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.

Stephen C. Carlson (Hypotyposeis) has posted Biblical Studies Carnival IX.

It is a stellar example of typical Carlsonian excellence. Do check it out!

And thanks, Stephen, for linking to the recent Didache posts (here and here, series intro here). And he even hit my post on Sisyphean Tasks in Biblical Studies.

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος,
Concerning baptism,
   οὕτω βαπτίσατε·
   baptise in this way:
      ταῦτα πάντα προειπόντες,
      Having first reviewed all of these things,
      βαπτίσατε
      Baptise
         εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς
         in the Name of the Father
            καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ
            and of the Son
            καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος
            and of the Holy Spirit
         ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι.
         in running water.

ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν,
If you do not have access to running water,
   εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον·
   Baptise in other water.
εἰ δ ̓ οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ,
If cold water is not available,
   ἐν θερμῷ.
   then [baptise] in warm [water].

ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς,
If you have neither,
   ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ
   pour water onto the head three times
      εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς
      in the Name of the Father
         καὶ υἱοῦ
         and of the Son
         καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος.
         and of the Holy Spirit.

πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος
And before the baptism
   προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπτίζων
   the baptiser should fast beforehand,
   καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος
   and the one being baptised,
   καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύνανται·
   and any others who are able.
κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον
Call upon the one being baptised to fast
   πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.
   beforehand one or two days.

Notes

Chapter 6 was a transition from teaching on the way of life and the way of death, underscoring the importance to the reader/baptismal candidate of adhering to the way of life. The baptismal candidate was to do everything, or, do as much as possible.

Now the Didachist moves into specific instruction on baptism. I find the intro to the topic interesting. He doesn't move straight into the nuts and bolts of the process of baptism, he first ensures that the baptismal candidate has reviewed "all these things". This refers to the content of chapters 1-6. After that, the Didachist moves on to the formula for baptism. And it is pretty clear: Baptise in the name of the Trinity. This has implications for development of the doctrine of the Trinity depending on where you place the Didache chronologically. Here the basic formula agrees with Mt 28.19.

Also interesting to me is the discussion of what type of water to baptise in. The basic thought is for the baptizer to use the best he's got, but to not put off the baptism because he doesn't have the best water. The way in which the Didachist deals with mode of baptism is refreshing in light of some of the debates on the subject these days (immersion vs. sprinkling). Baptise where you can, when you can, in the best way you can -- but baptise.

The other interesting aspect involves fasting. Both the one baptising and the one being baptised are to fast. Others are to fast too, if they can. This underscores the seriousness of the act of baptism. It represents a breaking with the old ways (the way of death) and an assent to pursue the way of life. It should not be undertaken flippantly or unthinkingly. One should enter into it with seriousness, knowing that keeping on the way of life (bearing as much of the "Lord's yoke" as possible, as Did 6.2 puts it) will involve much diligence, effort and sacrifice.

Next up: Didache 8

Last week, Ben C. Smith of TextExcavation emailed me to tell me he's using my Apostolic Fathers Lookup Tool as a reference to a parallel English/Greek display for his Apostolic Fathers resource pages -- like this one for the Didache.

While he set up his linking, Ben located a few bum links and notified me of them so I could fix them up. Thanks, Ben. Be sure to check out his work if you're unfamiliar with it.

Also, Ben blogs with the group over at Thoughts on Antiquity. And Ben just commenced a series on canon lists with a post on the Marcion canon. Do check it out!

[Background: Sisyphus was the mythical king of Corinth. His punishment in Hades was to eternally push a heavy rock up a hill, only to have it roll back down again at the end of the day. He did it all over again the next day. Forever.]

I was talking with a colleague earlier today. I was lamenting that I saw a new Bart Ehrman book (this one on the Gospel of Judas); he said, "Yeah, I'll probably end up reading it." I asked why. He said that he browses the "New Age" style aisles at the local Barnes & Noble to see what sorts of things the masses are reading and then he reads them so he knows what's up and how to respond.

After hearing this, I responded somewhat cynically, "That seems like a Sisyphean task".

Then I immediately thought, "Hey, that's a good blog post!"

So with all that lead-in: What are the Sisyphean tasks of Biblical Studies? What do you find yourself doomed to eternally repeat in your work? If you're a teacher, are there things that you find yourself returning to over and over again that students don't seem to grasp? If you write, are there things you continually return to to explain over and over?

Additionally, What are the Herculean tasks of Biblical Studies? There have got to be some big things left to do that, realistically, only certain people (or perhaps groups) can do. What are they? And who, in your estimation, is poised to take them on?

I'm still thinking through these things, wondering what I'll come up with in answer to these questions. But I wanted to ask the questions of a larger audience. Anyone out there have any ideas? Feel free to use the comments here, or respond on your own blog. If you email me a link, or if I come across your response, I'll post links here.

Update (2006-08-28): A few responses, though I'd hoped for more. Oh well. Check out:

• Dr. Cathey's Blog
• Dr. Jim West

Also, ricoblog reader Clint Yale emails the following Herculean task:

What about the complete digitizing of all extant manuscripts and then heir conversion into text format? The completion of the UNICODE haracter sets so that they reflect all the diacritics and maverick markings that occur in the Biblical manuscripts.

I can think of three names: Bill Warren, Daniel Wallace and David Parker as heads of the whole process. These three generals with the help of hundreds if not thousands of troops in the field could accomplish this. It would be more profitable to use our computers for this goal then to have them set up to be coordinated in search of ET’s trying to communicate with us. This would take innovation, cooperation, perserverance, money, time and a whole lot of coordination.

There exists in raw form databases of the texts that could be used as the basis for the creation of the electronic editions of manuscripts that need to be converted to electronic format.

So, after lunch with my sweet, darling wife last Friday, we went for a walk around downtown Bellingham. We passed by the most awesome used book store in Bellingham, Henderson's Books. Amy had a book to look for, and I just hadn't been in there for ages so I needed to spend some time in my favorite aisles.

Digging around, I found two books, both by the same author. These are translations of the French originals:

• The Gospel of Philip: Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the Gnosis of the Sacred Union
• The Gospel of Thomas: The Gnostic Wisdom of Jesus

They were both written by one Jean-Yves Leloup. The translations are published by Inner Traditions, which appears to publish "spiritual" sorts of things.

That said, the books were cheap (eight bucks apiece!) and they contain Coptic editions of both gospels as well as translation. The edition on Thomas has some commentary as well. But ... I consider them suspect based on the publisher and jacket-blurb content. Laloup's work may be just fine, but stuff added by the publisher of the English translation raises some flags.

So we all know where the book is coming from, the back-cover blurb sensationalises GPhilip Logion 55, positing that GPhilip is "best known for its portrayal of the physical relationship shared by Jesus and his most beloved disciple, Mary Magdalene". The blurb then takes an Ehrman-ian turn and blathers on about suppression of such ideas by those heterodoxy-bashing party-poopers, the orthodox.

Now, here is GPhilip logion 55, according to Leloup's translation:

The Wisdom [Sophia] thought to be sterile [steira] is the mother of angels
The companion [koinonos] of the Son is Miriam of Magdala
The teacher loved her more than all the disciples;
he often kissed her on the mouth
When the disciples saw how he loved Miriam, they asked him:
"Why do you love her more than us?"
The teacher answered
"How can it be that I do not love you as much as I love her?"

Compare this with Schenke's translation in Schneemelcher's NT Apocrypha:

55a: The Sophia who is called barren is the mother of the [angels] and [the] companion of the S[aviour].
55b: The S[aviour lov]ed [Ma]ry Mag[da]lene more than [all] the disciples,{footnote} and kissed on her [mouth] often. The other [disciples] (p. 64) [    ]. They said to him: 'Why do you love her more than all of us?' The Saviour answered and said to them {}: 'Why do I not love you like her?'

Translational differences are apparent when comparing Laloup's first two lines with Schenke's translation of the same content. Go back and reread them an you'll see what I'm talking about. Now just who is the Son/Saviour's companion?

A few typographical differences are also apparent. First, Schenke gives us brackets, so we know what is there and what is supplied in the translation. We don't have that luxury with Leloup's work ... unless we have facility with Coptic. In this instance, we see that Schenke notes "mouth" is supplied, while with Laloup we need to go back to the Coptic to work this out (yes, the Coptic does have brackets).

I'm pretty sure this is the spot where the back-jacket-sensationalised "physical relationship" between Jesus and Mary Magdalene comes from, but we see it is no big deal. Offhand, I'd guess there is more to seeing Mary Magdalene as the "most beloved" disciple in contrast to John as the "beloved" disciple; and there could be more to the kiss in comparison with Judas Iscariot's kiss of betrayal. And, if I recall correctly, kissing on the mouth carried somewhat different meaning (certainly not what we think of today). Positing some sort of physical (sexual) relationship based on this reconstruction/conjecture is a massive stretch.

So ... if you need the Coptic of these works quick and cheap, then check them out. But be sure to check the translation against trustworthy sources before doing too much with it.

[This is part of a running series on the Didache. See the introductory post for more information — RWB]

Phrasing/Translation

Ὅρα, μή τίς σε πλανήσῃ ἀπὸ ταύτης τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς διδαχῆς,
See to it that no one might lead you astray from the way of this teaching,
   ἐπεὶ παρεκτὸς θεοῦ σε διδάσκει.
   for that one teaches you outside of God.

εἰ μὲν γὰρ δύνασαι βαστάσαι ὅλον τὸν ζυγὸν τοῦ κυρίου,
For if you are able bear the whole of the Lord's yoke,
   τέλειος ἔσῃ·
   you will be perfect.
εἰ δ ̓ οὐ δύνασαι,
But if you are not able,
   ὃ δύνῃ,
   whatever is possible,
   τοῦτο ποίει.
   do this.

περὶ δὲ τῆς βρώσεως,
And concerning food,
   ὃ δύνασαι βάστασον·
   Bear what is possible;
ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ εἰδωλοθύτου λίαν πρόσεχε·
but of food offered to idols, be scrupulously on your guard,
   λατρεία γάρ ἐστι θεῶν νεκρῶν.
   for this is worship of dead gods.

Notes

After discussing "the way of life" in depth, and after treating "the way of death" in a somewhat more brief manner, the Didachist sums up and transitions. The next section begins more of a manual, detailing baptism, fasting and the Eucharist.

He begins by referring to the previous content, and exhorts the reader to make sure he minds the teaching, running from whomever would teach contrary. He urges the reader to adhere to the whole of what has been taught ("If you are able to bear the whole of the Lord's yoke, you will be perfect") but anticipates that this will not be possible ("... if you are not able [to bear the yoke], whatever is possible, do this.") The new convert is to keep his eyes on living according to the whole teaching, doing as much as is possible.

A specific instruction is given regarding food offered to idols; that food offered to idols should be avoided as much as possible. The act of offering food to idols is worship of dead gods, thus the food should be avoided. But that's not to say that one sins by eating such food; we do have 1Ti 4.1-5 for guidance in this area.

The bottom line: The Didachist instructs the reader to do as much as can be done, and for what is lacking, rely on the Lord.

Next up: Didache 7.

While spending a few days in Victoria, BC last week with my lovely wife, I was able to convince her to let me browse a used book shop.

OK, there was no convincing needed -- she knows me and enthusiastically suggested it when she saw the store! I love this woman!

While browsing the religion section, I happened across an edition of Alexander Souter's Greek New Testament. I already have access to the first edition of his GNT, published in 1910. Souter issued a revision in 1947. That's the edition I found.

As noted in The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism, the cool part of Souter's edition is the apparatus and the attention paid to patristic citations in Souter's second edition. From the Encyclopedia:

A noteworthy feature of Souter's apparatus is the degree of detail it gives about the Fathers. These are cited in careful and specific detail. This is one of the best features of Souter's edition.
The revised edition of Souter cites papyri through P⁴⁸, uncials through 0170, minuscules through 2322, a full list of versions (including Armenian, Gothic, Georgian, and Ethiopic), and nearly two hundred fathers of all eras. The Byzantine text is cited under the symbol w.

So this is a fun find. Throw in that it was $10 (Canadian!) and Rico is thrilled with this purchase.