Nijay points to a forthcoming book called Paul's Parallels: An Echoes Synopsis, to be published by Continuum (T&T Clark). Amazon lists it under a slightly different title (Pauline and Pseudo-Pauline Parallels, Echoes, and Musings (amazon.com)), the Continuum site says April 2009. It sounds awesome:

Paul's Parallels is the first and only New Testament resource text in tables format presenting Paul's verses in column one, next to a row of parallels, echoes, or like-minded quotes from Old and New Testament resources as well as other extant biblical materials. The passages are cited in full.

This master of the epistolary writings, gives a verse by verse demonstration of Paul's thoughts, his ethic, and his actions that were picked-up by later Christian writers, copied by pseudo-Pauline admirers. It delineates some as distinctively Christian while others remained only in Paul's writing.

In addition, Luke's history about Paul in Acts is presented using the same format so the reader can easily cross-reference each epistle to its chronological setting. Documenting the history of Paul’s ministry in the same text allows the reader to instantly turn to the time and place in which Paul wrote that particular message. While investigating serious textual, literary, genre, and other theological characteristics, the reader has the opportunity of simultaneously locating Acts in its historical context.

But there's a catch: It is priced at $225.00! (No, the '2' on my keyboard didn't stick, that $225.00 is correct; Amazon provides some savings with a price-as-of-this-post of $163.87). I can safely say that I will never get this book, unless someone with unlimited income and kindness sends it my way, or I happen upon a really cheap used copy somewhere. I realize these are basically books targeted to libraries with budgets (though that customer base is surely shrinking) and not single-person users, for the most part. I also realize these things can be spendy to produce, but also have limited audiences. But cryin' in the night, that's spendy! Of course, if someone at Continuum/T&T Clark would like to send a review copy my way, I'd be interested. (Hey, had to try!)

Update (2009-03-01): I saw a comment from Michael Bird on Nijay's post referring to a similar book by Walter Wilson to be released soon. A search on Amazon informs me the title is Pauline Parallels: A Comprehensive Guide (amazon.com), published by Westminster/John Knox. This sounds relatively similar to the above book, but is priced at $32.97! And Amazon has a release of Jan 27, 2009, so that means it is available for purchase. I'd love to see a smackdown between the two titles, particularly to see if the one book is really $200 better than the other. Again, I'd consider doing the smack-down if the publishers can get copies of the books my way.

Also, please don't confuse either of these books with the similarly-named Pauline Parallels (amazon.com) by Fred O. Francis and J. Paul Sampley. That book is published by Fortress Press and puts the Pauline epistles (sans the Pastorals, sadly) in topical synopsis. It's a handy book, and it is also affordable: the new book price is $21.78; used copies from about $13 (as of this posting, anyway)! I've found Francis & Sampley's work useful. It's a great place to turn when examining one Pauline passage to see if there may be other similar Pauline passages worthy of examination.

[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.

I'm frustrated.

A few years back I noticed that Eerdmans was going to publish James Royse's monumental dissertation, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri — consistentely and frequently cited in footnotes in just about every NT text-critical tome I've read or looked at in the past three years. "Woo Hoo!", I thought. It would be available and might even be less that $100, which means I could buy it at SBL at a reasonable price!

Yesterday, I read the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog post on Brill's NTTSD series, which notes:

For those of you who have waited on James R. Royse's study of Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri finally to be published (the orginal dissertation on which it is based dates from 1981) will be pleased to hear that it is due this autumn (according to Brill's representative whom I met in Vienna). According to the gossip at the SBL in Vienna the delay of Royse's book on the part of the former publisher Eerdman's caused frustration for both the author Royse and the SD editor Epp and led the latter to turn to Brill which has now resulted in this permanent solution.

Well, I'm glad the book is getting published. But Brill wants $369.00 for it! (amazon.com) That means it is destined to only be purchased by university libraries; that it will suck hard-to-come-by money from other book purchases at said libraries, and it will be destined to sit in the office of some NT prof (or a departmental library) away from the main stacks where folks could actually use the durn thing.

What to do?

Don't buy the book. Go to the UMI dissertation express. Search for "Royse, James". It looks like you can get a copy of the dissertation for under 50 bucks, at least in the US. The 751 page dissertation was submitted in 1981, and the text has surely been sharpened in the past 26 years ... but hey, you'll actually be able to read and refer to it on your terms.

Even if Brill releases a paperback, who knows what the price will be. If you've considered the book before because, like me, you've seen it cited in footnotes and have drooled over it, then consider getting the dissertation via UMI instead of spending upwards of $400 with Brill.

Update (2007-08-09): Responding to the comments, particularly to Mike. I know the book would be expensive, but $370 is crazy. Are libraries really going to drop $370 on one title, and that not a substantive reference title? I am very glad Brill is publishing the title. My hope is that a few years down the road, after the libraries pay off the book's cost, it'll be put out in paperback, perhaps even by the SBL, and it will be do-able price-wise. I understand the economics of publishing and know there are costs for publishers to account for -- they don't grow money on trees. My post was a bit of a rant (hence the "rant" category), but also to point out that the primary substance of Royse's book, his dissertation, is available at a much more reasonable price for those who are really interested in the work but don't have a good library close (or who, like me, might be able to get it at a library but are such zealous bibliophiles they don't like to let go of books they've read, particularly if they could be useful in future studies). Anyway, c'est la vie, Scribal Habits. If I deem my text-critical reading needs to require Royse before a paperback is available, I'll head to UMI to get the dissertation.

Stopped for a coffee at Starbucks (grande drip, no cream, no sugar) on the way into the office. On the cup was "The Way I See It #242".

Children are born with such a sense of fairness that they will accept no less than equal treatment for all. I know — I have three. I hope that as they grow, they keep that sense of justice and learn to challenge the old adage "life's not fair." It should be, in so far as we have control of it. — Beth Vanden Hoek, Starbucks ass't mgr, St. Louis, MO

Now, pardon me as a three-week-new father, but children are not "born with such a sense of fairness that they will accept no less than equal treatment for all". Ella (my sweet daughter) has one concern: herself. When she's hungry, she wants to eat, and it doesn't matter if it is two in the afternoon or three in the morning: She cries, wakes up Mom & Dad, and gets fed. She doesn't stop and think it might be more "fair" for her to wait a while for a more convienent time for Mom & Dad to awaken. Same for wet diapers. Or if she just wants to be held.

Apologies to Beth, but children aren't born with an innate sense of fairness and sharing. Kudos to Beth if that's the way her kids have been raised such that they act that way, it reflects well on her. But that is not innate, in-born behavior.

(I'll stop ranting soon, please bear with me)

Have you actually looked at all the junk on an Amazon.com book page recently?

It is seriously crowded with a bunch of junk that means nothing. Taking a book from the top of my wishlist, Bible Manuscripts: 1400 Years of Scribes and Scripture (amazon.com), I see far too much junk on the book's page at Amazon.

There are sections on this page for:

• Better Together: where Amazon tries to sell you a related title too. OK, this is fine (though note, the price is simple addition of both books, it isn't discounted for buying both!)
• Customers who bought this item also bought: OK, I can see this too. Maybe.
• Editorial Reviews: Yep, this is fine.
• Product Details: Yep, this is fine too — though I'd like it further up the page, like right after the price/picture/etc.

Next comes the cruft:

• Help others find this item: What? Why is this here?
• Tag this product: Again ... what the ?!
• Are you the publisher or author? Learn how Amazon can help you make this book an eBook: This is nothing but spam. I wonder how often this actually gets a bite ... and then how often the resultant 'eBook' (blast, I hate that camel-casing stuff!) is actually purchased. I know it isn't worth my while. How many people does this annoy, on every page?!
• Rate this item to improve your recommendations: Maybe I can see this ... but how much sewage does one wade through to get here?
• Customer Discussions: How many books (besides Harry Potter) actually have discussions? Again, this is cruft. I'm buying books, not socializing with nameless, faceless know-it-alls.
• Your Recently Viewed Items: Too far down the page to be worthwhile.
• Look for similar items by category: Helpful ... but it should be much higher up the page.
• Look for similar items by subject: Hmmmmmm ... what, according to Amazon.com, is the difference between a 'category' and a 'subject' ? This is too much stuff.
• After this come a bunch of ads, followed by a feedback link.
• Then, at the bottom of the page ... a Your Recent History page. Didn't they just tell me my Recently Viewed Items a few items ago? So why is this here?
• After that come the Sponsored Links. Wow, glad those are there.

Now I just might be missing it, but I sure would like to customize my Amazon.com viewing experience so that most of that craptastic crud is never seen, and I can just see information about the book I'm interested in purchasing.

Because my sample page is a book yet to be published, it doesn't have the "Inside This Book" block. So check out The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com) to see an example. This is where textual ephemera like 'statistically improbable phrases' and 'captialized phrases' along with a concordance and text statistics are given. OK, so this is cool and at least somewhat relevant (it is info about the book I'm browsing) so I can let this one lie.

Also — did anyone else notice the inconsistent headline casing for page section titles? Sometimes they're all-capped ("Your Recently Viewed Items") and sometimes not ("Look for similar items by category"). What's that all about? Is there no house style for these sorts of things?

Ok, rant over. But I would love it if Amazon would trim the cruft off of their book pages.

These pages need some serious pruning.