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.

As I've mentioned a few times before, I'm (slowly) reading through Paul Trebilco's book, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (amazon.com).

I'd recommend just about anyone read the book. But that doesn't mean that I agree completely with what's going on in the book. Trebilco frequently has to read between the lines in order to recreate what's going on in Ephesus. He uses three different sources — the Pastoral Epistles, the Johannine Epistles, and the letter to the Ephesians in Revelation. He uses each of these as lenses to recreate Ephesus.

In so doing, he has to rely upon his reconstructions of the origin of these books, and that's where my primary beef is. Trebilco puts the Pastorals in 80-100 CE; with a follower of Paul who "clearly saw himself as standing in the Pauline tradition" (202). But Trebilco does see Ephesus as the letter's destination despite, according to his view, none of the named entities (Paul and Timothy) have anything whatever to do with the letter.

In later chapters (specifically chapter 8 section 2, pp 354-384) Trebilco posits that vocabulary unique to the Pastorals can be explained by "acculturation":

It also seems clear that the author presupposes that the language and concepts that he uses are familiar to his readers. For example, the Pastor does not explain the epiphany Christology that we will shortly discuss; rather he assumes that his readers are familiar with it and with the conceptual background that it presupposes. Similarly, concepts like ευσεβεια and σωφρων, which we will discuss, are not explained but are simply utilised. It seems clear then that the author presupposes that his readers are familiar with this language. It is therefore good evidence for the significant level of acculturation of the readers. (354, emphasis added)

Trebilco's poster child for this view is the Greek word επιφανεια, where he argues that the use of επιφανεια in First and Second Timothy more closely matches that of επιφανεια in the context of Greco-Roman religion; and that there is no real Jewish usage of the term (cf. 355).

My problem with reading all of this is that while Trebilco is consistent with his assumptions on authorship and audience, there are other ways to explain this that are more internally consistent with the content of First and Second Timothy.

First, if Paul really was the author of First Timothy, and if Timothy really was the recipient, then there is no need to come up with an explanation of "acculturation" for new concepts or things seemingly unexplained (like επιφανεια). Timothy would of course be familiar with that language; he was Paul's co-worker, likely for a span of over 10 years.

Second, Timothy's mother was Jewish, but his father was Greek. Isn't it possible that Timothy would've known how επιφανεια was used among pagan religion; and isn't it possible that Paul, widely traveled among Gentilies, would be familiar with it too? And why couldn't they have used this language in their dealings with the Ephesian church? After all, Ephesus had all sorts of pagan religion going on; doesn't it make sense — and even fit the Pauline mold of being a Jew to Jews, and a Gentile to Gentiles?

Third, we have examples of Paul using relatively non-Jewish concepts as metaphors for aspects of Christianity. One that comes immediately to mind is that of manumission; of slaves buying their freedom from their masters, via the temple, and then being owned by the god of the temple (cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 324-334, specifically p. 326). This is at least alluded to in 1Co 6.20; 7.23; Gal 5.1, 13. Why couldn't Paul use επιφανεια for Christian purposes too?

If the letter is from Paul to Timothy, then we have no need to come up with an explanation of how the church at Ephesus could possibly understand these references which seem to require some degree of acculturation.

Now, with all of that said, even though I bristle when I read some portions of Trebilco's book (like the portion on authorship/date/background of the Pastorals, and also this portion on acculturation) there really is good stuff in the book. If you're studying Paul and his letters at all; and particularly if your study has to do with Ephesus, then you can't ignore Trebilco. So break down and get the Eerdman's printing (amazon.com); it is actually in the realm of affordability.

It seems I've been busy since early November, what with ETS & SBL conferences, Thanksgiving, Christmas parties, and New Years. So I haven't had the chance to dig into Paul Trebilco's Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (amazon.com) as much as I would've liked to.

But today I did get some time (after getting the garage cleaned and reorganized) to read a bit. I finally finished "Part I", which has to do with evidence of Ephesus in Paul and his Letters (Trebilco sees both Ephesians and the Pastorals as non-Pauline, so he does not include them here) and the evidence of Ephesus in the book of Acts.

It was the two chapters on Acts that I was most impressed with. Having done some work on a portion of Acts 18 for my 2007 ETS paper, it was great to read what Trebilco has done, working through all of the Ephesian mentions in Acts. If you are into the Paulines or Acts or Ephesus, then you need to read these chapters.

One thing that stuck out to me, particularly in working through the footnotes as I read the text, was how much the work of Haenchen and Conzelmann are called into question. As I worked through commentaries on Acts 18 for my ETS paper, I was amazed and dumbfounded at some of the claims that Conzelmann (apparently following Haenchen) made concerning Lucan sources in Acts. Treblico carefully works through the passages and other relevant data and shows that many times the leaps made by Haenchen and Conzelmann are too large. Reading this after having read Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses really makes me think that the form-critical approach is dying (if not dead). It additionally makes me think that there needs to be a new Hermeneia volume on Acts (and the Pastoral Epistles, also by Conzelmann, for that matter).

That said, one thing that Trebilco does (that many others do) is frequently note "Lucan" or "Pauline" language, when what they really mean is that the content they attribute to a particular author uses the word in question, perhaps uniquely. I still think that any NT author sample, no matter what you think of authorship issues, is far too small to get a notion of what language quirks or vocabulary should be attributed to a particular author. But Trebilco doesn't do it much, and I realize that while this is a fairly blunt tool, it is a tool. So I'm not too offended by it. :)

All said, Trebilco's work is excellent and highly recommended. Do check it out (amazon.com). It's over 800 pages, and the Amazon price is really a steal (especially considering the Mohr-Siebeck edition, if you could actually find it, would probably cost you upwards of $300!)

I left the office early yesterday to attend the memorial service for my great aunt Jo, who passed away over the weekend after an extended illness. I came back to the office this morning to find a copy of Paul Treblico's The Early Christians In Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (amazon.com) sitting on my desk, waiting for me; a review copy from the kind folks at Eerdmans.

I've been salivating upon mention of this book for years, since I read of the original printing by Mohr-Siebeck in 2004. In typical fashion, Mohr-Siebeck priced the 800 page book at something like $280 so I resolved myself to reading a library copy sometime down the road — if I ever found a library that stocked it. I did drool over a copy at the 2005 SBL, though.

Cheers, congratulations, and much appreciation then for the folks at Eerdmans. They are publishing the US edition of Treblico's work in paperback with a list price of $85.00. Amazon sells it as well — see current price in upper right corner of this post; it's probably discounted from list. And if you'll be at ETS and/or AAR/SBL in San Diego, I'd guess you'd be able to get a below-list price from Eerdmans as well. And if you do purchase it at SBL, make sure to tell the folks at Eerdmans that you really appreciate them republishing books like this!

My reading is piling up, but I've been waiting a long time for Treblico (longer than I've waited for Drobner!) so I'll be working it in to the top of the list. And as I read, I'll blog about it. So stay tuned. Until then, here is some material from the publisher's web site. First, the blurb:

The capital city of the province of Asia in the first century CE, Ephesus played a key role in the development of early Christianity. In this book Paul Trebilco examines the early Christians from Paul to Ignatius, seen in the context of our knowledge of the city as a whole.

Drawing on Paul's letters and the Acts of the Apostles, Trebilco looks at the foundations of the church, both before and during the Pauline mission. He shows that in the period from around 80 to 100 CE there were a number of different communities in Ephesus that regarded themselves as Christians — the Pauline and Johannine groups, Nicolaitans, and others — testifying to the diversity of that time and place. Including further discussions on the Ephesus addresses of the apostle John and Ignatius, this scholarly study of the early Ephesian Christians and their community is without peer.

And here's the table of contents from the Eerdmans catalog page. A brief and much abbreviated TOC is below:

Introduction
Chapter 1: The Context

Part One: Beginnings in Ephesus
Chapter 2: Paul in Ephesus: The Evidence of His Letters
Chapter 3: Acts and the early Christians in Ephesus: Beginnings and Success
Chapter 4: Acts and the early Christians in Ephesus: Endings and Departure

Part Two: The Pastoral Epistles, Revelation and the Johannine Letters
Chapter 5: What do the Pastoral Epistles tell us about the early Christians in Ephesus?
Chapter 6: What do the Johannine Letters tell us about the early Christians in Ephesus?
Chapter 7: Revelation 2.1-7: The Proclamation to the Church in Ephesus and the Nicolaitans

Part Three: The Relationships Between the Readers of the Pastorals, the Johannine Letters and Revelation
Chapter 8: The Wider Culture and the Readers of the Pastorals, the Johannine Letters and Revelation: Acculturation, Assimilation and Accomodation
Chapter 9: Material Possessions and the readers of the Pastorals, the Johannine Letters and Revelation
Chapter 10: Leadership and Authority and the readers of the Pastoral Epistles, the Johannine Letters and Revelation
Chapter 11: The Role of Women Among the Readers of the Pastoral Epistles, the Johannine Letters and Revelation
Chapter 12: What Shall We Call Each Other? The Issue of Self-Designation in the Pastoral Epistles, the Johannine Letters and Revelation
Chapter 13: The Relationships between Traditions and Communities in Ephesus

Part Four: Ignatius' Letter to Ephesus
Chapter 14: Who Are the Addressees of Ignatius' Letter to Ephesus
Chapter 15: Ignatius and additional facets of the life of the Christians in Ephesus

Chapter 16: Conclusions

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

• H.B. Swete's Patristic Study.
  

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

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

• The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers
  

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

  From the The American Journal of Theology:

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

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

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

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

This is followed later by:

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

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

[This is part of a series of posts looking at "thorough-going eclecticism" as practiced by J.K. Elliott in his book The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. See the introductory post for more information. --RWB]

As a part of Elliott's first principle, line omission is pretty much the same as homoiteleuton (though not necessarily with the same start/same end type thing) only on a grander scale. Instead of skipping letters or words of an exemplar, one or more lines are skipped. Elliott writes:

Another cause of omission is line-omission. Clark in his Acts of the Apostles (38) shows how the shorter text of Acts was frequently the result of line omission. ... This cause of omission is less demonstrable in the Pastoral epistles, (Elliott 6-7).

There are not many examples; I will list two here.

• 1Ti 1.14. Elliott uses line omission to explain what happened in MS 1518 (a XIV/XV cent. MS in Jerusalem) at this verse. The NA27 has the following:

14 ὑπερεπλεόνασεν δὲ ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μετὰ πίστεως καὶ ἀγάπης τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. (1Ti 1.14, NA27)

MS 1518, according to Elliott, has this:

14 ὑπερεπλεόνασεν δὲ ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. (1Ti 1.14, MS 1518)

The difference is obvious; instead of being about "the over-abundant grace of our Lord with faith and love in Christ Jesus" it is now about "the over-abundant grace of our Lord Jesus Christ". Elliott posits the following:

The omission may represent one or two lines of an exemplar. The scribe's eye passed from του κυ ημων to the divine names, which he inverts and alters to ιυ χω to follow του κυ ημων.

That's one way to explain 1518's variant. I'm skeptical, though. If it is simple line omission, why would the further change in word order be made except to make sense of the verse with the omission? And wouldn't that imply knowledge of the omission by the scribe?

• 1Ti 6.5. In this case Elliott accepts a longer text that has some decent testimony against the shorter text of Siniaticus and Alexandrinus. NA27 has the following:

5 διαπαρατριβαὶ διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν νοῦν καὶ ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας, νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν. (NA27)

5 διαπαρατριβαὶ διεφθαρμένων ἀνθρώπων τὸν νοῦν καὶ ἀπεστερημένων τῆς ἀληθείας, νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν [αφιστασο απο των τοιουτων]. (Elliott's reading)

Elliott's longer text is the Byzantine reading (translated by the NKJV as "from such withdraw yourself"). He notes the following support: D^c K L Ψ P 061. T.R. and most minuscules. Lect. Byz. L (vg DLT). Arm. Goth. EthPP. L (vt mon. m.) and a host of Fathers to boot. He appeals to the validity of the omitted text on the basis of style and further posits its omission due to line omission.

If original, the omission could be accounted for, by the careless omission of one line of the exemplar. If secondary, the longer reading would be a gloss introduced to the text. In view of the above comments on the language [the previous paragraph discussed style] the former is more likely. Accept the longer reading. (Elliott 94)

So in this case Elliott uses line omission to explain the omission. He does this only after he has justified that the text is worthy of including on the basis of style.

So, line omission can be a way to argue for the inclusion of the longer text (yes, the rule of brevior lectio potior isn't always right; it is a guideline and not a rule) when the longer text makes sense based on author style or when the vast majority of quality witnesses include the text. At least, that's the way I'd apply it; I'd guess Elliott would not necessarily qualify the statement as I do.

Next up: Author's Style and Usage

[This is part of a series of posts looking at "thorough-going eclecticism" as practiced by J.K. Elliott in his book The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. See the introductory post for more information. --RWB]

NB: In this post, I abbreviate "homoioteleuton" with "hom." (as Elliott does in his book). I've also posted on homoioteleuton before.

The first basic principle Elliott lists is that of hom. In his introduction, he uses 1Ti 5.16 as an example, where a shorter text (πιστος η πιστη) is explained by an instance of hom. from the longer text (ΠΙCΤοςηΠΙCΤη). Elliott writes:

... the scribes eye has passed from the first ΠΙCΤ to the second, and he has omitted the intervening letters. Hom. seems to have been a frequent cause of error in the Pastoral Epistles ...

Elliott provides several examples from the first chapter of First Timothy where hom. may be appealed to to explain a variant and, therefore, argue for the longer text. These instances include:

• 1Ti 1.9: MS 1874, 623, and 1836 omit καὶ μητρολῴαις from πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις. This as well can be explained by hom.: παΤΡΟΛΩΑΙCιακμηΤΡΟΛΩΑΙC. After writing the first word, the scribe's eyes skipped to the same ending on the second word, and progressed from there.
• 1Ti 1.10: MS 915 and 917 omit πόρνοις. The word that ends v. 9 has the same ending (ἀνδροφόνοις πόρνοις) , so hom. can be used to explain the omission: ανδροφοΝΟΙCπορΝΟΙC
• 1Ti 1.14: MS 1908 and 489 have καὶ ἀγάπης ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (omitting the article) while NA27 have καὶ ἀγάπης τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Elliott notes that hom. may be a contributing factor to 1908 and 489 omitting τῆς: αγαΠΗCΤΗCεν
• 1Ti 1.17: Uncials S^c D^bc K L P H along with TR (hence KJV) and most minuscules have μονῳ σοφῳ θῳ (only wise God) while UBS/NA have μόνῳ θεῷ (only God). Hom. can explain the longer reading as being shortened; the scribe's eyes wandered from omega to omega: μονΩσοφΩΘΩ. The scribe, I'd guess, would be less likely to omit θῳ; perhaps he could've even missed σοφῳ in his anxiousness to not miss θῳ. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament provides the flip side of the coin:

  After μόνῳ the Textus Receptus inserts σοφῷ, with אc Dc K L P most minuscules syrh goth. The word is no doubt a scribal gloss derived from Ro 16.27; the shorter reading is strongly supported by good representatives of both the Alexandrian and the Western types of text (א* A D* F G H* 33 1739 itd, g vg syrp copsa, bo arm eth arab).
  Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (572). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

  I'd never really considered hom. as responsible for the omission of σοφῷ; I'll have to think about this a little more.

You'll note that one consequence of a thorough-going eclecticism is that of disregarding documentary evidence. Surely one can't tell everything from textual provenance and the general quality of readings in a MS. It is possible for the better MSS to be wrong, and the less trustworthy MSS to be correct. But I'd think the better road is in the middle, not on the edges. Even so, there are some decent real-world examples above where hom. may be at play in the readings. Seeing these examples and working through them helps me know what to look for in the future when considering variants listed in various apparatuses.

Next up: Line omission.

I've recently been able to finally examine J.K. Elliott's The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (vol. 36 in the Studies and Documents series published by the University of Utah Press, published in 1968). It is out of print and tough to come by. I'd link to Amazon, but there's only a stub there that says it isn't available. LibraryThing has no listing either. If you're interested in this book, get thee to a theological library!

In the volume, which forms some portion of Elliott's doctoral dissertation from Oxford, Elliott argues against Westcott & Hort's geneaological methodology. Here's what he has to say about the geneaological method:

But it is not only the disintegration of the theory of local text types which has made W. and H.'s (and Streeter's) genealogical method impractical. Mixture makes it impossible to confine a text to a certain geographical area or text grouping. Similarly, a full genealogical plan cannot be constructed to work back to an archetype. The genealogical method is possible in only a restricted way, such as in the building up of family 1, family 13, and family pi. F.H. Tinnefeld works back from D E F G to an archetype.  But such a genealogical method is limited, and even in these family groups, variants, corruption and conflate readings occur. They have to be explained, and as a result the term 'family' can be applied only in a loose way. (Elliott, 3-4).

This volume presents Elliott's application of "thoroughgoing eclecticism" to the Pastoral Epistles. The introduction necessarily defines this methodology, and does so rather succinctly. He derives five primary "principles for use in a thoroughgoing eclectic study of the N.T. text" (Elliott, 6). These are:

• Homoioteleuton and line-omission
• Author's style and usage
• Atticism
• Deliberate alterations
  • Theological or liturgical alterations
  • Grammatical and linguistic alterations
  • Assimilation or harmonization of parallel passages
• Accidental errors

Notably absent in Elliott's principles are any mention as to manuscript quality or provenance. That is, no given MS is preferred over another. Indeed, Elliott takes some readings that by documentary evidence alone are incredibly weak—but Elliott's criteria render more appealing. What his methodology ends up requiring is thinking about each variant from a number of angles, doing research on variants, and—ultimately—really getting to know the text. It speaks volumes against the "cult of the best MS" (Elliott, 4):

The increase of Biblical and textual studies since the time of W. and H. has done much to dispel the 'cult of the best ms.' Some critics still try to clutch at the remnants of W. and H.'s methods. But, with the distrust of the superiority of any given ms. or text type, with the disintegration of closely-knit family units, and with the recognition that the genealogical method is impractical, it is difficult to justify the use of these methods. A more rational system of textual criticism is obviously necessary to replace the old, and it is possible using new knowledge. For example, there is much greater knowledge of Koine Greek due to papyrological studies, more grammars of N.T. Greek are available, the readings of fathers, versions and papyri are accessible. Past methods have been disproved, new knowledge is available: the way is clear for an eclectic study of the N.T. text. (Elliott, 4)

How easy is it for us to say, "yeah, that reading is in B and aleph, so it's gotta be the best"? Pretty easy. How easy is it to actually look at the variants and consider if some form Elliott's principles may have happened? That requires thought, it requires familiarity with the language and the manuscripts, it requires familiarity with syntax and grammar, it requires familiarity with author style. It requires a whole lot more than simply looking to see which MS are earliest and from a provenance we happen to like.

In a series of posts, I hope to go over these main principles of Elliott's methodology, provide examples from his work in the Pastorals, and discuss them just a bit. At least, that's what I hope to do. My intent is simply to sharpen my own understanding of textual criticism and specifically to see what I think of Elliott's methodology as applied here. We'll see if it actually happens.

Lastly, if I may be so bold, another angle that an eclectic methodology may profit from is an examination of prominence and word order along the lines of Stephen Levinsohn (amazon.com). A colleague of mine is doing some really fascinating work in this area, and Jenny Read-Hiemerdinger has done some good work (in JSNTSup volumes here (amazon.com) and here (amazon.com)) in applying this perspective to textual criticism; specifically in examining readings in Acts of codex Bezae. Fun stuff.

Update I (2007-03-24): The series has begun.

• Update II (2007-03-24): Thorough-going Eclecticism Part I: Homoioteleuton
• Update III (2007-04-18): Thorough-going Eclecticism Part II: Line Omission

Chris Brady (Targuman) notes an article in Christianity Today regarding a C.S. Lewis story called The Dark Tower (amazon.com). The authorship of this story has been disputed, but the CT article has the skinny on whether or not the work is authentic Lewis.

Why mention it? Because stylometric analysis plays a role in the story -- but perhaps not the role you think.

I discuss this in more detail over on PastoralEpistles.com. Do check it out!

Apologies again for the quiet. I haven't stopped blogging, really.

I have been working on getting the all-new PastoralEpistles.com up and running, though. The good news is that the blog is now a "team blog". Participants at present include:

• me
• Perry L. Stepp
• Lloyd Pietersen
• Ray Van Neste

More info has been posted at PastoralEpistles.com. So check it out. And at least be sure to update your feed reader to the new address of the feed, http://pastoralepistles.com/SyndicationService.asmx/GetRss.

If you're going to be at the AAR/SBL annual meeting in Washington DC, perhaps you'd like to come hear my paper. I have to warn you, though, I've only got 10 minutes and the paper doesn't lend itself to a 10 minute presentation. I've had the song "The Entertainer" by Billy Joel running through my mind all day as I've considered this:

I am the entertainer
    I come to do my show
You heard my latest record
    It's been on the radio
It took me years to write it
    They were the best years of my life
There was a beautiful song
    But it ran too long
If you're gonna have a hit
    You've gotta make it fit
So they cut it down to 3:05

Anyway, I figured I'd post the paper today. I'll post the handout after the conference. Here are the details:

Section: S19-105: Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics
Date: Sunday, Nov. 19, 2006
Time: 4:00-6:30. I'm #2 on the list, so that means I'd start around 4:10-4:15.
Location: 204C-CC

Paper Title: Modifiers in the Pastoral Epistles: Insight for Questions of Style? (PDF)

Abstract:

The OpenText.org group have completed a preliminary syntactic analysis of the Greek New Testament. One level of their analysis is the Word Group level. A word group is a group of words that consists of, at minimum, a head term. It also contains any terms that modify the head term and additionally specifies the type of modification as that of definer, qualifier, relator or specifier.

Stylistic analysis has been largely bound to examining criteria such as word usage and morphology along with perhaps sentence length or co-occurring words. The OpenText.org Word Group Analysis allows for stylistic analysis of the corpus at a different level. Does modifier usage offer any insight for comparative studies of the Pastoral Epistles and the generally accepted Paulines?

This paper briefly examines modifier usage inside of epistolary prescripts in epistles traditionally attributed to Paul. The goal is to show that components of epistolary prescripts use modification for different purposes. This conclusion is well known, but by reaching the conclusion using only the OpenText.org Word Group Analysis, the subsequent value of the OpenText.org annotation for the analysis of style becomes evident.

I should also take a moment and say that initially I'd planned on doing something much more in the realms of statistics and stylometry. I have all sorts of data, but further number crunching and helpful insight from others (you know who you are, thanks for your comments again) forced me to conclude I didn't have enough data to do the sorts of things that I'd wanted to. So this paper is actually scaled back a bit, and takes a different track than I'd originally planned. C'est la vie.

I just received this one last week after pre-ordering it well over a year ago:

Craig A. Smith. Timothy's Task, Paul's Prospect: A New Reading of 2 Timothy. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press. 2006.

Overall, it looks good. Smith gets into epistolary form criticism to examine the "charge" 2Ti 4.1-8:

4 ¹ I solemnly urge in the presence of God and Christ Jesus, the one who will judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His Kingdom. ² Preach the word, be persistent in season and out of season, correct, rebuke, encourage, with complete patience and instruction. ³ For there will be a time when they will not put up with sound doctrine but according to their own desires they themselves will accumulate a great many teachers to tickle their ears ⁴ and indeed they will turn their ears away from the truth, and turn aside toward myths. ⁵ But you be self-controlled in all things, suffering misfortune, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. ⁶ For I am already poured out as a drink offering, and the season of my departure is imminent.

⁷ I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. ⁸ Henceforth the crown of righteousness is reserved for me, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day, and not only me but all those who have loved His appearing.

That's from my own translation of Second Timothy. Here's the blurb from Sheffield Phoenix Press:

In this challenging book, Craig Smith propounds the novel thesis that the famous lines in 2 Timothy 4 where 'Paul' announces that the time of his departure has come have been misunderstood. This is no farewell speech, Smith avers, and Paul is not intending to pass on the baton to his younger colleague, Timothy.

Deploying epistolary analysis and rhetorical criticism, Smith shows that these verses (4:1-8) do not have the literary structure or the vocabulary of a testament or a farewell; rather, they are a 'charge', an authoritative command, comprised of five specific formal elements. This charge form is found also in the exorcism command and in some magical texts, Christian and non-Christian.

From this perspective, Paul's being poured out as a libation is his experience of preaching to the Gentiles at his first trial, his 'departure' is the imminent release from prison that he is expecting, the fight he has fought and the race he has finished are his trial that he has withstood. Far from appointing Timothy as his successor, he is contemplating a continued companionship and collegiality as they continue their ministry together.

Just thinking out loud here. The following are the adscriptions in the Pastoral Epistles:

1Ti 1.2: To Timothy, my true child in the faith

2Ti 1.2: To Timothy, my beloved child

Titus 1.4: To Titus, my true child in a common faith

Paul is bolstering the rep of the recipient to those who hear the letter. "I'm writing to Timothy (you know, the one whom I consider my son?) ... "

I'm wondering if there is some allusion here to the parable of the wicked tenants (Mk 12.1-12 || Mt 21.33-46 || Lu 20.9-19), specifically Mk 12.6 || Mt 21.37 || Lu 20.13:

He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' (Mk 12.6)

Does Paul's specification of Timothy (and Titus) as his true/beloved son have similar force, the sort of "Timothy (and Titus) represent me and my interests" vibe of the parable?

Just thinkin' out loud. I have some other thoughts on prescipts in the Pastorals that I need to mull over a bit before posting them.

As I gather data to form/bolster/destroy opinions and hypotheses for the paper I'll present at the SBL in November, I'm continually reminded of a few different things.

First, one we all know (or should know): Correlation does not prove causation. This is patently obvious if you stop to think about it. In terms of style and authorship studies in the Greek New Testament, this may be reflected with thoughts like "Because things are similar it doesn't mean they have the same source." Thus some commentators have posited that even though Colossians and Ephesians are similar, they're different enough that they likely don't have the same source, or that one is an edited version of the other.*

Second, one we all easily forget (shame on me too): Lack of correlation does not prove disunion. That is, if I've shown that two things are not correlated as highly as other things all I've really done is show that they're different in some way. The reasons for difference, at least as regards authorship of NT epistles, cannot automatically be assumed to evidence itself in different authorship.  P.N. Harrison,** in my opinion, fell prey to this one because his work only verified that the degree of infrequent words in the Pastorals was higher than in other Paulines.*** He posited (but I don't think he proved) that differences in vocab meant different authorship. Since he, to his mind, proved a difference in vocabulary the difference in authorship came with the package. But he didn't, really. He only proved that the Pastorals, as a group, have a higher percentage of infrequent words ("Pastoral hapaxes", in Harrison-speak). The lack of correlation (infrequent words) does not automatically lead to disunion (different authors for the Pastorals).

Because of all of this, I feel a bit doomed. I'm gathering data on how words are modified in the Pauline epistles and doing a bunch of statistical mumbo-jumbo (that I actually understand, mind you!) to see how things correlate and compare.

But no matter what, at the end of the day, all that can absolutely be said is that particular feature usage between epistles is similar or different. Exploring the reasons for similarity and difference is, of course, where the rubber meets the road. That is the art of scholarship/academia. And that's where I end up needing to remember the above two provisos.

And then, after all of that, I remember that the Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics session I'm presenting in allows 10 minutes for presentation, with an informal half-hour follow-up for Q&A. And I'll barely be able to get through the stats in 10 minutes, let alone think about what statistical similarites and differences I find might mean.

* For the record, I think that's a horrible argument, which is why my blithe statement of the argument is biased and, likely, inaccurate. But why couldn't Paul have cribbed his own work? Chances are he kept copies of his letters ...

** Harrison, P.N. The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1921.

*** Actually, Harrison's work had other methodological problems, but I'll grant that the Pastorals have more infrequently-occuring words than other books in the NT corpus where the NT itself provides the word frequency measure. See O'Donnell's Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament for further discussion on Harrison's methodology.

As my beloved fiancé Amy was otherwise occupied working on some issues for our upcoming wedding (!), I spent Sunday afternoon with my good friend Roberto. As usual, we discussed the Pastoral Epistles. Roberto just can't understand my view of the authorship of the Pastorals and begged me to give him a platform by which to espouse his views.

I've always had as soft spot for Roberto, and he caught me in a moment of weakness. I told him to go home and send his missive to me in an email, and I'd make sure to post it here. I regret that now; Roberto can sometimes lack tact and precision in his presentation. But, alas, I am a man of my word, so here is Roberto's diatribe ... er, uh, cogently and well-thought-out position to provide some "balance" on the issue of authorship and style of the Pastoral Epistles.

Rico, first thanks for giving me this platform to reach the two people who regularly read your blog-thingie, whatever it is. I'm sure they'll find this refreshing from your normal, long-winded, over-wordy drivel.

Let's get right into it, shall we? Your position on the authorship of the Pastorals (you attribute them to Paul) is flat-out wrong. And while you camp out in areas of stylometry and syntax because you find it interesting, you're missing the forest for the trees. Open your eyes and see the forest.

First, you're one to always stress the internal evidence. By this, let's be frank: You mean that the epistles themselves say that Paul was their author. And there you stop, saying it's good enough for you. But have you ever read the Pastorals in comparison with the undisputed Paulines? Let me sum it up in four words: It's the ecclesiology, stupid! Can't you get it through your thick skull that the ecclesiology "Paul" describes in the Pastorals is radically different than that alluded to in the undisputed Paulines? The Pastorals have it so much more formal ... so much more, how shall I put it ... Ignatian. Yeah, that's the word. I mean c'mon, Rico, you read the Fathers. Can't you see that the ecclesiology described in the Pastorals — even in Ephesus, the city where "Timothy" is supposed to be ministering in 1 & 2 Timothy — is much more reflective of that described by Ignatius (who wrote in the early 100's ... at least 35 years after Paul's death)?

Second, let's look at this in terms of other canonical books, particularly the Acts of the Apostles. Where, pray tell, do the Pastorals fit in the scope of the history presented in the Acts? There is absolutely no room for them. You (the one who says we need to stick to "internal evidence"?) need to jump through hoops to posit more missionary journeys and prison stays for Paul in order to make room for the composition of the Pastoral Epistles. How is that sticking to the text? You're making it up and you know it.

Third, you blather on about how unique vocabulary doesn't really show anything in regards to authorship. Again, this is a forest and trees issue. It is circumstantial evidence that only serves to reinforce the primary reasons for thinking the Pastorals are non-Pauline. Have you read the Pastorals? And the undisputed Paulines? I mean, at least Acts sounds like Luke when you read it. The Pastorals are all whacked. Some concepts are the same, but the underlying language has changed. Other ideas and concepts not mentioned in the undisputed Paulines are prominent in the Pastorals, and vice-versa. I mean, please, just look into the usage of the following words in the undisputed and deutero-Paulines and compare them with the Pastorals, and report back to me when you've seen the light:

• εὐαγγελίζω/εὐαγγέλιον: Over 100 times in Paul & Pastorals, but only five times in Pastorals. Wasn't "Paul" preaching the gospel?
• εὐχαριστέω: Paul "has thanks" for most everyone he writes to. But why does he write it differently in the Pastorals (e.g. 1Ti 1.12)? Hmmmm? Hint: The answer doesn't have to do with Luke as amanuensis ...
• ἐχουσία: So, 37 times in Paul & Pastorals, but only once in the Pastorals — and that in Titus? I mean, c'mon.
• ἐκκλησία: This is a vital concept in the Pastorals, since they're all about church order, right? So why is the word so relatively infrequent in the Pastorals? Four times in the Pastorals, but 99 times in the undisputed and deutero-Paulines. Really? If "Paul" were writing about the church, wouldn't "Paul" be using the word a little more frequently?
• μυστήριον: Paul uses this concept a lot too. But only four times in the Pastorals (36 times in "Paulines"), and those four are only in First Timothy?
• νόμος: Anyone who's read Romans knows Paul talks about the law. Frequently. Yet the Pastorals only have the word twice (and those within one verse of each other, 1Ti 1.8-9?) out of the 137 times they occur in Paul and the Pastorals? Riiiiiight.
• παρουσία: You mean, "Paul" doesn't mention the return of Christ; or at least not using the same terminology he has elsewhere (e.g. 1 Thess?) And this is supposed to be Paul?
• περιτομή: Only once in the Pastorals, and then only in reference to "Paul" himself? In a letter to, of all people, Timothy? Seems weird to me, especially when it happens frequently (30+ times) in the undisputed and deutero-Paulines. Are you sure this is the same Paul?

I'll spare you other instances, but know that I could go on. (Remember, you've got me reading that paper you're writing for the SBL this November — the one that if you're lucky they'll just laugh you out of the place?) Vocabulary is not the primary reason for thinking Paul didn't write the Pastorals, but it is secondary and somewhat confirming of other problems in dealing with the authorship of the Pastorals.

Finally, let's just look at the whole picture. The setting of the Pastorals, according to their own internal evidence, just doesn't fit what we know about Paul's journeys from Acts and from his other epistles. The content of the Pastorals doesn't jive with what we read from Paul in his other epistles either. The big tip-off is the issue of ecclesiology, it is radically different than anything else we know in Paul or the rest of the NT for that matter. But it fits incredibly well in the early second century (I'll even grant late first century, 80s or 90s ... well after Paul's death). Plug in vocabulary differences and other stylistic discrepancies (look, even your beloved Anthony Kenny's A Stylometric Study of the New Testament finds that Titus is a statistical outlier in the "Pauline" corpus) and if your eyes are open, and your presuppositions laid aside, you'll have to admit that there is a strong case Paul didn't write the Pastorals. Some Pauline ideas, that is to be sure. But the Paul of Romans and First Thessalonians? I don't think so. And if you look at it honestly, you won't think so either.

Rico, thanks again for posting this. I know you don't want to, but it's for your own good. Really. Now swallow the pill and get on with life, my friend. We'll do lunch soon and you can tell me how all your little blog-friends (both of 'em!) reacted to my wisdom.

Blessings, Roberto.

Well, there you go. Now you know what Roberto thinks. I was hoping he'd get into canon lists and text-critical issues, but c'est la vie. Maybe next time!

I'd like to invite readers of ricoblog to check out my other blog that specifically deals with the Pastoral Epistles, PastoralEpistles.com. I post there less frequently, but it does remain focused on the Pastoral Epistles.

I'm planning on a series of five posts (plus introductory post) on 1Ti 5. The five posts will each simply reference a PDF file that covers a portion of chapter 5. I'm specifically looking for feedback on what I've written.

I hope to post one PDF file every other week, so the five posts will take 10 weeks to get through. The introductory post and first sample post are up.

• Introductory Post
• First Sample: 1 Timothy 5.1-2

Thanks in advance to those who read and offer feedback!

First, it's back to business. Enough biblioblog navel-gazing; let's do some work! In an effort to move the conversation from existential queries and criticisms, I point you to PastoralEpistles.com and some non-canonical citations relevant to 1Ti 4.16 that I've compiled since the conference. There's a seven page PDF file. The phrase "you will save both yourself and your hearers" is the subject. Similar phrasing/concepts occur in other early documents. So what does it mean? What does it point to? How should this be exegeted? That's what I'm looking into. Check out the citations; if you have further items to add please send along the citations.

How's that for "open scholarship"?

Now, since I was at the biblioblogger session at SBL, I feel I need to weigh in on the latest conversation regarding male and female in the biblioblogosphere. I'm not planning to say more on this, so here it goes:

I think I'm proof that what has been called "biblioblogdom" isn't an exclusive club of some sort. I'm not a professor or instructor at a university, college or seminary. I hold no graduate degrees. I am not currently purusing a graduate degree.

I'm just a guy interested in this stuff who likes to write, who finds value in blogging as a method to work out thoughts. The "biblioblogosphere" is a bonus for me in that folks who have degrees, and who teach, and who know much more than I do actually read what I write, offer feedback, and gently guide me along if I'm off the track -- or that I can interact with if I think I'm right and they're wrong.

I think that to "make it" in the biblioblogosphere, one has to have some shameless self-promotion going. I really don't think it is a male/female thing.

When ricoblog had just started, nobody but friends of mine read it. Every now and then, however, I'd write something that I thought would fit in the discussion on other blogs. So, I'd (hesitantly) send an email to that blog's author pointing them to what I'd written. If they linked, great. If not, that was fine too. At least they'd check it out.

Stephen C. Carlson (Hypotyposeis) linked to some early stuff of mine on the Apostolic Fathers after I sent him an email. I notified Mark Goodacre of some later posts, and then later Jim Davila found me from there, I think. It wasn't anything magical, it was just making folks aware of work I'd done that I thought was relevant to what they were doing.

Also, if you read biblioblogs and have a blog -- don't be afraid to comment and leave a link to your own blog in the comment. If someone likes your comment, they'll check out your stuff. If I think a commenter adds something to the conversation, I like to update the post to point folks to the comments, when I do this I typically link directly to the person's blog in question.

Additionally, keep a blogroll. Use a service like Bloglines (or whatever) to manage it. List the blogs you like to read. Many bloggers also list blogs that they know have linked to them. That's what I try to do. If you've linked to me or would like to have your blog listed in my generic blog roll, please send an email. I zap through the list a few times a week to see what's going on and to see if blogs I don't regularly read have any interesting posts. Getting in these blogrolls increases your chance of traffic stumbling upon your site (not to mention higher Technorati rankings ... )

In short, there's a lot of information and links floating around out there. If you're blogging and lamenting the fact that your posts aren't magically picked up by other blogs, try either emailing the blog author or commenting or trackbacking. Announce your blog via email to bloggers you like to read and ask to be placed on their blogrolls if they see fit. They may ignore you, but most (that I know) will check out the link and see what's up.

A final caveat: when commenting on a blog post, be sure to add something to the discussion. If you just say, "yeah, and see my blog too, it's really good!" you will probably not be mentioned further or highlighted for further linking.

Ok, that's it. Now, let's get to work. Who's doing what? And when do we have to have abstracts submitted for SBL International and for the 2006 meeting in DC?

Update (2005-11-28): Rick Mansfield (This Lamp) adds a comment on the 1Ti 4.16 bit above. Additionally, Eric Sowell (The Coding Humanist) blogs some thoughts. Thanks for the input, guys. I should say, however, that I'm less interested in the Greek grammar/syntax and more interested in the phrase itself as similar phrases are found in other writings, both before and after the Pastorals. I'm curious as to use of the "both to yourself and to your hearers/readers" and similar sorts of things. Was this common? Was Paul using a catch-phrase of some sort to score rhetorical points? Or did later writers (e.g. homilist of 2Clement) pick up on Paul and use similar phrasing for similar reasons? (Don't mind me, just thinking aloud ... )

Hi folks.

I've posted a copy of the paper I'll present on Sunday, Nov. 20 at the CARG session during the SBL meeting.

See PastoralEpistles.com for more information and the download link. Since the paper deals with that site specifically, it makes sense to post the information there.

My presentation will not be simply reading the paper; I'll instead use the paper as a rough outline and work through some screen captures illustrating major points of the paper, and have a short Q&A at the end. Unless I go long (Mark, please stop me if I do!)

Update (2005-11-12): Thanks to all who have emailed, linked to this post or otherwise mentioned the paper.* I've been a bit apprehensive as this is my first bit of (somewhat) formal writing for an academic audience. The welcome and encouragement I've received from y'all is, hopefully, reflective of the arena of Biblical Scholarship as a whole.

Update (2005-11-13): Ed Cook (Ralph the Sacred River), leaves an encouraging comment that also notes I should abridge the paper in order to fit my 20 minutes. True, true. I have already prepared a one-page handout for the session. That, plus the screen shots I took that I'll project via PowerPoint should be enough to guide me through my 20 alloted minutes. I plan on reviewing the slides one more time prior to the presentation to pull a few, just to be sure.

* Jim Davila (PaleoJudaica.com), Jim West (Biblical Theology), Rubén Gómez (Bible Software Review Weblog), Mark Goodacre (NT Gateway Weblog), Loren Rosson (in the comments below); at least that I've seen. Let me know if you've mentioned it and I'll add a link here.

I've written a rather lengthy post over on PastoralEpistles.com about 1Ti 4.10:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. (1Ti 4.10, ESV)

I'm still thinking through it, but if you have ideas, thoughts or if you just want to tell me I'm wrong (please do the favor of explaining why you think I'm wrong) then hop over there and let me know what you think.

Also, a question: Does anyone else out there ever notice your writing takes on the dialect of the stuff you're reading? I just re-read the post I refer to above, and I can tell I've been reading books published in the UK. Stuff like "Saviour" and "criticises" sticks out. Anyone else notice such things?

Hi folks.

Just a quick note to let everyone know that I've finally installed comments and trackbacks over at PastoralEpistles.com. You can read this post for more info.

If you haven't checked out the site in awhile, head on over. Particularly fun are the subject indexes and the reference indexes.

If you're new to PastoralEpistles.com, you may want to check out some of the Site Documents, particularly Introducing PastoralEpistles.com.

Tonight I'm doing some revision of some stuff I've written on 1Ti 3.14-16:

I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth. Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:

He was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated by the Spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed among the nations,
believed on in the world,
taken up in glory. (1Ti 3.14-16, ESV)

In my reading of First Timothy, this section is the central focus. The letter has to do with false teaching infiltrating the church; false teaching that is both seemingly innocuous and deadly serious. The letter warns the church to get back on track; and to do that they need to know the truth. The false teaching -- all aspects of it -- must be expunged; the church must reclaim the truth and preach it anew, with vigor and haste.

This piece of Scripture clues the recipients in to what that truth is. While this is seen as the "mystery of godliness", it really isn't a mystery. It is pretty clear. The hymnic/creedal section describes Christ, and it describes what he has done.

Anyway, as I'm going through this, I start to ponder: What is the difference between belief and intellectual assent? That is, there are things that I can, logically, admit to being possible. But in my mind, that is somewhat removed from belief. If something is believed, it implies (to me, anyway) that one's actions will change to fit one's beliefs. Mere intellectual assent doesn't.*

Believing something does not necessarily imply that the substance of the belief can be logically proven. I can fervently believe something without being able to prove it. This is what faith is all about, and why it is so vital and necessary in the life of a Christian.

So I ask myself: These essentials listed in 1Ti 3.16 -- do I believe them, or do I only assent to them intellectually? That is, is this information that changes my life and causes me to act differently from those who are not Christian? Or do I simply say, "yeah, that sounds about right" and then go on in life with no resultant change?

This truth about Jesus Christ must be believed. It cannot exist only in the intellectual realm of one's mind. Belief is reflected in action. Jesus was God incarnate on this earth; He was crucified. He rose from the dead, and he sits at the right hand of God Almighty. Easy letters to type; but do I believe it? Is my life different as a result? Is this truth foundational to my way of living?

I like to think so, and I like to think that I do my best. But I know I fall short. I need to do better at believing what I believe I believe. (got it?). Praise be to God for the gift of His Son, my Savior and Mediator; for the gift of the Holy Spirit, my Comforter and Helper; and for his never-failing mercy and grace. I would be lost -- in every sense of the word -- without them.

* For example, I'll assent that you could determine an eight-case noun system in Greek. But when I'm reading Greek and declining nouns ... I'll use five-case every time. I'd say that while I'd "intellectually assent" to an eight-case system; I "believe" in the five-case.