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