETS 2008 category. I've also written a lot that didn't make it in the paper due to length considerations; perhaps I'll consider posting that information in blog-post-sized chunks over the next while if there is interest. This extra material contains primarily review of lexicons, grammars and monographs as well as brief examination of particular instances. If you'd like to see that kind of stuff, please let me know by commenting on this post.

Finally, thanks to all who offered comments and feedback along the way. Particular thanks to Steve Runge for pushing, prodding, and encouraging me through the whole thing. I bit off much more than I could chew, but Steve's help and encouragement along the way saw me to the end. I understand much more now about conjunctions than I ever thought I would. Thanks, Steve.

I don't normally do link posts, but today there are some good things to point out, so here is the link dump, with brief commentary.

First, check out NTDiscourse.org. My friend and colleague, Steve Runge, (editor of the popular and helpful Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament and the upcoming Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction to Discourse Features for Teaching and Exegesis) has started blogging. His focus is on Discourse Grammar and in demystifying an approach to discourse. The blog will variously examine different discourse structures and also work through passages from a discourse level. Steve's heart is in making this stuff approachable for pastors and teachers, so that sermons, lessons and Bible studies can benefit. Get this one on your feed reader.

Second, head to Roger Pearse's eponymous blog and see if you can help him with his bleg concerning "A difficult piece of Greek in Eusebius".

Third, RBL released its latest round of book reviews. One looks particularly interesting, to me anyway: Watching a Biblical Narrative: Point of View in Biblical Exegesis. (No, I haven't read it yet) I'm wondering how the information in this book jives with what Bauckham did in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (amazon.com) (which is now in paperback), or how it treats the "we" passages in Acts. The book is a T&T Clark title and retails at $130, though. Hopefully it'll be in paperback soon; until then check your library.

That's it for now.

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.

[Disclaimer: I work for Logos Bible Software and love every minute of it. The links to Logos below are just that, links. I get no commission or brownie points from click-thrus or any sales.]

Logos will be at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (in Providence, RI, Nov 19-21, 2008) and also at the national meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (in Boston, MA, Nov 21-25, 2008).

The specials mentioned below are only available at these conferences. And I'm not even listing all of them, just the ones that I find interesting and which I think you (my humble reader) may be interested in. There are 12 specials designed for the conferences, I'm only listing three of them below. If you'll be at the conferences, please stop by the booth for more info on all of the conference collections, or to purchase them.

These are awesome collections of top-notch texts useful for Biblical Studies. Listed first is perhaps the best deal you'll ever find on the combination of ICC NT vols and several (33!) very useful JSNTS monographs.

New Testament Studies Bundle (64 Vols.)

• International Critical Commentary (ICC): New Testament (30 vols.)
• Library of NT Studies: JSNTS on the Gospels and Acts (16 vols.)
• Library of NT Studies: JSNTS on Paul (17 vols.)
• Linguistics and NT Interpretation – Black, Barnwell, Levinsohn

Show Only Price  $1,199.95
Show Savings (off Retail): $4,541.45

Advanced Greek Supplement (6 Vols.)

• BDAG
• Grammar of the Greek NT in Light of Historical Research – A. T. Robertson
• Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics – Daniel B. Wallace
• Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. – Stanley Porter
• Intermediate NT Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach – R. A. Young
• Learning the Basics of NT Greek with Workbook – Hadjiantoniou

Show Only Price $299.95
Show Savings (off Retail) $111.91

ANE Studies Bundle (30 Vols.)

• Ancient Near Eastern Texts (ANET) – James Pritchard
• Dictionary of Deities & Demons in the Bible
• Ugaritic Library, 12 vols.
• Writings From the Ancient World, 16 vols. 

Show Only Price $639.95
Show Savings (off Retail): $806.94

As I said, that is only three of the twelve bundles. If you're at the show, be sure to ask about the "Scholar's Reference Bundle" which includes all of ICC, all of WBC, and a few other commentary sets. These are specials on the big stuff that you won't want to miss.

Here's what I've submitted for BibleTech:2009. We'll see whether or not the paper is accepted.

Note that the deadline for submissions is Nov 3, 2008. Last year was a blast, so I'm pumped for this year's conference (on March 27-28, 2009 in Seattle, WA).

Stylometry and the Septuagint: Applying Anthony Kenny's Stylometric Study of the NT to the LXX

In 1986, Anthony Kenny wrote a book called "A Stylometric Study of the New Testament" which gives details for compiling and comparing book-by-book stylometric statistics for the Greek New Testament given a morphologically tagged corpus. This exploratory study proposes to apply Kenny's method to the LXX, using the Logos Bible Software LXX Morphology, to analyze style.

While Kenny's primary application of his method was in the area of authorship studies, this paper is more interested in the general style of the LXX, and not at all interested in authorship theories or assigning a 'hand' to different passages. For better or worse, this paper treats the LXX as a corpus, and has little interest in its relationship with the underlying Hebrew text.

Once the analysis has been detailed, some points of interest (known only when the analysis is complete as the nature of the study is exploratory) will be further explored. Areas in which the work could be further developed will also be reviewed.

I should stress again, the key word is exploratory, particularly since I'll be using a beta/in-development form of the Logos LXX Morphology. I don't have theories I'm trying to prove, I'm interested in seeing what sorts of information comes to light when applying a Kenny-esque technique to the analysis of the style of the LXX.

Will you be at BibleTech:2009? You really should, last year's was one of the best, most fun conferences I've ever been to. And, if your paper proposal is accepted, you don't have to pay the conference registration! How cool is that?

Just stumbled across this at Amazon.com (amazon.com). It has a release date of Nov 1 2008, so you can probably pick it up at ETS or SBL if you're going to be there.

Maurice Robinson, David Alan Black, Keith Elliott, Daniel Wallace and Darrell Bock, Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views (amazon.com). B&H Academic: Nashville. 2008.

It looks like a good one to check out on the perennial problem of the ending of the book of Mark. Here's the description from Amazon.com:

Because it is conspicuously absent from more than one early Greek manuscript, the final section of the gospel of Mark (16:9-20) that details Christ’s resurrection remains a constant source of debate among serious students of the New Testament.

Perspectives on the Ending of Mark (amazon.com) presents in counterpoint form the split opinions about this difficult passage with a goal of determining which is more likely. Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary professors Maurice Robinson and David Alan Black argue for the verses’ authenticity. Keith Elliott (University of Leeds) and Daniel Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) contend that they are not original to Mark’s gospel. Darrell Bock (Dallas Theological Seminary) responds to each view and summarizes the state of current research on the entire issue.

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).

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.

Note that Mike Aubrey, of the blog εν Εφεσω, has been doing some blogging on the use of the conjunction δε in the book of Ephesians.

• The Function of δε in Ephesians — Introduction
• The Function of δε in Ephesians — Part I
• The Function of δε in Ephesians — Part II

Do check Mike's stuff out! Conjunctions (function words is the better label, I think, so particles/interjections/etc. are included too) are such a large part of any language and are so blithely treated in many grammatical and lexical works. They seem to be more focused on cataloguing and sorting them than understanding the function they play.

If the depth of your understanding of any conjunction is just to substitute out one or two English glosses when you read the conjunction in Greek ... well ... expand thy vision and understanding, and thine exegesis will surely benefit.

I'm so excited I've got another post on αλλα cookin'!

I don't know what it says about me, but I have found a typo in my printed copy of BDF. (It is also in my electronic copy.) Not that I don't doubt there are typos; I just never figured I'd find a typo—in a Greek grammar of all places.

Of course it is in the section of BDF that deals with αλλα. Where else would I find such a thing?

So get out your pencils and get ready to scribble in your own copy (I can't be the only one who does this—correct typos/known errors in printed copies—can I?)

The section in question is §448.4 (p. 233). If you use BDF, you know there is a larger-print section and a smaller-print section for most areas; this is in the smaller-print §448.4.

(4) A simpler form is found in Jn 7:49; 1Co 10:20. In multiple questions (with the answer in each case given or suppressed) Mk 11:8f. = Lk 7:24ff.

The typo is Mk 11:8f; it should be Mt 11:8f. Mt 11.8 has Lk 7.24 as parallel; Mk 11.8 is completely unrelated.

This all goes to show that one must always check all references carefully, particularly if you're doing work for a conference paper, journal or dictionary article, dissertation, or monograph of some sort.

Note: The reference index in BDF (p. 303) is actually correct here, it has Mt 11:8f. pointing to §448.4; there is no reference index entry for Mk 11:8f.

Further note: What is going on with αλλα in Mt 11.7-9 is really cool!

Even further note: Know of other such corrections for BDF? Use the comments to let me know.

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.

Voces Biblicae: Septuagint Greek and its Significance for the New Testament (amazon.com) by J. Joosten and P.J. Tomson (Editors)

Here's the description:

During the Renaissance period, when the Greek texts of the Bible became accessible again to Western scholars, a large number of words were identified that seemed to be attested only in the Septuagint and New Testament: the famous voces biblicae, "biblical words". They were held by some to reflect a special kind of Jewish Greek, or perhaps even a peculiar Greek idiom created by the Holy Spirit in order to express the unspeakable mysteries of God's grace. Today, scholars usually prefer more down-to-earth explanations. Moreover, the list of voces biblicae has been much shortened because many words that were initially found only in the Bible later turned up in the papyri. Nevertheless, the "biblical words" continue to fascinate. The present volume contains seven essays illuminating different aspects of the vocabulary of the Greek Bible.

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.

From Richard Young's Intermediate New Testament Greek: A Linguistic and Exegetical Approach (amazon.com), available in print (amazon.com) and also in Logos format.

Do not insist on classical distinctions—As noted above, Hellenistic Greek is not characterized by the strict usage of classical Greek. The preposition ἐν, for example, displays a wide variety of meanings beyond its root idea, much of which comes from Semitic influence. One of the major shortcomings of Lenski’s commentaries is his tendency to insist on the classical meaning of ἐν. Moule (1968:49) states, “It is a mistake to build exegetical conclusions on the notion that Classical accuracy in the use of prepositions was maintained in the κοινή period.” In connection with this, it might be misleading to say any preposition (especially ἐν) has a literal or proper meaning. Rather prepositions have a range of possible meanings with some more common than others.
Young, R. A. (1994). Intermediate New Testament Greek : A linguistic and exegetical approach (amazon.com) (86). Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman.

This is from Robertson's introduction to the first edition of W.H. Davis' Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament (newly revised by Dr. David Shackleford and published in print by Wipf & Stock and available electronically in Logos Bible Software). Robertson wrote the forward to the first edition for his former student and friend, William Hersey Davis.

If one gets it into his head that the root idea of tense is time, he may never get it out and he will therefore never understand the beauty of the Greek tense, the most wonderful development in the history of language. (Davis, vii)

The idea that time is not the "root idea" of Greek tense is not new. The above is dated back to 1923.

I suppose it's the degree to which time plays a role in tense is what Porter, Fanning, McKay, Decker, Campbell, Silva, Caragounis, et. al. are bickering about.

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.

Thanks to the folks at Baylor University Press, today I received a copy of Reinhard Feldmeier's The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text. This is a translation of Feldmeier's 1 Peter commentary by Peter H. Davids.

Here's the blurb from Baylor Press' web site:

The New Testament book known as "The First Letter of Peter" describes how Christians should relate to the world. Specifically, it suggests how Christians should define themselves against a powerful and sometimes hostile culture. Written to first-century Christians in Asia Minor who were suffering from religious persecution, this letter brings Biblical and extra-Biblical traditions together to forge an original and unique pastoral strategy. At the same time, in its depiction of "practical piety," the letter is an impressive display of early Christian theology. Here, one of the world's authorities on Peter provides a verse by verse interpretation of First Peter that is both highly readable and deeply informed.

Here are a few back cover blurbs:

Reinhard Feldmeier has produced an exceptional commentary that is not only brilliant academically, but one that is also edifying. Feldmeier is at once erudite and accessible. Here is an exegetical commentary that unfailingly leads the reader to the meaning and significance of the text. I recommend it with the greatest enthusiasm. Donald A. Hagner

This volume is among the most important theological commentaries of 1 Peter written during the modern era. The thematic of the church's "foreignness" within a pervasively pagan culture, a continuing interest of Feldmeier's by which he orients his interpretation of 1 Peter, yields extraordinarily evocative insights for today's post-Christian church. Fully fluent with the social and literary worlds that shaped the letter's composition and the complex history of its reception into the 21st century, Feldmeier is able to produce an informed and richly detailed exegesis of 1 Peter. His steady interest in the church's "practice of piety" as a practical expression of Christian existence will surely lend this commentary for use by preachers and teachers as well. Robert Wall

The book is in two primary parts, the first "Introduction" (47pp) and the second "Exegesis" (210pp, including 11 excurses). There is a very large bibliography (34pp) and a reference index (22pp) as well, though no subject/topic index.

I'm looking forward to reading through it and reporting about the book as I do. Thanks again, Baylor Press!

The ETS 2008 tentative program is out, earlier than I ever recall. That's awesome. I finally get to see when my paper is scheduled to be given.

Rhode Island Convention Center
Room 551B

Discourse Grammar and Biblical Exegesis
11:00am-11:40am
Rick Brannan (Logos Bible Software)
The Discourse Function of αλλα in Non-negative Contexts

Looks like a good session; my friend Steve Runge presents before my paper, and Randall Buth presents before him. If you find yourself at ETS on Thursday morning, you might want to drop in for the whole session.

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.

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.

I couldn't sleep on Friday night, so to let Amy catch some Z's I slipped into the study which is next door to our bedroom. I found Goodspeed & Colwell's A Greek Papyrus Reader on the shelf and figured I'd scan through it to see if I could find any interesting instances of non-negative αλλα in papyri.

Boy, howdy did I find one. Check out P.Oslo ii.55. Greek text is from Perseus; translation is from APIS.

Διογένης Πυθαγόρᾳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ χαίρειν.
ἴσθι Θέωνα τὸν παράδοξον τὸν ἀναδιδόντα σοι ταῦτά μου τὰ γράμματα οἰκεῖόν μου ὄντα καὶ σχέσιν ἀδελφικὴν ἔχοντα πρός με. καλῶς οὖν ποιήσεις, ἄδελφε, τοῦτον ὑποδεξάμενος ὡς ἂν ἐμέ. ἀλλὰ καὶ τόπον ἐπιτήδειον αὐτῷ ἀπὸ ποδὸς ἐξηρτισμένον παράσχες, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἐλθὼν μαρτυρήσῃ μοι τὰ τῆς προαιρέσεώς σου.
Πυθαγόρᾳ βουλευτῇ [ ϝαξ. ]

Diogenes to his brother Pythagoras, greeting.
Know that Theon, the extraordinary person who is handing you this letter, is a close friend of mine and has a brotherly relation to me. You would do well, dear brother, to receive him as you would me. Prepare a room as well as you can and let him have it, so that he can bear witness to me about your disposition.
Verso:;To Pythagoras, councillor.

There are two (!!) non-negative αλλα in this short letter, and the translation seemingly skips over them both. So what are these instances doing?

As I've read grammars, monographs, etc. and evaluated instances of αλλα in the NT and Apostolic Fathers, my basic approach in examining them has become twofold: First, I consider αλλα to mark some sort of contrast (or 'discontinuity', as Porter & O'Donnell would call it), the degree of contrast is provided by surrounding context; second, there is usually some correction or replacement going on with the contrasted items. I'm still working on this, but that's about as simple as I can boil it down right now.

[NB: At this point, I should make clear that I'm still thinking through this example; the below is me writing trying to apply things I've noticed to this example to see if they work. These things may change. —RB]

Goodspeed and Colwell (A Greek Papyrus Reader, p. 10, item 19) title this letter “Letter of Recommendation”, and that is what it is. The sender is providing a recommendation of the carrier, so that the carrier will be treated well by the letter recipient. Goodspeed and Colwell summarize the letter thusly: “Diogenes urges his brother Pythagoras to receive the admirable Theon as though he were Diogenes himself.” (Goodspeed & Colwell, 10).

In the letter, the first αλλα is a hinge within the paragraph, the two items that are being contrasted involve the status of the carrier, Theon. After introducing Theon as a friend who is as close as if he were a brother, Diogenes urges Pythagoras to “receive [Theon] as you would me”. He is to receive his own room, apportioned as well as possible. Pythagoras is not simply to perceive Theon as if he were Diogenes, his actions are to confirm this by preparing a place for Theon. The contrast is between receiving Theon (ὑποδεξάμενος) and furnishing a well-apportioned room for him (ἐξηρτισμένον). The correction/replacement is in the unstated expectation that Pythagoras is to do more for Theon than he would do otherwise. Instead of treating him as a visitor, he is to treat him as a brother, both in word and deed.

From this comes the second αλλα, this in conjunction with a ινα clause. This clause makes Diogenes’ expectations explicit: Treat Theon well, for he will report to me how you are doing. The translation of προαίρεσις as “disposition” is curious. LSJ provide a general definition of “choosing one thing before another” (LSJ 1466) but further delineate nine senses, one of which (#7) is “character, reputation” and another (#8) “devotion, affection, goodwill”. The correction is in the expectation. Diogenes purposes to ensure Theon is treated well, and underscores this by making explicit that Theon will report back regarding Pythagoras’ hospitality.

Diogenes' purpose for writing the letter is to ensure that Theon is treated well by Pythagoras. The use of αλλα in the second half of the letter helps Diogenes achieve this purpose, helping Pythagoras to understand the importance of treating his guest not simply properly but as if he were his brother Diogenes himself.

There is a progression in these statements tied together with αλλα: Don't just receive Theon, but provide him a room as you would do for me. And not only that, but know that he will report back to me how you have done in this matter. The important bit for Pythagoras: Make sure the report back to Diogenes is a good one.

As I mentioned earlier, a blog post I wrote a few years back was footnoted on p. 151 in the proceedings from the 2006 LIABG symposium.

The article is titled "Conjunctions and Levels of Discourse", by Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O'Donnell, running from p. 145 to p. 156 and is basically the same paper that was presented to the European Associate of Biblical Studies Annual meeting in Budapest, Hungary, from Aug. 6-9, 2006.

I never thought I'd be footnoted in a serious grammatical discussion; I suppose this is proof that the blogosphere can have some sort of influence/impact on current discussions in all areas of Biblical studies. Even blog posts by a motivated autodidact (read: no graduate degree held) such as myself.

The context is in the section of the article titled "3. The Greek Conjunction System", speaking of "Vertical Axis of Levels of Discourse". This has to do with the level of discourse on which the conjunction may function. Is it just a joiner of words or word groups, or is the joining further up (vertically) the ladder of discourse (join words, join word groups, join clauses, join clause complexes, paragraphs, discourses or whatever).

The post that Porter & O'Donnell refer to is about 1Th 5.15. In that post, I don't really make any statements, I just ask a lot of questions about how αλλα functions based on what happens with constituent order before and after αλλα. I was asking if αλλα might be doing something more in that context.

Porter & O'Donnell's point on p. 151 is that αλλα functions "only at the lower levels (but perhaps not the lowest level of the word). This conjunction joins word groups in Mt 9.13 ... clauses in Mk 4.17 ... and clause complexes in 1Th 5.15." (Porter & O'Donnell, Proceedings, 151).

Now, I would say that what I suggested in 2006 concerning αλλα in that instance was wrong (specifically the section breakdown near the top of the post); v. 15 is a standard μη .. αλλα instance, where v. 15a is a foil that serves to make 15b more prominent in the discourse. On the segmentation of units, I think Porter & O'Donnell's suggestion in the footnote (vv. 14-15a, 15b-18a, 18b-21ff) is fine. I have no problem using the term "clause complex" instead of "subparagraph" or "paragraph"; those are all strange terms that mean what one wants them to mean anyway. The idea that αλλα is somehow indicating a relationship between two separate clause complexes (vv. 14-15a & 15b-18) is the important bit for my concerns with αλλα at present.

My confusion today stems in the sentence that runs from p. 151 through 152. In the above-quoted portion of p. 151, they limit αλλα to word group, clause, and clause complex connections. But on the sentence running from pp. 151-152, they note:

An initial analysis indicates that there are a limited number of conjunctions that function at all of the levels of discourse. These include only και, δε, αλλα, and some of the negative conjunctions, such as ουδε and  μηδε. All of the rest of the conjunctions are more circumscribed in the linguistic levels at which they may be used (Porter & O'Donnell, Proceedings, 151-152)

Porter & O'Donnell's only level above clause complex is paragraph (I think, they don't seem to explicitly list them but they mention paragraph above clause on p. 151); and the only level below word group is word.

[Corrected, 2008-06-04] Porter & O'Donnell list the following discourse levels along the vertical axis: word, word group, clause, clause complex, paragraph and discourse (p. 151)

I would say that there are instances of αλλα that join paragraphs, and Porter & O'Donnell seem to acknowledge this as well (based on p. 152). That's good, because I plan to have examples of αλλα functioning at the paragraph level in my ETS paper (unless my preliminary analysis changes between now and then, which it may). But this discussion gives me some more support in positing αλλα as a paragraph conjoiner in certain contexts.

Poking around the LIABG ("Linguistics Institute of Ancient and Biblical Greek") site, I happened upon the proceedings from the 2006 symposium. This was nice, because while I was invited I wasn't able to make it (was married the previous month).

In the proceedings, I skimmed the article "What's Up in Syntax" and ran across the following, which I found helpful:

In traditional analysis predication involves a grammatical subject about which a predication is made. In the sentence All dogs have tails. The noun phrase All Dogs is the subject and the possession of tails is predicated of dogs with ‘have’ serving the predicating function. An alternative view of predication asserts that this relation is between a predictor and one or more arguments, in which case both All dogs and tails are viewed as arguments or terms with have (the predicator) functioning to form a relation of predication between the two. Complements are generally taken to be elements required by the predicator whereas adjuncts are nonobligatory elements, providing circumstantial information. Head terms or controlling terms govern the terms to which they stand in relation, as in ‘The head is the noun in the NP’ (Van Valin and LaPolla, 1997: 67). The marking of head terms typologically continues to be debated among linguists (see Zwicky, 1985; Hudson, 1987). Head terms receive various levels of modification in which a dependant terms modify the head through qualification (a limiting relation), specification (a classifying or identifying relation) or definition (further defining) (see Halliday, 1976: 59-66). A head term with its modifiers forms a group. Groups can be nominal, verbal, adverbial or conjunctive (Halliday, 2004: 310; Morley, 2004: 74-83). Coordination relations, realized through the conjunction system, are used to relate groups or modifiers within groups. (2006 LIABG Proceedings, p. 11)

If you've worked at all with the OpenText.org analysis in Logos Bible Software, the above may help a bit in understanding the analysis (which uses these labels). For example, if you've ever wondered what the difference between a complement and adjunct is, the above gives you a rule of thumb: Complements are required, Adjuncts are non-essential.

If you dig this stuff, or if you want to know more, I'd recommend reading the introduction to Jeffrey T. Reed's A Discourse Analysis of Philippians (amazon.com) (also part of the "Studies in New Testament Greek" collection, hopefully available sometime in the future for Logos Bible Software (on pre-pub at the time of post composition))

Bonus: A blog post I wrote in 2006 is footnoted in one of the articles of the proceedings (p. 151 of the proceedings). It was news to me when I learned of it. Interestingly, that blog post had to do with αλλα. Let's just say I've come a long way in understanding αλλα in the past two years. Maybe I'll write about the footnote in a future post.

My friend and colleague Steve Runge has recently had a few things published that you may find helpful.

In April, RBL published a review of Ivan Shing Chung Kwong's The Word Order of the Gospel of Luke: Its Foregrounded Messages (amazon.com). This sort of stuff (word order studies) is right up Steve's alley and I was looking forward to see Steve's take on Kwong's approach.* The review is thorough, even if it is only 8 pages. If you have even the slightest interest in Greek word order, you need to read this review.

The Journal of the Linguistics Institute of Ancient and Biblical Greek (JLIABG) has commenced publishing its inaugural issue online. Steve's article, "Relative Saliency and Information Structure in Mark's Parable of the Sower", is the first article in the inaugural issue. How cool is that? The PDF is available online, so do check it out. Here's the abstract:

Levinsohn claims that the near and far demonstratives (οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος respectively) can be used non-deictically to encode relative thematic saliency of discourse referents, with οὗτος being used to mark the more salient constituent. In applying this concept to the Markan explanation of the Parable of the Sower, Levinsohn’s claim would indicate that the descriptions of the three unfruitful scatterings of seed are more salient to the writer than the productive scattering that bears fruit. The other synoptic accounts do not seem to make such a distinction in salience, using the near demonstrative οὗτος for both the unfruitful and fruitful plantings alike. Are there other means of analysis to either corroborate or overturn the view that the unfruitful plantings are more thematically salient in Mark’s account?

This study applies the cognitive model of Chafe and Givón, and the information- structure model of Lambrecht as applied by Levinsohn to the Markan explanation of the Parable of the Sower (4:14-20). The primary objective is to identify and analyze other linguistic devices, besides demonstratives, which might clarify the apparent prominence given to the unfruitful scatterings in Mark’s account. This study provides the necessary framework for comparing Mark’s pragmatic weighting of salience to that found in the other synoptic accounts in order to determine whether Mark’s version is consistent or divergent with the other traditions.

Also note that the JLIABG has an RSS feed to notify of new article postings: http://feeds.feedburner.com/jliabg.

* Disclaimer: I actually badgered Steve into doing the review when I saw the title was available for review from RBL. He's repaid the favor by suggesting I look into the use of αλλα in non-negative contexts. I'd say we're about even.

One thing I'm doing to get an idea of how αλλα functions is examining synoptic parallels for instances of non-negative αλλα. Do the parallels also use αλλα? If not, are they using different structures to communicate the same thing, or are they communicating different things?

Here's my initial rough draft for the instance in Mt 9.18.

Mt 9.18 (|| Mk 5.23 || Lu 8.41-42)

18 Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς ἰδοὺ ἄρχων εἷς ἐλθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων ὅτι
    Ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν
    ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπ’ αὐτήν καὶ ζήσεται
       (Mt 9.18, NA27)
18 While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying,
    “My daughter has just died,
    but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.”
        (Mt 9.18, ESV)

The parallels in Mark and Luke disclose that the “ruler” in this instance is Jairus. His daughter has died; he desires Jesus to heal her and restore her to life. In this case, there is a degree of contrast involved in the context. Jairus is asking for Jesus to move his daughter from the state of death (τελευτάω, aorist active indicative) back into the state of life (ζάω, future middle indicative). The underlying contrast is both lexical (contrast between death and life) and grammatical (between the aorist and future tenses). In this instance, αλλα functions as a hinge between the two contrasting statements, heightening the contrast and shifting focus onto the apodosis: Jairus believes that if Jesus comes and touches her, she will live.

The differences between the synoptic accounts of this event are notable. Here are the Markan and Lukan accounts:

23 καὶ παρακαλεῖ αὐτὸν πολλὰ λέγων ὅτι
    Τὸ θυγάτριόν μου ἐσχάτως ἔχει
        ἵνα ἐλθὼν ἐπιθῇς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῇ
            ἵνα σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ (Mk 5.23, NA27)
23 and implored him earnestly, saying,
    “My little daughter is at the point of death.
        Come and lay your hands on her,
            so that she may be made well and live.” (Mk 5.23, ESV)

41 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν ἀνὴρ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰάϊρος
καὶ οὗτος ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς ὑπῆρχεν
καὶ πεσὼν παρὰ τοὺς πόδας τοῦ Ἰησοῦ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ
    42 ὅτι θυγάτηρ μονογενὴς ἦν αὐτῷ ὡς ἐτῶν δώδεκα καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέθνῃσκεν
Ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑπάγειν αὐτὸν οἱ ὄχλοι συνέπνιγον αὐτόν (Lu 8.41-42, NA27)
41 And there came a man named Jairus,
who was a ruler of the synagogue.
And falling at Jesus’ feet, he implored him to come to his house,
    42 for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying.
As Jesus went, the people pressed around him. (Lu 8.41-42, ESV)

In the Markan and Lukan accounts, Jairus initially represents his daughter as being sick unto the point of death but still alive; information of the girl’s death comes later from a servant who arrives on the scene (Mk 5.35 || Lu 8.49). In Matthew she is represented as being dead throughout Jesus and Jairus’ interaction.

In Mark, Jairus’ request is twofold: “so that she be made well and live”. The request in Luke is much more subtle: “he implored [Jesus] to come to his house”. But recall that in Matthew, the request is not to make Jairus’ daughter well, but for Jesus to place his hands on her so that she may live again.

Matthew, compressing the event of Jesus and Jairus’ initial interaction, packs all of the contrast and drama of the event into Jairus’ request that Jesus, by touching his daughter, restore her life from death. Jairus by his statement shows that he thinks Jesus is able to, with his very touch, restore the dead to the living. Mark and Luke both spread this aspect of the drama out. First, Jairus requests that Jesus heal his daughter (Mark only refers to Jesus healing through touch; Luke has Jairus requesting that Jesus simply come to his house to heal, with means unspecified). Then the interlude with the healing of the woman with the issue of blood, who is healed through touching Jesus’ garment, which shows the power of Jesus to heal by touch. Only after this do Mark and Luke update the reader with the further information that Jairus’ daughter has died. They both do this by focusing on the hopelessness of the situation; now that the daughter has died there is no reason to further bother Jesus. But Jesus overhears this report (Mk 5.36 || Lu 8.50) and goes to Jairus’ house anyway, where his touch—in all accounts he takes the daughter by the hand—restores her to life.

In Matthew, then, Jairus’ request is initially larger and more hopeless. Instead of asking Jesus to heal his daughter from a grave illness, he asks that his dead daughter be restored to life. Each synoptic account uses different grammatical means to make this request: Mark focuses on means, requesting Jesus’ touch to reverse the slide from death back toward life. Luke focuses on Jairus’ method of request, passionately imploring that Jesus come to his house to heal his dying daughter. Matthew’s version, with αλλα in a non-negative context, relies on the contrast between death and restoration to life to quickly establish the impossibility of the situation. Mark and Luke reinforce/increase the hopelessness later (and thus increase the drama) by the introduction of the servant with news that Jairus' daughter has, in fact, died.

All three instances end up in the same place, with Jesus’ touch restoring Jairus’ daughter to life. Matthew’s use of αλλα in a non-negative context is the only instance that places all of the contrast at the head of the story, previous to the healing of the woman with the issue of blood.

(end of what I wrote this AM)

Which account do I like best? Actually, I like Mark's version the best because of the progression:

• Jairus: Your touch will heal my daughter, so she will live.
• Jesus: Whoa, who touched me?
• Woman: I did. And I'm healed.
• Jesus: Your faith has made you well.
• Jairus' servant: Don't waste your time bothering Jesus, Jairus, your daughter is dead.
• Jesus: Don't fear, only believe.
• Jesus goes to house.
• Mourners: You're too late, she's dead.
• Jesus: She's not dead, she's only sleeping.*
• Jesus: Takes her by the hand, asks her to rise, and she does.

The whole thing starts with Jairus stating Jesus' touch will heal. Then the woman with the issue of blood touches Jesus' garment and is healed. Then we find out that Jairus' daughter is dead. Then it's confirmed she's dead. Then his touch raises the dead girl; though Jesus is quick to teach it isn't necessarily his touch, it is the belief—the belief of the woman with the issue of blood that she'd be healed, and the belief of Jairus (stated at the start of this episode) that Jesus could make his daughter better. I think that ties it better together than Matthew's or Luke's versions of the story. I'd take Matthew as a close second. Mark creates more suspense/drama with the progression from gravely ill to dead; Matthew front-loads the contrast (using lexical and grammatical means, and marking it even more by using αλλα) and the drama, making Jairus' faith in Jesus to heal seem even greater.

* Resisting urge to write, "She's only mostly dead ..."

Why? Because, if you take the time to read or at least peruse their 330 page Introduction to their NT (amazon.com) (published in a second volume with an appendix), you see that they fill in most if not all of the details of the how & why of their edition.

What sort of stuff? Well ... who'd've thunk that two pages on casing of κυριος, Χριστος and υψιστος would be appropriate? Sometimes on reading an upper-cased Κυριος or a lower-cased χριστος (In NA27, not WH) I've often wondered "why is that one upper-cased/lower-cased?"

WH show their work and tell you why, at least in their edition — and why, in four instances in Luke (Lu 1.32; Lu 1.35; Lu 1.75; Lu 6.35) they also upper-cased Υψιστος. They take two pages (pp. 316-318; §§414-416) to tell you. Here's §416, explaining their capitalization of Υψιστος:

416. An initial capital has likewise been used for Υψιστος in the four places, all in St Luke's Gospel, in which it stands in the singular without an article. In this shape it exactly represents the anarthrous Elion, a very ancient name not confined to the Jews, and is virtually itself a proper name. In the LXX the article is usually inserted: but in Ecclesiasticus, doubtless a better authority for Palestinian custom, Υψιστος occurs frequently, and has the article but once, except in combination with another title.

More than you ever wanted to know, but helpful nonetheless. If you're looking for a copy of WH's Intro/Appendix, then you want the 1896 edition which has corrections/updates.

Why do I like this so? Whether I agree or not, I can at least know what in the world they were thinking. You can't do that with any other print edition; none are nearly as transparent as WH were. We'd all do well to re-learn this lesson.

Wipf & Stock have done a recent photo-reprint, available in paperback (amazon.com).

Hendrickson did a reprint in the late 1980's, in hardcover (amazon.com). Some used copies of this are available via Amazon.

Which do I recommend? I don't know, I've not used any of the reprint editions. Years ago, I found a copy of the 1896 edition via abebooks from a seller in Australia and snapped it up quickly.

If you work with the Greek New Testament and do anything remotely pertaining to textual criticism (the appendix "Notes on Select Readings" is a mini-Metzger for WH's edition and their "Notes on Orthography" will tell you more than you wanted to know about spelling in their edition); or if you have interest in orthography, punctuation, and other particulars of producing and fully utilizing a printed edition of the Greek NT, then you need this book; whether the Hendrickson hardcover (amazon.com) or the Wipf & Stock softcover (amazon.com).

Update (2008-05-14): Thanks to Mark from the Bible and Tech blog for pointing out that WH's Intro/Appendix volume is available via Google Books. So grab it and absorb!

A comment from Justin on a recent αλλα post noted:

I ran into a funny αλλα recently.  In 1 Peter 3.16 there is a use that seems to develop the previous verse thought.  If it were to contradict the previous thought it would be a really strange translation.  Check it out and let me know what you think.

Here's the response I emailed back to him:

There's a lot going on in 1Pe 3.13-16 with both δε and αλλα.

One of my contentions/thoughts about αλλα is that yes, it is a marker of contrast, but contrast has a range -- is isn't simply on or off; it is more like a dial than a switch. The range has to do with contextual cues. When the context of αλλα involves a negative then a positive (e.g., "not [that], but [this]") the contrast is high. Contrast is similarly high with positive-negative  context (e.g., "[that], but not [this]").

There are, however, a small portion of αλλα that seemingly involve no negative (at least directly). The two αλλα in 1Pe 3.13-16 fit in this group. So I'd say they're still contrasting, it is just not as blatant because the author isn't using contextual cues (positives/negatives) to amp up the contrast. In vv 15-16, the contrast is much more subtle, having to do with the way the defense is made. A more amped-up way of saying it would be, "Be prepared to make a solid defense, but don't bite the guy's head off". The contrast is in the way the defense is made, it isn't made ... er ... defensively, it is made positively and respectfully but strongly. Peter didn't use the amped-up version, and he did that on purpose because that was what he needed to do to make his point. The spotlight is still on the portion following αλλα (make the defense with gentleness and respect); that is the important bit of the comparison/contrast.

At least, that's what I think right now. I hope to look into each of the non-negative instances (there are over 90 of them) a bit further over the next months.

I've got a lot of work to do before finishing this paper ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My friend and colleague Steve keeps on sending me juicy bits of αλλα-riffic goodness as fodder for the paper I'm working on. He's sent me items from the NA27 apparatus where variants include αλλα in some way (which I haven't blogged on yet, though I might sometime). Today he sent me this tidbit from Gospel of Thomas. The source is the Critical Edition of Q (amazon.com), (RBL Review) in the Hermeneia Commentary series.

This is interesting because there are (at least) two sources for this logion: Nag Hammadi II 2 (though in Hermeneia Q, this is a translation/retroversion of the Coptic) and P.Oxy 654. The difference I'm interested in is found in G.Thom. 3.3 (yes, there are several other differences). This is interesting to me because I would class it as a "non-negative" instance; and that is what my paper is supposed to be on. The surrounding content is roughly the same, but one source uses αλλα and the other uses και. There is a difference in the two; it shows what swapping a simple conjunction (here αλλα and και) can do to our understanding of a text.

First, from Nag Hammadi:

Gos. Thom. 3.1–3 (Greek Translation from Coptic of Nag Hammadi II 2)
(1) Λέγει Ἰησοῦς·
   ἐὰν οἱ ἡγούμενοι ὑμᾶς εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν·
      ἰδοὺ ἡ βασιλεία ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἐστιν,
         φθήσεται ὑμᾶς τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
   (2) ἐὰν (δʼ) εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν·
      ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ἐστίν,
         φθήσονται ὑμᾶς οἱ ἰχθύες.
   (3) ἀλλὰ ἡ βασιλεία ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν καὶ ἐκτὸς ὑμῶν.

Gos. Thom. 3.1–3 (Nag Hammadi II 2)
(1) Jesus says:
   If those who lead you say to you:
      Look, the kingdom is in the sky,
         then the birds of the sky will precede you.
   (2) If they say to you:
      It is in the sea,
         then the fish will precede you.
   (3) Rather, the kingdom is within you, and outside of you.

Now, P.Oxy 654:

Gos. Thom. 3.1–3 (P. Oxy. 654)
(1) λέγει Ἰ[η(σοῦ)ς·
   ἐὰν] οἱ ἕλκοντες <ὑ>μᾶς [εἴπωσιν ὑμῖν·
      ἰδοὺ] ἡ βασιλεία ἐν οὐρα[νῷ,
         ὑμᾶς φθήσεται] τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρ[ανοῦ·
   (2) ἐὰν δʼ εἴπωσιν
      ὅ[τι ὑπὸ τὴν γῆν ἐστ[ιν,
         εἰσελεύσονται] οἱ ἰχθύες τῆς θαλά[σσης προφθάσαν]τες ὑμᾶς·
   (3) καὶ ἡ βασ[ιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ] ἐντὸς ὑμῶν [ἐσ]τι [κἀκτός.]

Gos. Thom. 3.1–3 (P. Oxy. 654)
(1) Jesus says:
   [If] those who entice <you> [say to you:
      Look,] the kingdom is in the sky,
         [there will precede you] the birds of the sky.
   (2) [But if they say]:
      It is under the earth,
         [there will enter it] the fish of the sea [ahead of] you.
   (3) And the kingdom [of God] is within you, [and outside.]

What's the difference? Well, the retroversion/translation of Coptic from Nag Hammadi (with αλλα) seems to be a bit cleaner with more symmetry (note unity/parallel structure in vv. 1-2 and absence of same in P.Oxy 654). In Nag Hammadi, the αλλα clause essentially replaces the statements beforehand. The kingdom isn't localized to the sky, it isn't localized to the sea; instead it is everywhere. It's not like the fish and birds are closer to it than you, or that they'll get there before you. The "ones who lead you" are wrong; the kingdom isn't above the earth or below the earth, it is within you and outside of you.

In the Oxyrhynchus version, however, the και doesn't mean that the previous material is corrected/replaced; instead it is just more information on the stack. The kingdom is everywhere; not just in the sky, not just 'under the earth'; it's everywhere. So the "ones who entice you" are somewhat correct, it is true that the kingdom is above the earth and under the earth; but it isn't limited to those locales. Know that the kingdom is both within you and outside of you.

Update (2008-04-25): Wieland Willker (see his Textcritical commentary, you'll find it useful) emailed the following because comments weren't working for him for some reason:

Sometimes KAI functions simply as a punctuation mark.
Perhaps this is the case here:

It is under the earth,
[there will enter it] the fish of the sea [ahead of] you.
PERIOD.
The kingdom [of God] is within you, [and outside.]

Just a thought ...

He's given us a good reminder: when translating, the Greek doesn't always have to have a word or words in the target that represent it, it could be represented by punctuation. And sometimes, (e.g. asyndeton, ellipsis) the target language needs to supply words to fully convey the original. Anyway, here was my response.

Hi Wieland.

Thanks for the note. I understand what you're saying. I'd say that και has a basic function (an additive function seen in both its conjunctive and adverbial forms), and that there is a range or spectrum for that functionality. This is reflected in translation; it can be translated as a simple full-stop in several circumstances. But the presence of και implies some sort of relationship with the clause that precedes, whether translated or not.

I suppose that's my primary point -- that the relationship between clauses is different when one uses και as compared to when one uses αλλα. Obvious, yes, but I think some folks get so focused on putting English to Greek that they forget to stop and understand what's going on in the Greek, particularly with function words like conjunctions and particles. Please note I'm *not* saying you're doing that, just wanted explain some underlying motives/biases I have.

Thanks again for the comment -- I appreciate your work!

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.

Here's some fun stuff from J.D. Denniston's Greek Particles (amazon.com). These are from the introduction so they are necessarily generic.

The different methods of connexion.These are, broadly speaking, four: (a) Additional, (b) Adversative, (c) Confimratory, (d) Inferential. But the divisions are everywhere fluid. (Denniston, Intro, xlvii)

...

(b) Adversatives are of two kinds: eliminative adversatives, used often where on of two contrasted members is negative, the true being substituted for the false (par excellence μεν ουν and normally αλλα), and balancing adversatives, where two truths of divergent tendency are presented (δε, μην, μεντοι, etc.) (Denniston, Intro, xlix, bold mine)

Note that "eliminative" and "balancing" are Denniston's way of saying "strong" and "weak" adversatives, respectively. Then, the money quote (for my purposes):

(7) Abnormalities of reference in connexion. The connexion established is, normally, of course, between consecutive units of speech: words, phrases, clauses, or sentences. There are, however, certain exceptions. In dialogue, owing to the quickness of thrust and parry, or the self-absorption of one of the participants, a speaker sometimes links the opening of his speech to his own preceding words, not to the intervening words of the other person. ... In S.El.1035 (p. 443) αλλʼ ουν looks back to 1017-26: or perhaps it would be truer to say that its point d'appui is the general situation, the whole attitude of Chrysothemis, rather than any particular set of words, an explanation which applies also to E.Alc.713 (και μην, p. 354), and IT 637 (μεντοι, p. 405). (Denniston, Intro, l, bold mine)

The page references are references to further discussion within Denniston. So, p. 443 gives us the context of the citation that Denniston mentions:

1035 ('Well, since you refuse to help me (1017-26), do at least realize what that refusal means'). (Denniston, 443)

So Denniston supports the idea that αλλα can provide a link between discontinuous text; or that the adversative/contrast/whatever you want to call it can be a response to a general idea floating in the ether (the "general situation", as Denniston calls it). Both of which support contentions I previously posted on in The αλλα Funnel.

Reading grammars for more information on αλλα, I came across this paragraph from Funk's Hellenistic Grammar, §611 (Chapter 41, "Function Words/Negatives":

Negatives, conjunctions, sentence connectors, and subordinators may be termed function words (Fries: 87-109) or structure signaling words (Roberts, 1958: 151f., 224ff.). The point of these labels is that such words are nearly lexically empty, i.e. they have little or no dictionary meaning of their own. However, they are grammatically significant in indicating the structure of sentences and parts of sentences (cf. §§001ff.). Some of them are so common as to require acquaintance at the grossest level of the language. This simply means that one must learn how they function early in the process. One may guess at the meaning of lexically full words, or leave them blank when reading (cf. §003), but one must know the grammatical "meaning" of function words to be able to proceed at all. It is the case, of course, that some function words are  more pervasive and significant than others. (Funk 475, bold added)

I think this statement from Funk gets at the problem that most people have when approaching conjunctions. They approach them as "lexically full" words. Words that have a reliable and relatively consistent translation.

But they don't. As Funk writes, they're "lexically empty". They have oodles of grammatical meaning and tons of information to shed on how the text is read, but they have no reliable functional equivalent. If our approach to conjunctions is like:

• δε means "but"
• και means "and" (except for when it means "also")
• ουν means "therefore"
• γαρ means "for"
• αλλα means "but" (but it's a stronger 'but' than δε, of course)
• etc., etc.

Then it's no big surprise that we miss so much when we attempt to stitch our glossed-up English word-swapping into something coherent that truly represents the Greek we're supposedly translating (but more realistically, we're decoding). I say this knowing I'm as guilty (or more guilty) of it as the next person; I'm not innocent here.

What's the way out of the slough of despond? Buck up, Pilgrim, because Funk hints at it in this very paragraph: "This simply means that one must learn how [function words] function early in the process."

So the answer is, "early in the process", to pay attention to how these words work; not so that you know what to put in the blank on next week's vocab/translation test, or so you know what to slide in when you do on-the-fly translation in your next reading class, or so that you know which words to ignore when you're choosing the 'important' words from next week's sermon text, but so that you can understand what the author/writer is communicating. Because that is the goal. Right?

(side note: That last "but" ... it would be an αλλα if that was Greek, not a δε.)

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.

Muchas gracias por Hendrickson for sending along the following:

David M. Scholer, editor. Social Distinctives of the Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E.A. Judge (amazon.com).

This title sounds wonderful; I'm really looking forward to delving into it and blogging about it as I work through essays.

Jerry L. Sumney. Philippians: A Greek Student's Intermediate Reader (amazon.com).

I've blogged about some recently-released Greek readers in the past (here, here, here, here, here and here) so it only makes sense to give this one a look-see as well. I'll let you know what I find.

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.

[NB: This post is a bit of a rant, and doesn't really come to an end or conclusion. It's just me thinking by writing, which is one of the most profitable ways I know to work my thoughts out. So, read on. But don't think I'm making conclusions or judgements; my thoughts could completely change. In other words, this is fluid, not static. RWB]

Here are some things about αλλα that I've noticed as I've worked through the 638 NT instances (a few times).

When considering an instance of αλλα, know that most of the time (approx. 85% of the time in the NT), a relationship with a negator of some sort is involved.

Instead of just making the oh-to-common mental note associating αλλα with the English gloss "but" and moving on, look around for the negative to determine what two things are in relationship with each other via αλλα.

Here's what I'm presently calling the "αλλα Funnel":

1: Look for a negator. This will be some form of ου or μη, most likely; or some other word like ουδεις, μηδεις, ουκετι, μηκετι, etc.) Again, around 85% of NT instances of αλλα involve a negator. You need to find it. Note the very small proportion of items that have negators on both sides of the αλλα (3 instances; e.g. 1Co 4.4).

2: First, look up (to the left). Over 75% of αλλα in NT have the negator preceding.

3: Still looking? Okay, look down (to the right). About 10% of αλλα in the NT have a negator following. In this case, the negator is usually ου or ουκ, and it usually follows the αλλα directly.

4: Still looking? Well, there are 15% or so instances of αλλα in the NT that do not seem to involve a negator. This is the minority case, so look again (up and down) to be sure.

5: Still looking? Then stop looking and assume there is no negator. At this point, you need to isolate the two items in relationship with each other through the αλλα. This is usually brain-dead easy; sometimes, though, it is a pain (Gal 4.8-9? 1Co 15.35?). Note that there are some instances where αλλα doesn't seem to be responding to an explicit statement. My working hypothesis at present is that αλλα must be a response (contrast, correction, clarification, expansion, what-have-you) to something; and when nothing is explicit the response must be to something implicit in the context. Examine the context and try to figure it out if the connection isn't readily apparent.

Now you're at the bottom of the funnel. The easy part is done, the hard work begins.

αλλα is typically described as a "strong adversative" and, to define "strong", most grammars say it is "stronger than δε". That isn't too helpful. That's like saying "bold" is stronger than "confident". So read the whole context of the statement (or statements) in question that uses αλλα as a hinge to compare. Read the larger context. What is happening with the two phrases/clauses that αλλα stands between? What is the point of the comparison of those two items? Is it replacement/correction? Is it enhancement or expansion? Don't cop out and just say it means "but"; get your mind out of the word-level jumble and think about the relationship between the phrases/clauses and what the point of the author could be in placing these items in juxtaposition with each other, using αλλα as a guide to that author's intent. He's left clues with αλλα, use (or non-use) of negators, and the items he's comparing.

On Lexicons and αλλα

This could actually be a whole additional post, but it won't be. In short, I've read most lexicon definitions of αλλα, and they are all uniformly unhelpful. They seem to jump from lexicography to syntax quickly, sorting "senses" by differing syntactic contexts that αλλα appears in. Cataloguing of instances by syntactic context does not make a helpful lexicon article.

I'm largely convinced that one of the reasons that αλλα is typically classed as an "adversative" is simply because in most of its instances it stands between two clauses/phrases, one negative and one non-negative. In this case, it is the clauses/phrases that are adversary, not αλλα. Then, if no negator is present, αλλα is said to be, perhaps, correlative or contrastive or continuative something like that.

[[This brings up a side rant: Morphologies of the Greek New Testament that provide senses/classifications to conjunctions (e.g. GRAMCORD, "conjunction, coordinating, adversative") are also relatively unhelpful if you're really interested in what the conjunction is up to. Why do I say this? Get yourself a few different morphologies that do this, and you'll see that everyone has different ideas in this area. Compare GRAMCORD to Friberg's morphology. You'll see that many do seem to be the same on first glance, but that's because most morphologies classify most instances of αλλα the same exact way. GRAMCORD has 97.6% of αλλα classified as "conjunction, coordinating, adversative"; Friberg has more variation with 86.5% as "conjunction, superordinating (hyperordinating)". (Full disclosure: The Logos Morphology has even more variation, but it also has more categories) Am I saying they should all be consistent? No; I don't subscribe to a 'concordant' method of morphological classification. I'm just saying there is a lot of variation so it brings into question the classification schemes themselves.]]

So what does αλλα do? What does it indicate? I'm still working on that.

My hope is to have some flash of insight and arrive at a grand unification theory. But I think a large part of the problem is that traditional methodology seems bound to try to answer the question, "how do I translate it?" (hence all sorts of categories and memorization of short glosses) when, in order to actually understand what the author is communicating, we really should be asking the question, "what does it mean?" or, perhaps, "how does it all go together?".

In the context of examining a discourse to better understand "what does it mean?", we need to examine how different parts of the discourse relate to each other. One way that discourse parts relate to each other is though use of conjunctions. So when the author/writer uses αλλα with two items in juxtaposition to each other, what is that author communicating? Are there semantic or grammatical connections between the two juxtaposed items and the rest of the discourse?

My guess is that that, chances are, αλλα means the same thing no matter what context it appears in. Instead, it's how the juxtaposed items relate to each other through αλλα that variation in understanding arises.

Update (2008-03-16): Responding to a few of the comments, I can only emphasize the word 'rant' in regards to αλλα and morphologies and lexicography/lexicons (not to mention grammars). If you compare the labelling of senses/types of αλλα across morphologies, you'll soon find that opinions differ, particularly as you get outside of the easy-to-understand instances (usually in some sort of negative context) and into the 'long tail' of instances. And that's fine; my rant is more my response to the difficulty of the problem than complete dissatisfaction with existing lexicons/morphologies. I guess my issue with the αλλα article in BDAG (and elsewhere) is that by their structure and breakdown they seem more geared toward telling me what to think about specific instances of αλλα than in sewing all that discussion up at the end and giving some thoughts on αλλα in general. It's more of a catalogue of instances than a discussion of the word.

To respond specifically to Mike about BDAG: I suppose one thing I'd like to see in BDAG is after the separation of discussion of αλλα in particular contexts, some discussion of how even in these differing contexts αλλα is functioning similarly. I realize the first sentence of the definition speaks of this somewhat, but something tying the whole thing in general would be nice.

To respond to Ken about adversative as a label: I don't have such a list, and I don't really have a problem with 'adversative' as a word to describe how αλλα functions. I do think that αλλα can be 'adversative' when no negator is present in either clause/phrase of the structure in question. What gives me pause would be to say of any instance of αλλα that it is an 'adversative αλλα'. No, it's αλλα. The context may be adversative, and αλλα is likely the hinge joining two adversarial or contradictory things; but that doesn't mean that αλλα is adversative. Anyway, that's my own issue with labelling things that I need to get over; not necessarily an issue with morphological classifications.

In case you're wondering what I've been spending much of my time at Logos doing, now I can show you since we spilled the beans on the Logos blog today.

I've been working with Dr. Steve Runge on his project to annotate several aspects of discourse grammar in the Greek New Testament. My job has been to take the annotation work he's been doing and make it work in Logos Bible Software. I've learned a whole lot in the process and am excited to now have something in a form we can begin to share with others.

There are two primary components of the project:

• The Lexham High Definition New Testament: ESV Version (HDNT)
• The Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament (LDGNT)

In the below screen shot, LDGNT is on the left, HDNT is on the right:

My job has been to process Steve's annotation work and work with him (and others here at Logos) to figure out how to represent it inside of Logos Bible Software. Steve works in the Greek New Testament, so I also have had to map the Greek data onto an English translation so we can start to make this sort of thing more usable to folks who only know English. It's been challenging and fun. We're not done yet. Steve's primary annotation of the New Testament is complete and can be called 'beta' (further revision/correction/etc. may happen); he's still working on the left-column outline stuff for narrative texts (Gospels/Acts) and Revelation.

Check out the Logos Blog post for more information and links. And check out Steve's page on the Logos site for links to articles and conference papers that explain some of the devices that he's annotating.

Did you know that αλλα occurs 557 times in the whole of the LXX (nearly four times the size of the NT); compared to 638 times in the NT? That number includes the alternate MSS text in Joshua, Daniel, etc.

And the LXX books with the most frequent instances of αλλα (instances per 1000 words in book) are books likely composed in Greek, stuff like Wisdom of Solomon (3 αλλα/1000 words) and 4 Maccabees (6.3/1000)? Tobit and Judith are also high (both 2/1000), but so are Malachi (~2/1000) and, believe it or not, Job (~3/1000)!

Comparatively, Holmes' second edition Apostolic Fathers Greek text has 352 instances. That's over half of the number of NT instances, but the corpus size is just over 1/3 of the NT.

That'll make a guy think.

Update (2008-03-12): On the idea of whether αλλα can be an indicator of Aramaic in the gospels, or translation Greek; let's not forget that it could just be a diachronic thing. LXX => early, NT => later, AF => even later. Maybe αλλα usage increased over time, particularly since it is a development from αλλος. (It may therefore be useful to compare use of αλλος/αλλα between LXX/NT/AF to get a better picture; I'll leave this for someone else to dig into).

On the Aramaic question, perhaps the place to start would be with Raymond A. Martin's Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents (amazon.com). He thinks that minimal use of certain prepositions may be evidence of a translated text; also και/δε in some contexts, but doesn't say anything about αλλα (from my quick re-skim). Martin presents a lot of evidence, but I don't know that I buy it (call it my "correlation does not prove causation" skepticism).

Anyway, here's the chart of αλλα usage in the NT. I generated this with Logos Bible Software's Graph Bible Search Results feature, which is an option on the right-hand side of all Bible search results menus (Bible Speed Search, which I used for this; Bible Search; and Syntax Search). The numbers on the right of the bars are # of αλλα per 1000 words in a book. So Matthew has 2.0162 αλλα per 1000 words; Mark has 3.9788 per 1000; etc. This sort of distribution leads me to think that use of αλλα is perhaps more stylistic than translational; though the LXX numbers reported (that graph is below the NT graph) are much less frequent. This may say more about the translators and the time they translated in than the translation itself.

And here's the LXX graph:

At least, that was the working title of the abstract I've submitted for the 2008 ETS meeting in Rhode Island this November. But I couldn't bring myself to actually make that the title of the paper. So here's what I've submitted:

We'll see if the abstract is accepted. Either way, I've already started culling through the 638 instances of αλλα in the New Testament (500+ of which appear in a negative pairing, it seems), working through the section on αλλα in Denniston's Greek Particles (amazon.com), reading Heckert on αλλα (amazon.com); I'll probably be braving the lexicon articles (BDAG, LSJ, LouwNida) sometime over the next week; and hitting the grammars (BDF, Moulton-Howard-Turner, Robertson, Porter's Idioms, Moule's Idioms, Wallace; perhaps Young's Intermediate Grammar) as well.

Sounds like fun, huh?

Update (2008-03-11): Responding to some comments: Yes, I do plan on posting the paper, but likely in conjunction with or just after the conference in November. But I'll probably blog some thoughts along the way that may or may not make it into the paper. On other resource (e.g. Thrall); perhaps. There is no shortage of items to look at for background. But the paper isn't a review of how people have described αλλα in the past, so there has to be a limit to the background section of the paper. I just don't know what that is yet (beyond standard lexica and grammars, Denniston, and Heckert)

From What's New in Papyrology, mention of a Web Exhibition at the University of Michigan: Diversity in the Desert.

Check it out!

This one excerpt all at once shows my love-hate relationship with both the genitive and with Charles Ellicott's commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (amazon.com). Here he discusses επαγγελιαν .. ζωης in 1Ti 4.8:

'promise of life.' The genitival relation is not perfectly clear. If it be the gen. of identity or apposition (comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 12.1, p. 82), ζωη, the import or rather object of the promise, would seem at first sight to involve two applications, quantitative ('long life,' Eph. 4.3, De W.) when in connexion with της νυν, qualitative ('holy, blessed life') when in connexion with της μελλουσης. If again it be the gen. of reference to (Huth., comp. Alf.), or the point of view (Scheuerl. Synt. § 18. 1, p. 129 sq.), ζωη retains its general meaning ('vital existence,' etc.), but επαγγελια becomes indefinite, and moreover is in a connexion with its dependent genitive not supported by any other passage in the NT. This last objection is so grave that it seems preferable to adopt the first form of gen., but in both members to give ζωη its higher and more definitely scriptural sense, and to regarded it as involving the idea, not of mere length, or of mere material blessings (contrast Mark 10.30, μετα διωγμων), but of spiritual happiness (ευδαιμονια, Coray) and holiness; in a word, as expressing 'the highest blessedness of the creature:' see Trench, Synon. § 27, whose philology however, in connecting ζωη with αω, is here doubtful; it is rather connected with Lat. 'vivere' (Sanscr. jîv); see esp. Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol 1. p. 265, Donalds. Cratyl. § 112, Benfey, Wurzellex. vol. 1. p. 684. There is a good treatise on ζωη in Olsh. Opusc. p. 187 sq. (Ellicott, 61)

First, on genitives. Does anyone seriously treat genitives like this with regularity? Is anyone consumed with classifying genitives (let alone datives, accusatives and nominatives)? Does one really need to label it in order to think about what it does in the passage; to the point of letting the label determine what the genitive can and cannot do in the phrase in question? I don't. And I can't imagine myself attaining command of the nearly 100 types of genitives that Wallace alone isolates and identifies. Why doesn't one simply just look at what the genitive does in a case without feeling a need to put it in a box?

Second, on Ellicott. Can you see why I love him and hate him, all at the same time? The references are great, the discussion makes you think. But it's tough to read. His conclusion is that " ... it seems preferable to adopt the first form of gen." (what's the 'first form' again?) and then gives it his own little twist. That's the frustrating part—why go to the problem of classifying it if your classification is going to be unique? Why not just discuss the function the thing?? On the plus side, you see all sorts of references (to grammars and syntaxes, to commentators, and to other references); this one doesn't even begin to list classical references like many of his other comments do. But it's a pain to wade through.

Long-time ricoblog readers know that I have a more-than-passing interest in stylometry and stylistic studies, particularly in the realm of authorship attribution.

I'm also reading a lot about the Fathers of the Church (via Drobner). And for the Church Fathers for whom we have much information and transmitted writings, there always seems to be mention of documents that had been attributed to a Father at one point in time that have since been proven/posited to not be from that Father.

So, the question: Does anyone have any references to stylometric studies of particular Greek church fathers?

There has been much ink spilt on the question of authorship attribution of New Testament epistles; but has anyone ever taken those same theories and applied them to the much larger corpora of some of the Greek fathers? My primary contention is that the NT is too small for the sorts of authorship studies folks do (vocabulary? bah, gimme a million word corpus from an author and maybe we can do something). In other words, I'd be interested in reading through if anyone has ever done for Chrysostom what P.N. Harrison did to the Pastorals in his 1922 tome The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, and what sorts of results they came up with.

Any help?

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.

One of the advantages of working at Logos and sitting next to very smart, very cool people like my friend Steve is that I get to soak up his knowledge as he works on cool projects.

One thing Steve has imparted to me is the importance of conjunctions and particles at the discourse level.

With this in mind, there I was in church on Sunday. We've been going through the gospel of Mark for maybe two years now, getting close to the end. Sunday's lesson was on Mark 16.1-8. Mark 16.5-7 jumped out at me:

5 Καὶ εἰσελθοῦσαι εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον εἶδον νεανίσκον καθήμενον ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς περιβεβλημένον στολὴν λευκήν, καὶ ἐξεθαμβήθησαν.

6 ὁ δὲ λέγει αὐταῖς·
     μὴ ἐκθαμβεῖσθε·
               Ἰησοῦν
          ζητεῖτε
               τὸν Ναζαρηνὸν
               τὸν ἐσταυρωμένον·
          ἠγέρθη,
               οὐκ ἔστιν ὧδε·
               ἴδε ὁ τόπος ὅπου ἔθηκαν αὐτόν.
     7 ἀλλὰ ὑπάγετε
          εἴπατε τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ τῷ Πέτρῳ
               ὅτι προάγει ὑμᾶς
                    εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν·
               ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε,
                    καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν.

A few things to notice.

First, the bold text shows some lexical cohesion between the two units. Mark is the only NT author that uses this particular word (cf. Mk 9.15; Mk 14.33). This connects the surprise the ladies had upon entering the tomb with the instructions from the angel to the women.

Second, note vv 6-7 as the quotative frame with the angel speaking. Note the use of μη .. αλλα (in red). One thing Steve has impressed upon me in the past few months is that when one sees an αλλα, one should always look up the context to see if there is a μη. And it happens here. Consider an English translation:

And he said to them:
     Don't be overwhelmed;
          the one you seek—
               Jesus,
               the Nazarene,
               the crucified one—
          he is risen
               he is not here—
               look at the place where they laid him!
     Instead, go
          tell his disciples and Peter
               that he is going before you
                    into Galilee
               just as he told you.

Do you see the contrast? Instead of being overwhelmed/freaked out; the women are instructed to calm down, to go find the disciples (including Peter!) and remind them of what Jesus had already instructed them.

Third, note how Jesus is specified in the text. There is no question as to whom the angel is referring to. Jesus is further qualified as "the Nazarene", and then further qualified as "the crucified one". Then the women are pointed to where they expected him to be, and noting that he is not there. Jesus, who was crucified and dead, whom they expected to be in the tomb, was not where he was supposed to be.

I think the text is focusing on Jesus not being in the tomb, and then further on directing the women to get the message (he is risen!) to the disciples so they can get to Galilee, back to Jesus.

It's a happy new year because the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism has just put four new articles online. These are in the 2007 volume (volume 3). If they're of interest to you, you should download them immediately because the JGRChJ only has the articles online until the volume is complete. Then they submit the volume to print and the articles go offline. So get 'em while you can:

4.3 John C. Poirier, The Linguistic Situation in Jewish Palestine in Late Antiquity
4.4 Julie Ann Smith, ‘What Now Lies Before Their Eyes’: The Foundations of Early Pilgrim Visuality in the Holy Land
4.5 David E. Malick, The Contribution of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis to an Understanding of Women in the Book of Acts
4.6 Justin M. Smith, Genre, Sub-Genre and Questions of Audience: A Proposed Typology for Greco-Roman Biography

I've not looked at any of the articles, though 4.3 and 4.5 look most interesting to me at this point.

In the most recent JBL (as of this writing; the citation is JBL 126, no. 3 (2007): 579-593), is an article David Konstan and Ilaria Ramelli (henceforth K&R) titled “The Syntax of εν Χριστω in 1 Thessalonians 4.16”. If you are an SBL member, you can retrieve this article from the JBL website.

I’ve actually written a series of blog posts for the Logos Bible Software blog on locating prepositional phrases using a syntactically annotated edition of the Greek New Testament (The OpenText.org Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament) using εν Χριστω in 1Th 4.16 as a starting point. Those posts don’t directly interact with the material and argument of K&R’s article; they just work through approaches to sifting data.

I’ve been chewing on K&R’s article for awhile and it’s time to write some more about it. But first, for those unfamiliar with the article, let me provide an excerpt from their introduction:

Our concern in this article is with the final clause: “And the dead in Christ will rise.” Does the Greek mean, “those who are dead in Christ will rise,” as many have taken it, including Jerome in the Latin Vulgate: mortui qui in Christo sunt resurgent? Or is it preferable to take it as meaning, “the dead will rise in Christ”? The choice between the two versions is of considerable importance. On the first interpretation, only those who have died in Christ will be resurrected, whereas the second can be taken to signify that all the dead will be resurrecte din Christ—the necessary premise for the theses of universal salvation or apocatastasis defended by Origen and other patristic writers, including Gregory of Nyssa. In this article, however, we set aside the theological arguments and concentrate simply on the point of grammar: does the prepositional phrase εν Χριστω modify οι νεκροι, or does it more naturally go with αναστησονται? (K&R, 579-581).

So the article is an exploration of a point of grammar (attachment of prepositional phrase) that has theological/doctrinal implications. And that’s great, particularly in this instance, because the text is ambiguous as to point of prepositional phrase attachment. Here’s the text with the pertinent bit italicised:

ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, καταβήσεται ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον, (1 Th 4:16, NA27)

For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. (1 Th 4:16, NRSV)

If you examine the text, you will find (as K&R note in the excerpt above) that the prepositional phrase εν Χριστω does have two potential points of attachment: οι νεκροι and αναστησονται. The attachment is ambiguous, but after examining the question K&R conclude that it is best to read εν Χριστω as attaching to the verb.

The more I consider K&R’s article, the less I like it and the more it frustrates me. And it isn’t (necessarily) their conclusion that frustrates me, it is the methodology. While they duly examine all 84 NT instances of εν Χριστω (both arthrous and anarthrous), include some extra-Biblical instances in footnotes, and while they even throw in NT instances of εν κυριω for good measure, their approach is lacking.

Why? There are a few reasons.

1. Their approach seeks to classify everything and group like with like; these groupings (and derived trends) then serve as the lense to classify the instance in 1Th 4.16.

Now classification isn’t bad, but this doesn’t address the primary issue with 1Th 4.16: There are two decent possibilities for attachment in 1Th 4.16, but the vast majority of instances of the prepositional phrase are not ambiguous in respect to placement. Classifying all of these primarily unambiguous instances does not necessarily help one think about the ambiguous instances more clearly. It can actually muddy the waters. Trends are not rules. That’s why I don’t like this paragraph:

The phrases εν Χριστω and εν κυριω seem, then, to be regularly attached to a verb, a participle, or an adjective with verbal force (this last very rarely, however). If they do modify a substantive, they are either clearly enclosed in a nominal phrase, as may occur also with a participle (1Co 7.22: ο γαρ εν κυριω κληθεις δουλος), or else they are preceded by a repetition of the article. (K&R, p. 589)

Do you see that? They’ve properly identified the trends of the unambiguous instances. But how does this really help consider what is going on in an instance where there are two relatively probable possibilities? While one can examine all instances to see which is most common, knowing the most common does not necessarily help in trying to determine the proper reading of the ambiguous instance. To simply follow the most common option is to make grammar and syntax into a popularity contest; this does not do justice to the text.

2. Their approach only examines particular components of the clause in question in comparison with other clauses; the questionable clause as a whole is not considered.

What I mean by this is that their approach neglects the clause as a whole; it only examines the subject (οι νεκροι), the prepositional phrase (εν Χριστω) and the verb (αναστησονται). They neglect the adverb πρωτον. This is evident in their proposing of the question (pp. 579-581, excerpted above). There is no discussion regarding how πρωτον affects either of their two possible readings. This, to my mind, is a gaping hole in the argument.

3. The “If Paul would’ve meant to associate the prepositional phrase with the substantive, he’d have written it this way” argument is unconvincing.

K&R proceed to examine instances of εν κυριω in their attempt to better understand εν Χριστω in 1Th 4.16. And this is fine as well. But I just don’t buy the following argument:

The only non-Pauline occurrence of [εν κυριω] is in Rev 14.13, and it, like the passage in 1 Thessalonians, concerns those who are dead in Christ. To indicate the dead, however, John does not use the bare expression οι νεκροι εν κυριω but rather repeats the article before the prepositional phrase, and in addition encloses the phrase between the article an a participle, so that its syntactical structure and meaning are unequivocal: μακαριοι οι νεκροι οι εν κυριω αποθνεησκοντες απ’ αρτι ... ινα αναποστησονται εκ των κοπων. We have here, then, a construction quite different from that in 1 Thessalonians, which indeed suggests what Paul would have written if he had meant to say “those who are dead”—or rather, who have died (the phrase depends on the participle)—“in Christ.” (K&R, 589)

Do you see the subtle flaw with their argument? They’re taking an unambiguous instance in a different author and stating that if Paul wanted the reading to be attached to the substantive, he would’ve done it this way.

To be more precise, however, one must instead conclude that if Paul wanted to present the reading attached to the substantive unambiguously, he might have done it the way John did—but they don't have access to the mind of Paul. One cannot conclude that because Paul didn’t write it the same way John did (or the way George or Ringo wrote it, for that matter), Paul can’t have meant what John meant.

4. Their approach assumes that a prepositional phrase must definitely attach to one or the other clausal component.

Again, this is evident in the phrasing of the question. And this seems largely driven by the traditional method of thinking about Greek syntax and perhaps even driven by the practice of sentence diagramming. This is good to think about and even necessary when doing exegesis; but isn’t it possible that the ambiguity of the phrasing could imply ambiguity in attachment on purpose? I guess I’m saying that in my experience language is messy; to say the prepositional phrase must “attach” to one component or the other may be generally true but, as with other things, I can’t help but think ambiguity should be an option as well.

5. Their approach pays little to no attention to the context surrounding the clause; that is, the clause is read in isolation to the larger context (surrounding clauses, paragraph and discourse levels).

This follows on point 2 above. Because K&R don’t treat πρωτον, they have no need to ask the question “what follows after the first thing?”. Verse 17 discusses what happens after the ‘first’ thing and this can help in resolving the ambiguity. Indeed, the whole context of vv. 13-18 have to do with believers both living and dead; Paul is answering the issue of what happens to those (believers) who die previous to Christ’s triumphant return. To include and consider relevant context is not theological discussion (recall K&R intend to specifically avoid discussing the theological implications of the syntactic reading); it is treating the discourse as a discourse instead of a jumble of unconnected words and phrases.

When there is ambiguity in the interaction of clausal components, examination of the larger discourse may provide light on how to resolve the ambiguity.

6. For an article on syntax, there is no interaction with standard grammars on the point of syntax discussed.

Specifically, there is no interaction with BDF§272, which cites this instance in particular. This is a minor nitpick, but where standard grammars interact on this specific question, that evidence should be noted.

Conclusion

Those are the primary issues I have with K&R’s article. Please don’t get me wrong, I think there is valuable stuff in there but I don’t see how it helps make a conclusion as to what is happening with the prepositional phrase in 1Th 4.16.

Additionally, I have to say that I enjoyed pp. 591-593, where K&R delve into patristic evidence of how 1Th 4.16 was read in the early church—specifically, their examination of Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa. I thought this portion was actually a stronger argument for their view than all of the listing and classification of Greek NT instances.

I've had a copy of Zondervan's Reader's Greek New Testament (amazon.com) [the first edition with the italic font; there is a second edition (amazon.com) with a non-sloping font] for a few years (a gift from one of the editors) and have enjoyed it despite the italic font. I've actually become used to the font (it is slightly better than the horrible UBS4 italic font). I think the concept is great -- gloss words that occur 30x or less at the foot of the page to help those working on their vocabulary and reading skills.

And the book is well crafted -- made for folks who will actually use it. The cover is a soft leather, it is not heavy at all. One of the perennial complaints with the reader, apart from the italic font, is that it uses Zondervan's Greek text instead of the UBS4/NA27 text.

Recently, the German Bible Society has released their own reader's edition: The UBS Greek New Testament: A Reader's Edition (amazon.com). This glosses words that occur 30x or less at the foot of the page, and it uses the UBS4 (and it doesn't have an italic font!) as the Greek text. I've also got access to a copy of this (it was a gift to Logos from the GBS) so I thought I'd write a quick post comparing the two.

• Cost: The RGNT is less expensively priced, as you can see from the Amazon links above.
• Form Factor: Again, I think Zondervan wins. The RGNT is half the thickness of the UBSGNT:RE, same basic shape.
• Cover: RGNT wins hands-down on the cover. The Italian duo-tone leather is a joy to hold. The UBS cover is the standard red cover, though it is the size of a large print edition (also the size of Omanson's Textual Guide to the GNT (amazon.com)). UBS has a ribbon; Zondervan does not.
• Paper: UBS wins here, their paper is better -- not the thin onion-skin paper of the RGNT.
• Text: UBS wins here because they use the text everyone refers to. I realize there are scant differences between UBS and the Zondervan text, but the UBS is still better for it.
• Layout: UBS wins here as well. If you've used the RGNT, you know it is hard to find a gloss at the bottom of the page because the notes are in one paragraph. The UBS text, however, has two columns of notes at the foot of each page; this makes it relatively easy to find the gloss of the word you want.
• Notes: UBS wins here too because they don't just provide definitions, they also provide some parsing/declension info.
• XRefs: RGNT wins here because they actually note the source of OT quotes in the text. UBS does not provide such info.
• Appendix: UBS wins here because they have a dictionary in the back for words that occur more than 30x -- which means you can look up any word in the text if you don't know it and it occurs more than 30x. RGNT has no such dictionary.

I think that's it. And I think there are two ways to slice the data.

I think that if cost and form are important (is it reasonably priced, and does it feel good in the hand, and is it easy to carry around) then you should check out the Reader's Greek New Testament (amazon.com).

But if you're more concerned about the text (UBS/NA is a priority) and about ease of use -- it really is easier to find the notes in the UBS edition, and it's nice to have a full dictionary to access for other words -- then you probably want to spend a little more and get the UBS Greek NT: Reader's Edition (amazon.com).

Update (2007-12-17): In the comments, Mike Aubrey (who blogs at εν εφεσω) points us to Rick Mansfield's similar review. Check his post out because, unlike me, he took time to add images of the text of the two books, so you can see the differences yourself.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the books I picked up at ETS/SBL* is the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament with Dictionary (amazon.com), published by Hendrickson. This is a reprinting (and re-setting) of WH's Greek NT. Hendrickson have added pericope heads, a running apparatus with diffs between NA27, WH marginal notes, and the 2005 edition of Robinson-Pierpont's Byzantine text (amazon.com). The dictionary is a revised and enlarged version of Souter's Pocket Dictionary.

But, I wondered, how different is Hendrickson's edition from the original Westcott & Hort edition? And are the differences significant?

As I mentioned above, there are some immediately apparent differences:

• Hendrickson's edition has section headings in English; the original WH has none
• Hendrickson's edition has a editional apparatus at the foot of the page with differences between NA27, Byz (RP 2005) and the WH marginal notes; the original WH only has the marginal notes

There are other differences, too; but these are less obvious.

First, Hendrickson's edition has the books of the NT arranged in what is now the standard canonical order: Gospels, Acts, Paulines, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse. The original WH, however, did not follow that order; they followed (as I recall) the order of books in some of the earliest complete NT MSS: Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles, Paulines (including Hebrews between 2Thess and 1Tim), Apocalypse.

Second, Hendrickson's edition inserts paragraph breaks where WH's had subparagraph breaks. This removes a level of detail from the text, but all the same -- I don't think anyone really knew the subparagraph breaks (larger horizontal spans of white space) were there on purpose. But I do think it is significant, particularly when much scholarly attention these days focuses on discourse analysis (aka "textlinguistics"). This is a level of annotation that is above the sentence level but below the paragraph level, providing some help when one actually begins to structure the text and wants to read it through sensitive to discourse structure.

While at SBL, I was able to speak with the editor at Hendrickson who did much of the work on the book. The concern they had was that WH's paragraphs are, admittedly, large. They wanted smaller chunks for reading, and to make it easier to find verse references. This is discussed in the introduction, which notes:

In this edition, WH's original paragraph and spacing divisions have been preserved by inserting paragraph breaks for both types of division. The resulting paragraphs are more consistent in length with those of editions and translations of the NT available today. Section divisions have been preserved by inserting English section headings designed to make navigation of the text easier for English readers. Additional English headings have been added betweeen and occasionally within paragraphs where deemed helpful. (p. xxii)

Third, WH's introductory articles are not reproduced in Hendrickson's edition, instead some material by Eldon Epp is included. Also, some of the helpful WH appendices—List of Suspected Readings, List of Noteworthy Rejected Readings, Quotations from the Old Testament—are not included. On the plus side, the Hendrickson edition does have a few maps in the back.

Conclusion

While there are differences between the Hendrickson edition and the original WH, I don't think they're that significant. The editional apparatus included in Hendrickson's edition makes the Hendrickson edition more appropriate to use in today's context. I don't think it should supplant one's use of the primary critical text (NA27) but if one has a need to consult WH or even a desire to consult Byzantine variants from a particular edition (Robinson's), then Hendrickson's reprinting of Westcott & Hort's Greek New Testament (amazon.com) is probably the go-to edition.

* Full disclosure: Hendrickson gave the book to me.

Folks --

I finally posted my 2007 ETS paper, Richard Bauckham and Eyewitness Testimony: Does His Narrative Device Occur Outside of the Synoptics?, has been posted to my personal web site in the academic papers section.

The primary difference between this and my 2007 Regional ETS paper is the inclusion of a 9 page appendix that details the structure of the Marcan instances of the plural-to-singular narrative device and the searches used to locate other potential instances of the device.

While out at ETS and SBL, the good folks at Kregel sent along a copy of Dr. Rodney Decker's Koine Greek Reader (amazon.com). Be sure to check out Dr. Decker's page for his book. Why did I get a copy? I was one of a select number quick enough to respond to Dr. Decker's offer of a free copy of the book on his blog — which just goes to show you, reading blogs can pay.

I haven't had time to look at the book much, but my friend and colleague Johnny borrowed it over the weekend and was suitably impressed. He said, "I wish my second-year reading class used it as a text!". He found the presentation of chunks (not just one verse) of text followed by grammar and syntax notes on the text helpful.

In the future, I hope to compare the Koine Greek Reader (amazon.com) with Whitacre's Patristic Greek Reader (amazon.com) to show strengths and weaknesses of each. But I have a lot of stuff I want to blog in the next while; so I may not get to it immediately. But the initial word is that Decker's Koine Greek Reader (amazon.com) looks useful and should be a great help, whether you are in a classroom setting or if you're simply wanting a refresher course from that year of Greek you had in school too many years ago.

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 morning, Current Epigraphy posted a bleg asking for help with a particular Christian inscription spotted in Imma (which is near Antioch).

Check it out, and if you have the eyes to see, perhaps you can help them out!

Here's a photograph of the inscription, and here's a preliminary text of the inscription. But be sure to check out the comments as well.

It's true; they're mentioned in an article in the New Yorker on digitization of information:

Six hundred years later, Eusebius, a historian and bishop of the coastal city of Caesarea, in Palestine, assembled Christian writings in the local library. He also devised a system of cross-references, known as “canon tables,” that enabled readers to find parallel passages in the four Gospels—a system that the scholar James O’Donnell recently described as the world’s first set of hot links. A deft impresario, Eusebius mobilized a team of secretaries and scribes to produce Bibles featuring his new study aid; in the three-thirties, the emperor Constantine placed an order with Eusebius for fifty parchment codex Bibles for the churches of his new city, Constantinople. Throughout the Middle Ages, the great monastic libraries engaged in the twin projects of accumulating large holdings and, in their scriptoria, making and disseminating copies of key texts.

(h/t to Bill; thanks!)

If you've ever wondered what the weird Roman numeral/Arabic numeral stuff is in the inner margins of the print NA27 ... well, now you know. For more information, check out Kevin P. Edgecomb's page on the Eusebian Canons.

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

I'm curious what you think, so I'm asking. Is "they" == "Jesus and the 12" or is "they" == "the 12"?

Here's the Greek text of Mk 14.17-18 and the ESV text of same.

Καὶ ὀψίας γενομένης ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν δώδεκα. καὶ ἀνακειμένων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσθιόντων ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν παραδώσει με ὁ ἐσθίων μετʼ ἐμοῦ. (Mk 14:17-18, NA27)

And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” (Mk 14:17-18)

Feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts. If you'd rather not comment publicly but want to let me know what you think, try textgeek at gmail dot com.

... I'm still amazed at the differences between Greek editions of the NT in the areas of:

• paragraphing
• punctuation
• orthography (e.g. νγ vs γγ, moveable nu)

and that there is no standard tome on these items, apart from Westcott & Hort's Introduction [mentioned here], as far as I can tell. And you have to dig to find W&H's intro. Are they the only ones to even try to tackle this?

I mean, even if you just compare Westcott & Hort to NA27 — where the text is almost exactly the same — check to see where one uses emdashes and the other uses colons, or where one punctuates a list with commas and the other doesn't, or where sentence and paragraph breaks are entirely different.

Am I making a bigger deal of this than is necessary? Do folks just think this aspect of an edition is interpretive, so editors do what they do and we just gloss over it?

Maybe. But my guess is that most users of the Greek NT are just using it to zero in on a particular word for a study of a particular verse. Like: "Oh, [english word] is a translation of [greek word]; so I'll look that one up in BDAG." Does anyone who actually reads the Greek NT pay attention to paragraphing, punctuation, flow of argumentation? Or are we layering our own translation over things when we examine the Greek (OK, I admit I'm guilty of this).

And I'm also guessing that much of the paragraphing and punctuation in Greek NTs has to do with how the editors would translate the text themselves, thus I'm guessing it is influenced largely by the punctuation practices of their native language* — and not necessarily based on what the Greek is communicating.**

Of course, I know, the written Greek MSS don't have punctuation like modern languages (though there are some indicators). But it still seems like there should at least be some attempts at this area of study primarily because it is so important to understanding the text as a whole.

Is this area doomed to languish?

Update (2007-10-25): Tommy Wasserman over at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog links back here, noting what I said earlier about subparagraphs in the NA27. Thanks! I posted a comment on his post about subparagraphs in Westcott & Hort:

I subsequently 'discovered' that Westcott & Hort has subparagraph breaks too; but at least they tell you what they are in §419 of their introduction: "In the subdivision of sections we have found great convenience in adopting the French plan of breaking up the paragraphs into subparagraphs by means of a space of some length."

The same section goes on with some more information about W&H's edition that I didn't know either: "We have been glad at the same time to retain another grade of division in the familiar difference between capitals and small letters following a full stop. Groups of sentences introduced by a capital thus bear the same relation to subparagraphs as subparagraphs to paragraphs."

I'm beginning to wonder how much of this sort of stuff NA27 just carries over without disclosing.

* Pure speculation and likely irrelevant and misguided, but I'm wondering how the punctuation in NA27 compares with how one would punctuate a somewhat literal German translation — and how punctuation in UBS4 compares with how one would punctuate a somewhat literal English translation.

** You can really see this in Hodges & Farstad's The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text where they go so far as to use “quote marks” to denote spoken text and, as I recall, OT quotations. It's pretty irritating to see quotation marks in the midst of diacritics and some text-critical note indicators.

I'm curious to know if anyone can recommend resources (books, articles, web sites, whatever) on matters of punctuation, sentence/paragraph delineation, and orthography as they pertain to printed editions of the Greek New Testament.

If you ever compare editions of the Greek NT, you'll see these differences sticking out like sore thumbs. The words themselves (the order of the stream of letters) may not differ, but the other stuff does. Editions differ on paragraph placement, how to break up paragraphs (i.e. NA27's use of sub-paragraphs* within paragraphs?), sentence delineation, treatment of divine names (only upper-cased when also a proper name? or all upper-cased?), and orthographical issues.

The only treatment of orthography of an edition of the Greek New Testament that I know of (offhand) is in Westcott & Hort's appendix volume to their edition, pp. 148-179. I can't say I've read much on the other stuff (outside of discourse analysis/grammar approaches to determining textual units) and, frankly, it seems like more of an art than a science when you actually examine an edition.

Anyone have any references for such things? I can get to some decent libraries if I need to (Trinity Western University or the Vancouver School of Theology, for example).

Thanks!

Update (2007-10-05): There's also Westcott & Hort's introduction volume (actually, the intro & appendix are in the same print volume, though the page numbering starts again for the appendix — at least in my edition, dated 1896). Intro part 4, pp. 288-324 (§§375-425) cover W&H's approach on much of this material. §§393-404 cover orthography; §§405-416 cover breathings, accents and the like; §§417-423 cover punctuation and textual division as well as titles of books. Zounds! Now that's detail. But that's the only place I've found this sort of information. The NA27 preface/intro has no such information; Maurice Robinson's 2005 Byzantine (printed edition) has about a page. R.V.G. Tasker has about two sentences in the intro to his Greek New Testament being the text translated in The New English Bible (he basically says the his Greek follows the NEB NT English practice). Does anyone else have any other references?

* If you ever wondered why there are some longer white space breaks in portions of paragraphs (say, 1/4 to 1/2 inch wide like the space before Jn 1.18 in this screen shot) ... then you've found subparagraph breaks in the NA27. I didn't know about them myself until I asked a contact at the German Bible Society about them while I was working on creating the Logos Bible Software edition of the NA27 with critical apparatus markers found in the SESB. And yes, the Logos editions of NA27 do include visual subparagraph breaks in the text (as well as the paragraphing, casing, etc. of the printed edition).

One of the points that came up frequently in the discussion about both the so-called "James Ossuary" and the so-called "Jesus Tomb" was that the name "Jesus" was very common in the first century. It's a valid point. There are a few places to look for name occurrances, and ossuaries are a valuable source. But there are others.

I'm sure many have done this already, but have you ever searched the English translation of the Works of Josephus for the word "Jesus"? And then have you tracked down to see how many potential Jesuses are referred to therein?

Whiston's translation has 73 instances of "Jesus", though some of those are in footnotes so they don't really count. According to the index in Niese's critical Greek edition (the index is volume 7 in the print and can be very handy — and it will be included in the Logos edition of Josephus, which strives to reproduce Niese in its entirety) there are 20 different Jesuses in these 73 instances.*

Huh? 20 Jesuses? That's right. On the right side of this post you can see the index entry (Niese vol. 7 p. 41 cols 1-2) straight from Niese. Jesus Christ is #9 in the list. The citations are weird; straight roman numerals without a prefix indicate references to the Antiquities; the others use minimal italicised Latin-based prefixes (e.g. B for Wars, Vit for Life, etc.) for work names.

The primary instance that most NT scholars are interested in is the Testimonium Flavianum, found in Ant. 18.63-64:

(63) Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; (64) and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1996, c1987). The works of Josephus : Complete and unabridged. Includes index. (Ant 18.62-64). Peabody: Hendrickson. Emphasis added

One of the more interesting non-Jesus Jesus examples is Ant. 20.213:

This made him more than ordinarily hated by his subjects; because he took those things away that belonged to them, to adorn a foreign city; (213) and now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other; but Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches,—which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive.
Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1996, c1987). The works of Josephus : Complete and unabridged. Includes index. (Ant 20.212-213). Peabody: Hendrickson. Emphasis added.

Another interesting one is found in Ant. 11.297-303, which Whiston's edition numbers as Ant. 11.7.1-2 (so, a separate chapter in Whiston). Whiston's chapter title? "HOW JOHN SLEW HIS BROTHER JESUS IN THE TEMPLE; AND HOW BAGOSES OFFERED MANY INJURIES TO THE JEWS; AND WHAT SANBALLAT DID". Read on:

(298) Now Jesus was the brother of John, and was a friend of Bagoses, who had promised to procure him the high priesthood. (299) In confidence of whose support, Jesus quarrelled with John in the temple, and so provoked his brother, that in his anger his brother slew him. Now it was a horrible thing for John when he was high priest, to perpetrate so great a crime, and so much the more horrible, that there never was so cruel and impious a thing done, neither by the Greeks nor Barbarians.
Josephus, F., & Whiston, W. (1996, c1987). The works of Josephus : Complete and unabridged. Includes index. (Ant 11.297-299). Peabody: Hendrickson. Emphasis added

There were lots of guys running around with the name Jesus. Heck, there were lots of Johns (17 according to Niese), a few Jameses (five) and even lots of Judases (13!).

Update (2007-10-03): Responding to John Augusten in the comments: of course I understand that the statistical argument was on the compilation and juxtaposition of names. (On refuting Jacobivici's statistical arguments, see here, here and here). My primary point here is not to argue about the ossuaries or validity of the so-called "Jesus Tomb" (though I do think Jacobivici is, to put it technically, full of hooey), or to argue statistics. My point was to show that in addition to ossuary evidence (Rahmani, et. al.) corpora from the era also have onomastic data that can be extracted. And, secondarily, that indexes with sense disambiguation are valuable even when one can do a comprehensive concordance search of a corpus.

* I did a lemma search of the in-development Logos edition, so results might not be accurate, but I located 124 instances of the lemma Ιησους. Why the discrepancy between the Greek and Whiston's translation? I'm guessing Whiston translated Ιησους as "Joshua" where he deemed appropriate (e.g. in OT historical sections).

I've finally begun reading David Weinberger's Everything is Miscellaneous (amazon.com). It's been on my to-read list for awhile but I've only recently gained access to a copy.

I've also been reading about Discourse Analysis and Discourse Grammar (the latter has more to say about what's going on at the sentence-clause level). One of the primary principles of Discourse Grammar is described by Stephen H. Levinsohn in his article The Relevance of Greek Discourse Studies to Exegesis. Here it is.

Jan Firbas, a Prague School linguist, was a pioneer in recognizing that, in the majority of sentences in a natural text, the order of non-verbal constituents tended to follow what has come to be called the "Principle of Natural Information Flow" (Comrie 1989; see Firbas 1964). According to this principle, non-verbal constituents that convey established information are placed before those that convey new or non-established information. (Levinsohn 14).

So, according to the principle of natural information flow, established information occurs first, and new information comes after.

Really, this is related to Weinberger's book (amazon.com). Trust me.

Here's Weinberger, in the chapter "The New Order of Order", subsection "Everything has its places".

The two processes by which new things are introduced into our homes are typical of how we handle information: we go through new arrivals and then we put them away. We go through the mail and file it in the special places we have for bills (the desk), cards from relatives (the refrigerator door), and junk mail (the trash). We go through bags of groceries and put the food away within minutes of bringing it into our house. We address these elements of disorder—unsorted mail in the mailbox, groceries sorted by relative weight into bags by a clerk in the store—with remarkable alacrity. (Weinberger 11)

We know how to sort our mail because it is ours. It is familiar. We go through the jumble of the mailbox, and certain things stand out: the electricity bill that needs to be paid; the envelope with the hand-written return address that looks like a card or letter (we open that one first because it is 'good mail'). The advertising circular that always comes on Tuesdays is likely plopped in the recycle bin on your way in the house because you know you already get the best price because you use your club card when you shop at that store.

Anyway, we process the information as we encounter it and filter it. We deal with the known (mail we recognize by some feature—size, color of envelope, type of postage, return sender, etc.) and move to the unknown. In so doing, some pieces of mail become prominent. We open those first because they're likely worthy of opening (except that clever junk mail in the manilla business-letter-sized envelope that looked like a check from the bank) and because we either have an inkling of what is inside or because it looks juicy but we don't really know what it is.

My flash of inspiration upon reading Weinberger after having read some papers on Discourse Analysis and Discourse Grammar — Reading involves the same process.

We do it innately with our native language because, like our mail, it is ours. We know how we've processed it in the past and we have lots of experience to filter through the new batches and determine what is promenent (the mail we open first) and what isn't (the flyers we throw in the recycle bin and the junk mail we rip up without even opening it). In our native language we naturally supply the known information and naturally note the new information and assimilate it into our further reading of the sentence/paragraph.

It is, however, much more difficult with a non-native language like Hellenistic Greek. We simply don't have enough experience "filtering the mail" to know which envelopes to open first, and which to throw out in the recycle bin. We can read the sentence/paragraph and get the gist of what's going on by assembling the words (more of a code/decode process) but we have problems picking out the salient bits because we haven't really internalized rules to tell us what is salient as we process the bag-o-words.

And this is what can be helpful in approaching the text of the NT from a Discourse Analysis and Discourse Grammar approach: we get some ideas on how to filter the mail. It gives us clues as to what to "open first" as we process a sentence or paragraph or an even larger discourse. It helps the prominent/salient bits become more evident, and this in turn helps our exegesis focus on what is necessary in order to properly handle the text.

I'm still thinking through this stuff; I'm interested to know what anyone thinks about this. Please use the comments if you have more to add to the discussion.

[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".

A few weeks back, I blogged on Greek Readers. I blogged about A Patristic Greek Reader (amazon.com), Wikgren's Hellenistic Greek Texts (amazon.com), and Goodspeed & Colwell's Greek Papyrus Reader.

Today I noticed a few more Greek readers that will apparently be released by the end of the year, meaning that they might be previewable at the ETS and SBL conferences in November.

1. Koine Greek Reader: Selections from the New Testament, Septuagint, and Early Christian Writers (amazon.com). This one was put together by Rodney Decker; it'll be published by Kregel in November 2007 (so I'd guess you'd be able to get one at ETS or SBL). The Amazon.com description follows:

Providing graded readings in Koine Greek from the New Testament, Septuagint, Apostolic Fathers, and early creeds, this unique text integrates the full range of materials needed by intermediate Greek students. Its many features include four helpful vocabulary lists, numerous references to other resources, assorted translation helps, a review of basic grammar and syntax, and an introduction to BDAG-the standard Greek lexicon.

2. A Historical Greek Reader: Mycenaean to the Koine (amazon.com) by Stephen Colvin. Published by Oxford with a release date of December 6, 2007. I'd love to be able to page through it at SBL as it sounds very interesting. Here's the Amazon.com blurb:

A Historical Greek Reader (amazon.com) provides an introduction to the history of the ancient Greek language by means of a series of texts with linguistic commentary, cross-referenced to each other and to a reference grammar at the front. It offers a selection of epigraphic and literary texts from the Mycenaean period (roughly the fourteenth century BC) to the koine (the latest text dates to the second century AD), and includes a wide range of Greek dialect texts. The epigraphic section balances a number of well-known inscriptions with recent discoveries that may not be easily available elsewhere; a selection of literary texts traces major developments in the language of Greek poetry and literary prose. The book finishes with an account of the linguistic and sociolinguistic background of koine Greek. The commentary assumes no prior knowledge of Greek historical linguistics, but provides a basic amount of up-to-date bibliography so that advanced students and others can pursue linguistic issues at greater depth where necessary.

I'm frustrated.

A few years back I noticed that Eerdmans was going to publish James Royse's monumental dissertation, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri — consistentely and frequently cited in footnotes in just about every NT text-critical tome I've read or looked at in the past three years. "Woo Hoo!", I thought. It would be available and might even be less that $100, which means I could buy it at SBL at a reasonable price!

Yesterday, I read the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog post on Brill's NTTSD series, which notes:

For those of you who have waited on James R. Royse's study of Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri finally to be published (the orginal dissertation on which it is based dates from 1981) will be pleased to hear that it is due this autumn (according to Brill's representative whom I met in Vienna). According to the gossip at the SBL in Vienna the delay of Royse's book on the part of the former publisher Eerdman's caused frustration for both the author Royse and the SD editor Epp and led the latter to turn to Brill which has now resulted in this permanent solution.

Well, I'm glad the book is getting published. But Brill wants $369.00 for it! (amazon.com) That means it is destined to only be purchased by university libraries; that it will suck hard-to-come-by money from other book purchases at said libraries, and it will be destined to sit in the office of some NT prof (or a departmental library) away from the main stacks where folks could actually use the durn thing.

What to do?

Don't buy the book. Go to the UMI dissertation express. Search for "Royse, James". It looks like you can get a copy of the dissertation for under 50 bucks, at least in the US. The 751 page dissertation was submitted in 1981, and the text has surely been sharpened in the past 26 years ... but hey, you'll actually be able to read and refer to it on your terms.

Even if Brill releases a paperback, who knows what the price will be. If you've considered the book before because, like me, you've seen it cited in footnotes and have drooled over it, then consider getting the dissertation via UMI instead of spending upwards of $400 with Brill.

Update (2007-08-09): Responding to the comments, particularly to Mike. I know the book would be expensive, but $370 is crazy. Are libraries really going to drop $370 on one title, and that not a substantive reference title? I am very glad Brill is publishing the title. My hope is that a few years down the road, after the libraries pay off the book's cost, it'll be put out in paperback, perhaps even by the SBL, and it will be do-able price-wise. I understand the economics of publishing and know there are costs for publishers to account for -- they don't grow money on trees. My post was a bit of a rant (hence the "rant" category), but also to point out that the primary substance of Royse's book, his dissertation, is available at a much more reasonable price for those who are really interested in the work but don't have a good library close (or who, like me, might be able to get it at a library but are such zealous bibliophiles they don't like to let go of books they've read, particularly if they could be useful in future studies). Anyway, c'est la vie, Scribal Habits. If I deem my text-critical reading needs to require Royse before a paperback is available, I'll head to UMI to get the dissertation.

I blogged the other day on Hendrickson Publisher's upcoming book, A Patristic Greek Reader (amazon.com). It sounds very good, but it isn't published yet (the date is sometime in September 2007, as I recall).

In lieu of that, I thought I'd blog about some other readers that are on my shelf. I haven't actually made it through these, though I have slogged through some portions of them.

1. Hellenistic Greek Texts (amazon.com) by Allen Wikgren. This was published by the University of Chicago Press in 1947, but still appears to be in print. The copy I have (purchased used and given to me as a Christmas gift by my mother- and father-in-law) is in good shape. The manuscript is typewritten. It is 290 pages; the back 65 pages are a glossary with very brief definitions. Selections from LXX, NT, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Apostolic Fathers, other early Fathers, some Papyri and some other pagan Hellenistic literature. Recommended particularly if you'd like to broaden your horizons but only buy one book. Also, you can (without too much trouble) find English translations of most of these works, though the text itself has no translations.

2. A Greek Papyrus Reader with Vocabulary by Edgar J. Goodspeed and Ernest Cadman Colwell. This as well was published by the University of Chicago Press in 1935 with a second printing in 1936. But it doesn't appear to still be in print. As the title says, the focus is on papyrus. There are 82 papyri within the 108 pages of the book. Each papyrus has a brief intro and some notes at the foot. At the back are 20+ pages of vocabulary (a gloss list, essentially). The primary issue with this slim volume is that there are no translations, and it is difficult to find translations to check your work, so you're left wondering if you've got the gist of everything correctly.

3. While not technically "readers", I can recommend two diglot editions of the Apostolic Fathers: Michael Holmes' third edition (amazon.com), to be published in November -- though my primary experience is with the second edition; and Bart Ehrman's two-volume Loeb edition (Vol I (amazon.com), Vol II (amazon.com)). In my experience, Ehrman is more idiomatic and Holmes is more literal, so you take your pick. These have translations but no glossary/vocabulary sections.

Any other readers out there anyone would like to add to the list?

Randall Tan presented a paper in the Hellenistic Greek Language and Linguistics section at the recent International SBL meeting in Vienna called "Reversing the Roles of Lexis and Grammar?". I blogged about this back in January, where you can read a little background and the original paper proposal.

Randall was kind enough to list me as co-presenter, though my role was largely that of munger-of-data and sounding board. While I agree with what Randall presented, the ideas and approach are largely his.

Anyway, I figured it would be a good thing to post the paper here. So here it is:

• Reversing the Roles of Lexis and Grammar.pdf (103.97 KB)

We'd be interested in any feedback you may have on the paper; feel free to either comment here or zap email my way to the address listed in the sidebar.

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.

I just came across this most interesting resource: Treasury of the New Testament.

Though in reality, it is only on John 1-15 (and doesn't look like it will grow fast at all, at least based on the "what's new" page).

If you're familiar with the concept behind IVP's Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Series (ACCS) then this will be interesting to you. It looks like someone has interspersed (and footnoted) patristic commentary — in Greek — inside of the Gospel of John. The gospel text is that of the Orthodox Church, I'm guessing.

This is very cool, at least to me. It means I can feel good about reading the John portions but can stretch myself on the patristic portions.

So check it out. Here's John 3 for starters.

Enjoy!

Various books of the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) have been available in preliminary form for a few years. However, in the past few months, the NETS crew have finished their work and placed PDFs of everything online. So check it out. Oxford University Press will publish the print edition ... I'd guess in time for SBL.

(hat tip: Epistles of Thomas)

Tony Chartrand-Burke, on his Apocryphicity blog, posts a 10-page how-to for manuscript collating called Collating for Dummies. It even takes on the page layout of that well-known series. (h/t Jim Davila). It's a good read, though I'd hoped he'd give a little more info on the physical process of collation and comparison. But it's only 10 pages, and the bibliography looks to have some promising sources to follow up on.

Tony gives some props to Bruce Metzger as a resource for decoding ligatures and abbreviations in Greek. Metzger's book on paleography, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Paleography (amazon.com) is good and the recommended introduction. But you may require more information on abbreviations and ligatures in Greek MSS. If so, I'd recommend Abbreviations in Greek: Inscriptions, Papyri, Manuscripts and Early Printed Books (amazon.com). I've blogged about this book previously (here and here). It contains four monographs (some short, some long, some with extensive catalogues and other such material) having to do with abbreviations in Greek. These monographs are:

• "Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions" by M. Avi-Yonah
• "Abbreviations and Symbols in Greek Papyri" by F. G. Kenyon
• "Abbreviations in Greek Manuscripts" by T. W. Allen
• "Abbreviations in Early Greek Printed Books" by G. F. Ostermann and A. E. Giegengack.

If you're only interested in ligatures/abbreviations, skip Metzger (amazon.com) and get Oikonomides (amazon.com). You'll save $40 overall (based on Amazon prices current as of original composition of this article) and get more information specific to your interest.

At the start of his discussion of "Similarly Spelled but Identically Pronounced Variants":

The contribution of commentaries on the following text-critical discussion is minimal, since commentators as a rule follow the text of the GNT [UBS4] or NA [NA27] without further ado. Where they do take up a variation unit for discussion, they normally accept the verdict of the editors and the explanation supplied by Metzger's commentary, which they express in their own words. (Caragounis, Development of Greek and the New Testament (amazon.com), 518)

And he's right, but his comparison is wrong. In the setting of a commentary, unless it is focused on being a textual commentary, it would be questionable to devote pages and pages to each text-critical complication. It is right to mention them, but one need not work them out in painstaking detail unless that is the raison d'etre for the commentary. In the setting of an article on a variant, however (which is what Caragounis has done) one would be irresponsible to not work things out in significant detail, as Caragounis does in the next section of his book (the one dealing with variants at 1Co 13.3, pp. 547-564). And even in the current section (pp. 517-546) Caragounis usually only presents enough information to show that the variants are spelled the same, they sound the same, and the evidence is split.

But overall, he's right. When *most* commentators bring up a variant, they typically defer to Metzger and move on.

I'm stoked about THIS:

For those without Logos Bible Software, you should really obtain and read at least a few sections of the Handbook of Classical Rhetoric (amazon.com). You should also consider Porter's Handbook to the Exegesis of the NT (link to Logos) and his Idioms of the Greek NT (link to Logos).

If you went "huh?" when you read that title then you haven't thought about how "Oxyrhynchus" would translate into English.

The "What's New in Papyrology" blog pointed to mention of a book by this title awhile back. Today they pointed to a review of City of the Sharp-Nosed Fish: Greek Lives in Roman Egypt (amazon.com) in the New Statesman.

Do check out the review. The book sounds fantastic.

I'll discuss Atticism in more detail later (likely in part 4 of my Thorough-going Eclecticism series) but I wanted to mention this now.

Just last night I was reviewing some areas that J.K. Elliott chalks up to atticism and was thinking, "so how do we know what an atticism is?" I mean, my one year of Greek at a formal learning institution was Attic (my autodidact efforts have focused largely on Koine/Hellenistic). I remember the biggies (e.g. Attic ττ shifts to Koine σσ, πραττω to πρασσω) but not much more.

Later in the evening I was reading Caragounis' The Development of Greek and the New Testament (amazon.com). Imagine my surprise when I ran across his section on Atticism, pp. 120-140 where he reproduces lists from Phrynichos (424 words!) and Moiris (less than 50 words) that could be helpful when reviewing variants for possible atticism.

[This is part of a series of posts looking at "thorough-going eclecticism" as practiced by J.K. Elliott in his book The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. See the introductory post for more information. --RWB]

As a part of Elliott's first principle, line omission is pretty much the same as homoiteleuton (though not necessarily with the same start/same end type thing) only on a grander scale. Instead of skipping letters or words of an exemplar, one or more lines are skipped. Elliott writes:

Another cause of omission is line-omission. Clark in his Acts of the Apostles (38) shows how the shorter text of Acts was frequently the result of line omission. ... This cause of omission is less demonstrable in the Pastoral epistles, (Elliott 6-7).

There are not many examples; I will list two here.

• 1Ti 1.14. Elliott uses line omission to explain what happened in MS 1518 (a XIV/XV cent. MS in Jerusalem) at this verse. The NA27 has the following:

14 ὑπερεπλεόνασεν δὲ ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μετὰ πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. (1Ti 1.14, NA27)

MS 1518, according to Elliott, has this:

14 ὑπερεπλεόνασεν δὲ ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. (1Ti 1.14, MS 1518)

The difference is obvious; instead of being about "the over-abundant grace of our Lord with faith and love in Christ Jesus" it is now about "the over-abundant grace of our Lord Jesus Christ". Elliott posits the following:

The omission may represent one or two lines of an exemplar. The scribe's eye passed from του κυ ημων to the divine names, which he inverts and alters to ιυ χω to follow του κυ ημων.

That's one way to explain 1518's variant. I'm skeptical, though. If it is simple line omission, why would the further change in word order be made except to make sense of the verse with the omission? And wouldn't that imply knowledge of the omission by the scribe?

• 1Ti 6.5. In this case Elliott accepts a longer text that has some decent testimony against the shorter text of Siniaticus and Alexandrinus. NA27 has the following:

5 διαπαρατριβαὶ διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν νοῦν καὶ ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας, νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν. (NA27)

5 διαπαρατριβαὶ διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν νοῦν καὶ ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας, νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν [αφιστασο απο των τοιουτων]. (Elliott's reading)

Elliott's longer text is the Byzantine reading (translated by the NKJV as "from such withdraw yourself"). He notes the following support: D^c K L Ψ P 061. T.R. and most minuscules. Lect. Byz. L (vg DLT). Arm. Goth. EthPP. L (vt mon. m.) and a host of Fathers to boot. He appeals to the validity of the omitted text on the basis of style and further posits its omission due to line omission.

If original, the omission could be accounted for, by the careless omission of one line of the exemplar. If secondary, the longer reading would be a gloss introduced to the text. In view of the above comments on the language [the previous paragraph discussed style] the former is more likely. Accept the longer reading. (Elliott 94)

So in this case Elliott uses line omission to explain the omission. He does this only after he has justified that the text is worthy of including on the basis of style.

So, line omission can be a way to argue for the inclusion of the longer text (yes, the rule of brevior lectio potior isn't always right; it is a guideline and not a rule) when the longer text makes sense based on author style or when the vast majority of quality witnesses include the text. At least, that's the way I'd apply it; I'd guess Elliott would not necessarily qualify the statement as I do.

Next up: Author's Style and Usage

I realize what I am about to write may be considered heresy by some. These are just thoughts rolling around in my head; I've come to no conclusions yet. When I think, I write. And I'm thinking. So I'm writing.

I'm re-reading the first few chapters of Aland & Aland's The Text of the New Testament (amazon.com). I didn't notice it last time I read this -- back when I was first imbibing in things text-critical -- but doggone this thing has an attitude, and the best word I can come up with to describe it is arrogance.

What Eberhard Nestle did was actually quite simple (a radical breakthrough is always simple in retrospect); he compare the texts of Tischedorf and of Westcott-Hort. Where the two differed, he consulted a third edition for a deciding vote. (Aland and Aland, 19)

It's the little parenthetical that doesn't need to be there but is. This sort of thing happens frequently (go ahead, give it a read). The only purpose this parenthetical serves is to puff up the first edition of Nestle as something special when it was just a majority-rules approach resting on the text-critical work that had gone before it. Nothing wrong with that, but here they make it sound like the practice was hugely radical. This is all the more strange for a comment 20 pages later:

Much in Tischendorf's apparatus may simply be ignored. For example, he regularly cites printed editions in support of variants, e.g., in verse 27 (third from last line) for the reading αυτου: ς^e Gb Sz Ln Ti. This means that the Textus Receptus in Elzevir's edition (ς^e) John Jakob Griesbach's editon of 1827 (Gb), Johannes Martin Augustinus Scholz in his edition of 1830-1836 (Sz), Karl Lachmann's edition of 1842-1850 (Ln) and Tischendorf in his edition of 1859 (Ti) read αυτου; such information is quite dated today and of no value. (Aland & Aland, 39)

So I'm confused. Nestle was a genius because he took as standard text where Tischendorf and W&H agreed (he used edition info to establish his text); but the editional information in Tischedorf's apparatus, which was published 20 years before Nestle's first edition, is useless? A&A go on to speak highly of other aspects of T's edition, but why heap scorn on this one? Especially when appendix 3 of NA27 shows differences of editions [including T!] for NA variants? Are they saying their own edition's appendix 3 is useless too, and may summarily be ignored? I just don't get it.

I won't even go into the disdain for the TR and anything associated with it; the examples are numerous and need not be recounted here. OK, one example will suffice:

... while one should beware of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text by Arthur L. Farstad and Zane C. Hodges (1982) as an anachronism in every respect (A&A, 25).

Now I'm not a fan of Hodges & Farstad's work in that volume (punctuating, formatting and typesetting the Greek as if it was English?), but c'mon. It seems as if it has somehow been tainted by the shadow of the TR and therefore isn't even worth consideration.

One more thing that confuses me is that these first chapters are spent building up to the UBS/NA (but particularly the NA) as being the glory of glories of all Greek editions. They heap some elitist scorn on W&H for their edition, primarily because W&H didn't examine actual manuscripts but relied on critical editions to inform their work (A&A 18). The "non-Western interpolations" are mentioned in derision at least three times, if I recall correctly. Yet the all-glorious Nestle text (the 25th edition), by the counts in this very book, differs from W&H in only 558 places outside of orthorgraphical differences. (NB: just about 8000 verses in the NT, NA27 has 138,020 words. You do the math and figure the percentages). I'm unsure of the differences between NA25 and NA27.

So, NA is the bees-knees. W&H were hacks who could only use critical editions of texts and manuscripts as they stumbled to put together their text. Yet NA is built on top of that foundation and shares it to a very large portion. And NA are the geniuses? Sure, there is a lot of work they've done in the apparatus, and that's groovy. And they do give W&H credit to some (small) degree. But can't they admit that all they've done is re-examine the evidence (comprehensively, systematically) and then ended up changing W&H in a few places?

It's that attitude I can't get past as I read the book this time. Although in a mostly polite way, they treat older pre-WH editions lightly because they largely follow the TR. But NA follows W&H with slight modifications and it's oh-so-better? And NA/UBS *isn't* similar to the TR even though many non-Nestle editions of the past, say, 75 years (Souter, Tasker, Zondervan's Reader's GNT to name a few) are at least as WH-like as NA/UBS? (at least in the Pastorals which, yes, I have examined and compared).

I don't mean to slight the technical achievement behind the NA27 and UBS4 editions. It's awesome. And the work going on with the Editio Critica Maior is mind-boggling. I'm thrilled they're doing the work. But I don't want to slight W&H either. It was -- and still is, to large degree, as the work of NA has proved -- a useful edition. So drop the arrogance and get with it.

Oh, and lastly -- are we really at the point where the status of the Greek of the NT is really only in tweak mode without new major MS discoveries? If so, then I say it is time to begin re-questioning methodology. We can't be that good. Or is 'reasoned eclecticism' really that perfect?

OK, I'm off my soap box. But I might come back, you never know.

Update (2007-04-17): (Responding particularly to Tom Reynolds in the comments). Perhaps I should clarify; I'm not interested in promoting a TR position. I think Maurice Robinson is doing interesting things and that he isn't starting with a KJV-only presupposition (though I could be wrong) but I think the NA/UBS text should be the first consulted (and I'd pick NA if I had to choose between NA and UBS). If you've listened to any of Klaus Wachtel's papers at the SBL the past few years, you've heard him bring up some isolated Byzantine readings as serious possibilities. Not the majority theories per se; just a few readings. But NA/UBS is where we start. It is the best available text.

No, what I was responding to here was the tone in A&A's first few chapters. For all their hullabaloo about the poorness of the TR and the slips of W&H, their text isn't that different from either. They've just spear-headed the detail-work of looking everything up and providing first-hand-accounted evidence (so it's second-hand for you & me) for the readings. They haven't come up with a stupendously fabulous text -- in the vast majority it is the same text everyone else comes up with when they attack the problem (the Byzantine priorists being at greatest variance). Simply examining other Greek NT editions published in the 20th century (like Tasker, Souter, RGNT and some others) shows that everyone is dipping in the same pool; they're simply justifying their readings differently. NA/UBS definitely do the best job of justifying their readings (though I think the data presented in Reuben Swanson's volumes easier to understand and more handy to reference and get an idea of MSS trends and content, not individual variance).

While reading those few chapters, one thing in my head was John Lee's book A History of New Testament Lexicography (amazon.com). Lee conclusively demonstrates that most NT lexicons today (including the hallowed BDAG and BAAR) are essentially translations of translations of translations of 16th century work. Expanded with evidence, yes, but the important parts folks look at -- the glosses and basic definitions -- can be traced directly back in most cases. Are we really that good at lexicography too? Or is it time for another approach to the problem building on what we've learned?

That's what I couldn't help pondering as I read A&A, knowing I'd done collations of the Pastorals against W&H for several 20th century Greek NT editions. And they're all basically the same, apart from Byzantine/TR stuff and what would likely be J.K. Elliott's text based on his Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. The stuff folks actually use is the same, basically, from edition to edition. (I think that's just fine, BTW) And I can't reconcile that knowledge against the arrogance teeming through A&A's intro chapters. Why is their text so much better if it is the same?

I've surely beat this into the ground now. I do think there is room for growth in methodology, though; and I think that growth can come from places other than Muenster.

So I'm reading along in my Metzger's Text of the New Testament (amazon.com) (I have the non-Ehrmanized 3rd edition), minding my own business (I have a growing interest in the development of printed editions of the GNT), and there it is. Page 96, footnote 1.

For a list of many of the ligatures used in incunabula, see the Style Manual of the United States Government Printing Office (Washington, 1945), pp. 316-18, or Georg F. von Ostermann, Manual of Foreign Languages (New York, 1952), pp. 105-8

I'm curious, but not curious enough to buy an edition. You can buy a copy of the 1945 edition of the Style Manual for $15 from some place called Oak Knoll Books. The USGPO web site does have the 2000 edition, but alas, it appears no ligatures are therein. I searched Google Books and found a 1973 copy, but this isn't (strangely) a full-view book.

I'm really curious to see what those ligatures look like, so if you can't help yourself and drop the $15+S&H, let me know. Heck, I'll even host images (3 pages, 3 images, right?) if you scan 'em. I'd think the book is in the public domain because it's published by the gummint, so that shouldn't be a big deal.

On other sources for ligature documentation, see previous posts here and here. I still highly recommend the book by Oikonomides, which appears to include the portion of Ostermann's 1952 work on the topic (which also appears to be a USGPO publication).

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.

I just received a reminder about the SBL / Logos Technology Paper Awards. I'm anxious to see what folks are working on!

The dealine for papers is May 1, 2007 with winners announced at International SBL in Vienna. Here's a blurb for the uninformed:

Logos Bible Software and the Society of Biblical Literature announce two sets of awards for papers that creatively use technology in exploring questions of grammar and syntax in biblical studies: one focusing on the Hebrew Bible, the other on the Greek New Testament. The contests are open to all those engaged in the study of those disciplines, and prizes will be awarded in both areas for student and faculty/professional categories. A total of twelve awards will be given.

There's some decent winnings ($1000 cash, $1000 Logos software credit, and $200 SBL book credit for first place entries (4 available) for winning papers, and lots of chance to win with both student and professional entries for the areas of Hebrew Bible and also Greek New Testament. I'd enter, but Logos employees are not eligible.

Get thee to thine syntax annotations!

Update (2007-03-31): ricoblog reader Tom notes that syntax searching can be difficult to get a grasp on. I agree; the multi-dimensionality of the data alone is a new sort of concept to master in thinking about the Greek New Testament. For me, I've found a deductive method to work. If you are somewhat familiar with NT Greek, begin with a passage you know cold. Compare the syntax graph to what you know of and see mentally when  you examine the text itself. See how the syntax maps the structures you're thinking of. Then, using the graph as a guide, try to reproduce some structures. Start small and general, like a clause component that has the same wordgroup->head term->word (insert the proper lemma) as what you're looking at. Search and tweak until you get your template passage as a hit. Then add new components and tweak to get an idea of how to map the basic structure you already know. "Lather, rinse, repeat" is how I end up describing it. Also, beginning with a passage you know, you could do a Bible Word Study on a word and examine the sorts of things the Grammatical Relationships section returns. Under the hood, that's doing a lot of template-based syntax searching. So that's another way to start to play with syntax data without having to master the search dialog.

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.

[This is part of a series of posts looking at "thorough-going eclecticism" as practiced by J.K. Elliott in his book The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. See the introductory post for more information. --RWB]

NB: In this post, I abbreviate "homoioteleuton" with "hom." (as Elliott does in his book). I've also posted on homoioteleuton before.

The first basic principle Elliott lists is that of hom. In his introduction, he uses 1Ti 5.16 as an example, where a shorter text (πιστος η πιστη) is explained by an instance of hom. from the longer text (ΠΙCΤοςηΠΙCΤη). Elliott writes:

... the scribes eye has passed from the first ΠΙCΤ to the second, and he has omitted the intervening letters. Hom. seems to have been a frequent cause of error in the Pastoral Epistles ...

Elliott provides several examples from the first chapter of First Timothy where hom. may be appealed to to explain a variant and, therefore, argue for the longer text. These instances include:

• 1Ti 1.9: MS 1874, 623, and 1836 omit καὶ μητρολῴαις from πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις. This as well can be explained by hom.: παΤΡΟΛΩΑΙCιακμηΤΡΟΛΩΑΙC. After writing the first word, the scribe's eyes skipped to the same ending on the second word, and progressed from there.
• 1Ti 1.10: MS 915 and 917 omit πόρνοις. The word that ends v. 9 has the same ending (ἀνδροφόνοις πόρνοις) , so hom. can be used to explain the omission: ανδροφοΝΟΙCπορΝΟΙC
• 1Ti 1.14: MS 1908 and 489 have καὶ ἀγάπης ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (omitting the article) while NA27 have καὶ ἀγάπης τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Elliott notes that hom. may be a contributing factor to 1908 and 489 omitting τῆς: αγαΠΗCΤΗCεν
• 1Ti 1.17: Uncials S^c D^bc K L P H along with TR (hence KJV) and most minuscules have μονῳ σοφῳ θῳ (only wise God) while UBS/NA have μόνῳ θεῷ (only God). Hom. can explain the longer reading as being shortened; the scribe's eyes wandered from omega to omega: μονΩσοφΩΘΩ. The scribe, I'd guess, would be less likely to omit θῳ; perhaps he could've even missed σοφῳ in his anxiousness to not miss θῳ. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament provides the flip side of the coin:

  After μόνῳ the Textus Receptus inserts σοφῷ, with אc Dc K L P most minuscules syrh goth. The word is no doubt a scribal gloss derived from Ro 16.27; the shorter reading is strongly supported by good representatives of both the Alexandrian and the Western types of text (א* A D* F G H* 33 1739 itd, g vg syrp copsa, bo arm eth arab).
  Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (572). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

  I'd never really considered hom. as responsible for the omission of σοφῷ; I'll have to think about this a little more.

You'll note that one consequence of a thorough-going eclecticism is that of disregarding documentary evidence. Surely one can't tell everything from textual provenance and the general quality of readings in a MS. It is possible for the better MSS to be wrong, and the less trustworthy MSS to be correct. But I'd think the better road is in the middle, not on the edges. Even so, there are some decent real-world examples above where hom. may be at play in the readings. Seeing these examples and working through them helps me know what to look for in the future when considering variants listed in various apparatuses.

Next up: Line omission.

From the What's New in Papyrology blog comes word of the US release of a very interesting sounding title.

Jean Bingen and Roger Bagnall (eds.). Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture. Selected Essays on Ptolemaic Egypt, with introductions by R.S. Bagnall (amazon.com).

The UK edition is published by Edinburgh University Press. The US edition will be published by University of California Press and is scheduled for a May release. in both hardcover ($65) and paperback ($24.95).

[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.

I've recently been able to finally examine J.K. Elliott's The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (vol. 36 in the Studies and Documents series published by the University of Utah Press, published in 1968). It is out of print and tough to come by. I'd link to Amazon, but there's only a stub there that says it isn't available. LibraryThing has no listing either. If you're interested in this book, get thee to a theological library!

In the volume, which forms some portion of Elliott's doctoral dissertation from Oxford, Elliott argues against Westcott & Hort's geneaological methodology. Here's what he has to say about the geneaological method:

But it is not only the disintegration of the theory of local text types which has made W. and H.'s (and Streeter's) genealogical method impractical. Mixture makes it impossible to confine a text to a certain geographical area or text grouping. Similarly, a full genealogical plan cannot be constructed to work back to an archetype. The genealogical method is possible in only a restricted way, such as in the building up of family 1, family 13, and family pi. F.H. Tinnefeld works back from D E F G to an archetype.  But such a genealogical method is limited, and even in these family groups, variants, corruption and conflate readings occur. They have to be explained, and as a result the term 'family' can be applied only in a loose way. (Elliott, 3-4).

This volume presents Elliott's application of "thoroughgoing eclecticism" to the Pastoral Epistles. The introduction necessarily defines this methodology, and does so rather succinctly. He derives five primary "principles for use in a thoroughgoing eclectic study of the N.T. text" (Elliott, 6). These are:

• Homoioteleuton and line-omission
• Author's style and usage
• Atticism
• Deliberate alterations
  • Theological or liturgical alterations
  • Grammatical and linguistic alterations
  • Assimilation or harmonization of parallel passages
• Accidental errors

Notably absent in Elliott's principles are any mention as to manuscript quality or provenance. That is, no given MS is preferred over another. Indeed, Elliott takes some readings that by documentary evidence alone are incredibly weak—but Elliott's criteria render more appealing. What his methodology ends up requiring is thinking about each variant from a number of angles, doing research on variants, and—ultimately—really getting to know the text. It speaks volumes against the "cult of the best MS" (Elliott, 4):

The increase of Biblical and textual studies since the time of W. and H. has done much to dispel the 'cult of the best ms.' Some critics still try to clutch at the remnants of W. and H.'s methods. But, with the distrust of the superiority of any given ms. or text type, with the disintegration of closely-knit family units, and with the recognition that the genealogical method is impractical, it is difficult to justify the use of these methods. A more rational system of textual criticism is obviously necessary to replace the old, and it is possible using new knowledge. For example, there is much greater knowledge of Koine Greek due to papyrological studies, more grammars of N.T. Greek are available, the readings of fathers, versions and papyri are accessible. Past methods have been disproved, new knowledge is available: the way is clear for an eclectic study of the N.T. text. (Elliott, 4)

How easy is it for us to say, "yeah, that reading is in B and aleph, so it's gotta be the best"? Pretty easy. How easy is it to actually look at the variants and consider if some form Elliott's principles may have happened? That requires thought, it requires familiarity with the language and the manuscripts, it requires familiarity with syntax and grammar, it requires familiarity with author style. It requires a whole lot more than simply looking to see which MS are earliest and from a provenance we happen to like.

In a series of posts, I hope to go over these main principles of Elliott's methodology, provide examples from his work in the Pastorals, and discuss them just a bit. At least, that's what I hope to do. My intent is simply to sharpen my own understanding of textual criticism and specifically to see what I think of Elliott's methodology as applied here. We'll see if it actually happens.

Lastly, if I may be so bold, another angle that an eclectic methodology may profit from is an examination of prominence and word order along the lines of Stephen Levinsohn (amazon.com). A colleague of mine is doing some really fascinating work in this area, and Jenny Read-Hiemerdinger has done some good work (in JSNTSup volumes here (amazon.com) and here (amazon.com)) in applying this perspective to textual criticism; specifically in examining readings in Acts of codex Bezae. Fun stuff.

Update I (2007-03-24): The series has begun.

• Update II (2007-03-24): Thorough-going Eclecticism Part I: Homoioteleuton
• Update III (2007-04-18): Thorough-going Eclecticism Part II: Line Omission

So there I was last week Thursday, minding my own business, driving in my car listening to the radio. A commercial was on for some sort of local home supply place (think fixtures). The advertisment spoke of the company's "captivating showroom", conveying that it was spacious, beautiful, and attention-getting.

I have no idea why my mind works like this. I really don't. But the first thing I thought of was "What would happen if we did a 'word study' on the English word captivating using techniques commonly used in so-called 'Greek Word Studies'?" That is, let's assume we don't know English but we want to come to understand what this word "captivating" means.

First, we'd likely attempt to look up the root word. We'd probably guess 'captive' was the root word. So here it is from Merriam-Webster: captive:

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin captivus, from captus, past participle of capere
1 a : taken and held as or as if a prisoner of war b (1) : kept within bounds : CONFINED (2) : of or relating to captive animals <captive breeding>
2 : held under control of another but having the appearance of independence; especially : owned or controlled by another concern and operated for its needs rather than for an open market <a captive mine>
3 : being such involuntarily because of a situation that makes free choice or departure difficult <the airline passengers were a captive audience>
- captive noun

There are three senses listed; but since this is a 'word study' we probably wouldn't worry about any particular sense, we would likely establish the wideness of the meaning of the word, noting that it has to do with being held involuntarily or outside of our own control -- to be prisoner against our will.

Then we'd have to import that 'root' meaning back into the original context, and note that the showroom in question must keep us there against our will. It sucks us in against all of our better judgment and holds us for an indeterminate period, unwillingly, and we are unable to escape from it's enclosing grasp.

Now, to be fair, "captivating" has some sense of being held. But "captivating" has to do with being held by astoundment, wonder and awe; not of being held forcibly like a prisoner. We know that because we speak the language. But if we didn't, then we wouldn't know that — we'd only have posited that 'captive' is the root on which the word is based. If we do a 'word study' to determine the 'original meaning', we could end up far afield from where we started.

And that, in a nutshell, is the main problem with word studies. If one is intending to learn more about the scope of meaning (semantic range) of a term, that's fine. But importing that whole range back into one specific instance and its context is wrong.

That's why word studies, when attempting to understand a particular instance of a word in a particular context, need to start with that context. One can't just find some other instance of the word, one needs to locate instances of the word in similar contexts. The immediate context must also be examined to see if there are contextual cues for determining the meaning of the word itself.

To go back to our example, if the ad copy for the 'captivating showroom' further noted things like "spacious displays", "gorgeous fixtures" and "beautiful floor models" then we might have a better idea of what we'd be 'captivated' by — all without looking up anything, root form or otherwise.

So, to sum up:

• Semantic range may include a specific instance's meaning, but by no means is equivalent with a specific instance's meaning.
• Context is very important.
• "Word Studies" that focus on meaning of root words can be misleading.

Please note that I have no problem with word studies per se; I'm even working through the Pastoral Epistles looking at words in context to determine specific usage. I do, however, have problems when they're done sloppily.

(OK, I'm off of my soapbox now)

[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

I mentioned awhile back that I was presenting a paper at the 2007 NW Regional ETS Meeting on the "plural to singular narrative device" as described by Richard Bauckham in his recent book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (amazon.com).

Well, the paper is done (enough). I'm not completely satisfied with it, but I'm cuttin' the cord. If you'd like to give it a look-see, it is on my Academic Papers page. Or just download the PDF directly. I'm presenting the paper on Saturday; I'll likely post an update here to let y'all know how it goes.

Update (2007-02-26): The conference was good (Darrell Bock had the keynote) and the paper went well. I received good feedback from those who heard it and was generally encouraged.

[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.