A ricoblog reader emailed a question about syntax, asking about how he could think about "syntax" to help inform his study.

I'll be the first in line to say that I'm not an expert here. So please take the below with a grain of salt and realize that it's pretty basic and not intended to be a complete statement on the issue (or even perhaps linguistically correct).

That said, here's my best shot.

Syntax is deep and complex. The biggest (and quickest) help I think I can give is to look at the text under study using the following heirarchy:

Book
   Section/Pericope
       Paragraph
           Sentence
               Clause/Phrase
                   Word

Start from the top down. The area of "syntax" involves stuff at the "sentence" and "clause/phrase" level (and, to some degee, the "word" level through morphological relationships and "paragraph" level through clauses connected by conjunction).

The "section/pericope" and "paragraph" levels (and, to some degree, the "book" level) could be called "discourse" levels. We can talk about discourse later. Much later.

So, areas of syntax deal with how words form clauses/phrases and how those units form sentences.

An example can be seen in 1Ti 1.1:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, ...

The words are easily identifiable. You can pick out names, you can pick out some nouns, and you can start to put things together. Syntax starts to look into how these larger groups of words come together, and what they communicate as a whole. One might even gain a better idea by inserting newlines and tabs into the flow of the sentence to work through the first bit:

Paul,
   an apostle
      of Christ Jesus

So here, paying attention to syntactic relationships helps us see that "an apostle" further describes or modifies "Paul". Paul is the one who is an apostle. And "of Christ Jesus" further qualifies the apostleship that Paul holds. He is an apostle of Jesus Christ.

We do this innately when we read in English; it's our native language. With Greek, though, we end up looking at the text for cues (conjunctions, articles, word order, sentence flow) to help us put the puzzle together.

Or something like that, anyway. Basically, instead of seeing each word as a unit, move up the tree to clauses/phrases, and examine how those units interact. Don't just say, "oh, 'apostle' — I know what that word means". Look at the larger units and start to put it together, determining the meaning of the larger parts, and how these larger parts relate with each other.

You don't need to know Greek (or Hebrew) to do this, assuming you have a good translation in your native language (I like ESV, NASB is good for this stuff too). Don't worry about labels for all of these things (at least, when you start). You don't need to know if it is a subordinate clause or an adveribal phrase. You don't identify all of that stuff with your native language to understand it, do you?

Make it easy and start breaking things up based on the punctuation in the text you use. If you see further unpunctuated units (i.e. phrases like "of Jesus Christ" that act to modify words or other units), then break there too.

But have a method to your madness. When I've done this sort of thing on this blog (e.g. here and here) I don't really have a linguistic theory in mind, but I do know why I've inserted breaks and tabs where I do. You should too. If you have Gordon Fee's New Testament Exegesis, he discusses something similar (but much more defined) in his section on "Structural Analysis". Maybe you want to give that a look-see if you have access to the book (in print or electronic).

I've said far too much in an area I'm very interested in but still learning about. Hopefully it's been helpful, and I haven't made any statements that are too erroneous ... please feel free to offer corrections/clarifications in the comments (or via email). Thanks!

One of the "benefits" of working where I do is that I am occasionally made aware of some crazy things.

Witness this press release that a colleague sent my way. I should note he sent it to make me react, not because he thinks there's something to it.

My response? The title of this post, of course. "Syncretism run amok".

This morning, I was looking into 1Ti 4.14:

Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. (1Ti 4.14, ESV)

Specifically, I was looking into the word "neglect". The Greek word here is ἀμέλει, present imperative 2nd person singular of ἀμελέω. One cross reference (among many) led me to Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians:

The presbyters also should be compassionate, merciful to all, turning back those who have gone astray, caring for all who are sick, not neglecting the widow, the orphan, or the poor, but always taking thought for what is good before both God and others, abstaining from all anger, prejudice, and unfair judgment, avoiding all love of money, not quick to believe a rumor against anyone, not severe in judgment, knowing that we are all in debt because of sin. (Poly 6.1, Ehrman)

This, of course, led me to the Greek text, and a further question. Here's the Greek text, indentation is mine (I'll explain in a bit, and no, I'm not gettin' all chiastic here):

Καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι δὲ εὔσπλαγχνοι,
  εἰς πάντας ἐλεήμονες,
  ἐπιστρέφοντες τὰ ἀποπεπλανημένα,
  ἐπισκεπτόμενοι πάντας ἀσθενεῖς,
  μὴ ἀμελοῦντες χήρας ἢ ὀρφανοῦ ἢ πένητος·
    ἀλλὰ προνοοῦτες ἀεὶ τοῦ καλοῦ ἐνώπιον θεοῦ κ̓αὶ ἀνθρώπων,
  ἀπεχόμενοι πάσης ὀργῆς, προσωποληψίας, κρίσεως ἀδίκου,
  μακρὰν ὂντες πάσης φιλαργυρίας,
  μὴ ταχέως πιστεύοντες κατά τινος,
  μὴ ἀπότομοι ἐν κρίσει,
εἰδότες ὅτι πάντες ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν ἁμαρτίας.

This was interesting to me because I immediately had a question upon evaluation of the Greek: What are the parts of the sentence? The above is what I concluded, but I saw a few viable options. The primary thing I had to understand had to do with the lines having to do with widows and orphans, and what the ἀλλὰ line was contrasting. Was the ἀλλὰ acting as a hinge for the whole sentence? Or was it only contrasting widows/orphans/poor?

I concluded that it was directly contrasting the previous line. Instrumental in making this conclusion was some reading/examination I've been doing in section 5 of the Epistle to Diognetus. Here are the verses in question:

⁶ γαμοῦσιν ὡς πάντες, τεκνογονοῦσιν· ἀλλ ̓ οὐ ῥίπτουσι τὰ γεννώμενα.
⁷ τράπεζαν κοινὴν παρατίθενται, ἀλλ ̓ οὐ κοίτην.
⁸ ἐν σαρκὶ τυγχάνουσιν, ἀλλ ̓ οὐ κατὰ σάρκα ζῶσιν. (EpDiog 5.6-8)

Here we have similar goings-on, though not quite the same. In Diognetus, the pattern is [something] but not [alternate thing]. In Polycarp, the pattern seems to be not [something] but [alternate thing]. Or, with Greek words in the templates, [something] ἀλλ ̓ οὐ [alternate thing] or μὴ [something] ἀλλὰ [alternate thing].

But that brings up a further question: Do  [something] ἀλλ ̓ οὐ [alternate thing] and μὴ [something] ἀλλὰ [alternate thing] really indicate the same sort of contrast despite different negative particles used? In English, "this but not that" or "not this, but that" are logically similar; the difference in phrasing would be due to the content of the comparison and/or the speaker/writer's prerogative. Is the same thing basically true in Hellenistic Greek depsite the use of a different negative particle?*

FWIW, I searched the NT for "μὴ [before] ἀλλὰ" (in the same verse) and retrieved 100 hits, many of which seem appropriate (e.g. Mt 6.13 and 1Ti 5.1).** The kicker for me (as far as similar structure goes) is in 1Ti 3.3:

 ... not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

Here, the structure is the same, and contrast is in the immediate context. That is, ἀλλὰ doesn't hinge the whole sentence, but just contrasts the previous phrase. I think the same thing happens in Poly 6.1.

Thus — back to my original inquiry about "neglect" — I think Poly 6.1 helps us understand what is expected in place of neglect. That is, the contrast in Polycarp offers us a picture of what is to counter "neglect" (ἀμελέω), and we don't get this contrast from NT examples.*** From Polycarp's perspective, attending to the needs of widows, orphans and the poor involves "always taking thought for what is good before both God and others" and then doing it.

Working back to the text in First Timothy, perhaps Timothy attends to his particular gift(s) by considering how to properly utilize his gifts before God and others, and then making sure that this is what he does. This is why Timothy is urged to exhort (preach, encourage) and to teach the Ephesians (v. 13) and why Timothy is again reminded to practice and be devoted to being an example (v. 12), using his gifts (v. 15) as he ministers to the Ephesians.

* (added later): I remembered some stuff I read in BDF about the use of these two negative particles in Greek, but my BDF is at the office, and I'm at home. Consulting the ever-wonderful BDAG, I find:

negative particle, ‘not’: ‘μή is the negative of will, wish, doubt. If οὐ denies the fact, μή denies the idea’ (Rob. 1167). For the Koine of the NT the usage is simplified to such a degree that οὐ is generally the neg. used w. the indicative, and μή is used w. the other moods (B-D-F §426; Rob. 1167). (BDAG, p. 642)

** For a complete picture, the words ἀλλὰ οὐ occur together 30 times in the NT, but ἀλλὰ μὴ does not occur at all in the NT. These were phrase searches, so I was searching for adjacent words. In the LDLS, this means I put the Greek lexical forms in double-quotes. This effectively searched for where lexical forms (lemmas) were adjacent, not only for where specific inflected forms were adjacent.

*** The only NT instances are Mt 22.5; 1Ti 4.13; Heb 2.3; Heb 8.9.

Pardon me a moment whilst I mop up the drool puddle from my desk ...

Ok, I'm ready now.

Flipping through the SBL Annual Meeting program book, I noticed an advert for Hendrickson Publishers.

Specifically, I noted a book by Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. So, I hopped to Amazon.com and see that it is to be released in November. This thing sounds awesome; here's an excerpt from the blurb from Hendrickson's site:

Evans’s dexterous survey—a thoroughly revised and significantly expanded edition of his Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation—amasses the requisite details of date, language, text, translation, and general bibliography. Evans also evaluates the materials’ relevance for interpreting the NT. The vast range of literature examined includes the Old Testament apocrypha, the Old Testament pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, assorted ancient translations of the Old Testament and the Targum paraphrases, Philo and Josephus, Rabbinic texts, the New Testament pseudepigrapha, the early church fathers, various gnostic writings, and more. Six appendixes, including a list of quotations, allusions, and parallels to the NT, and a comparison of Jesus’ parables with those of the rabbis will further save the interpreter precious time.

Nota Bene: It's cheaper at Amazon by around twelve bucks. But I'm hoping it'll be even cheaper at the SBL Annual Meeting ...

Amy and I went on a cool little drive yesterday afternoon. We went up Chuckanut Ridge. It's really part of Larrabee state park. On your way south from Fairhaven on Chuckanut Drive, keep an eye out for Hiline Road. It is just before the fire station. Take a left, and drive up the paved road. It will shortly turn into Cleator Road, which is a dirt road. This will take you up the mountain. There's a parking lot on top (3.5 miles), a few picnic tables and restroom facilities. Here's a map, if you're interested. Here's a little more info on Whatcom County trails.

And here are a few photos that don't do the view justice. The first was taken from a pullout on the road. It isn't the greatest photo, but it has a warm glow that I like:

Here's a photo looking down on Chuckanut Bay:

That was taken with a telephoto lense. Here's another photo from the top taken with a wide angle lense:

It's a pretty cool little area. Might be a nice spot for a picnic lunch. It's close to town, but not in the main Larrabee state park complex, so it might be a bit less crowded.

I just read of Mark Goodacre's two-year blogiversary on Sept. 2. Congratulations, Mark! I know I'm looking forward to more. Cheers, and thanks for your work!

Ok, the title is a little lame, but I wanted to have a somewhat consistent title in what has now (unintentionally) become a series of posts on issues of context. (Previous posts: Context Involves Perspective, Context Is Everything.)

What triggered me this time? I was reading a recent post of Mark Goodacre's on the NT Gateway Weblog where he uses the adjective "wireless" in regard to internet access:

Alas, no wireless access or other internet access in the rooms so I have not been able to get my blogging machine into action.

Upon reading this, I thought, "wow, the use of the word 'wireless' sure has changed in recent years." It used to have to do solely with radio transmission. I suppose it still does, only instead of transmitting sound (radio telephony/telegraphy) now the assumed context is that of a wireless data network.

I checked m-w.com (Merriam Webster) to confirm my understanding. They have four different entries listed when one searches for wireless:

• wireless [1, adjective]
• wireless [2, noun]
• wireless telegraphy
• wireless telephone

None of these mention anything about wireless networks. So, even a prominent dictionary doesn't carry this new sense of the word. Yet I'd argue virtually everyone who read Mark's post understood immediately what he meant, especially since he added " ... or other internet access" to the sentence. This makes it unambiguous. Mark really wasn't trying to radio messages to us. He wanted a data connection so he could tell us about the cool happenings at BNTC.

This seems relevant to Biblical exegesis, at least to me. Once again, put yourself at least a few hundred years in the future and assume the requisite development/changes of language. You're reading the wisdom of that eminent (yet somewhat mysterious) sage, Mark Goodacre. His writings are normally clear, but in your frenzied research you stumble onto this somewhat strange fragmentary witness. Lacunae are marked by brackets:

Alas, no wireless access or other [...]
access in the rooms so I have not [...]
able to get my blogging machine [...]

Now you can make all sorts of crazy reconstructions. If you've got copy of the Merriam Webster Dictionary from the late 20th century, you'd only know 'wireless' as having to do with radio stuff. I can't consult the OED, so I don't know what it would have. It would be better to check in this case, but I'd guess the primary definition(s) there also would have to do with radio telegraphy. If you look later in the fragment and see "machine", you may jump and make the conclusion that he must be referencing radio telegraphy since he's talking about "machines" and therefore mechanical devices of some sort (It's all in the same semantic domain, you see). But you'd still be wrong. If you interpret the language in light of early 20th century terminology, you'll get the wrong idea (perhaps even without lacunae).

Once you start to understand Goodacre the wise (I'm not going to argue for a proto-Goodacre in this post, and don't get me started on the Goodacre-ian redactors ... ) you learn that as one of the high priests of the biblioblog cult, he practiced something called "blogging", which was done on "computer" (also known as a "machine") and disseminated this "blogging" on the "internet". And that, way back then, these "computers" had wired and "wireless" connections to the "internet" via local wired and wireless networks. So "wireless" in the above fragment has nothing to do with radio telegraphy, it has to do with transmission of data packets across the air. So, you might conclude, the above quote had to do with expressing that at some point, he was unable to practice this ascetic discipline of blogging to broadcast instructions to his followers.

Or something like that.

Jokingly, earlier today, I asked a colleague:

"Hey, let's start a pool. We can guess on how long it'll take someone to find Hurricane Katrina using Bible Codes!"

He responded, "yeah, only we need an option for writings of Nostradamus, because someone will go that route too." So we added that option.

I mentioned this to another colleague a bit later on, and then I actually took a guess: Monday, Sept. 5, 2005.

My second colleague did an internet search. It seems I was too gracious in allotting a full week for someone to partake in shoddy mathemat-egesis (what, there's good mathemate-gesis?) because some guy did it yesterday (Sept. 1, 2005).

Behold: Revelation 13: The English King James version Bible code - Part 8d - Hurricane Katrina hit Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi in August 2005.

I honestly don't know how to respond. There is so much wrong with that, I'm speechless.

But I think I won the pool. No money exchanged hands, I only receive the admiration of my friends and colleagues.

Update (2005-09-02): My colleague who pushed for a Nostradamus exemption, disgusted in losing the pool, went and seached Nostradamus' quartrains himself. Lookie what he found:

Near the great river, great ditch, earth drawn out,
In fifteen parts will the water be divided:
The city taken, fire, blood, cries, sad conflict,
And the greatest part involving the coliseum
                               — Century IV, Quartrain 80

Apparently the AV geeks ... er, "serious Nostradamus scholars" ... have been discussing this already. Sheesh.

Update (2005-09-04): The Google hits are already coming on this one. Lest there be any question from folks who arrive here from search engines, I think the Bible codes (and Nostradaman prophecies, for that matter) are a bunch of bunk. I'm still mildly shocked that anyone would think such a practice could actually inform exegesis. It can't. Get out of the fantastic and just read the Bible. You don't need to dig for hidden messages and deeper truths, you need to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, mind and strength. And love your neighbor as yourself.