Over the past few days, I've been reading Michael Hoey's Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language (amazon.com) and it has been very thought-provoking. My friend Randall Tan pointed me to the book and has invited me to work with him on a paper based on sections of Hoey's book for the upcoming International SBL meeting in Vienna. Here's the abstract of the paper, which has been accepted for presentation in the "Hellenistic Greek Language and Linguistics" section:

In his provocative study, Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language (amazon.com) (Routledge, 2005), Michael Hoey argues for a new theory of the lexicon. Hoey's claim is that words and sequences of words that we learn are cumulatively loaded with the contexts and co-texts in which we encountered them and that grammar is the result of our recognition of recurrent features in this "lexical priming." In effect, his theory reverses the roles of lexis and grammar, proposing that "lexis is complexly and systematically structured and that grammar is an outcome of this lexical structure" (1).

In this paper, one of Hoey’s specific claims will be examined: “When a word is polysemous, the collocations, semantic associations and colligations of one sense of the word differ from those of its other senses” (13). Specific words and word groups (including sequences of words involving controversial genitive constructions) in the Greek New Testament will be explored with corpus linguistic techniques, using newly available syntactically-tagged Greek New Testament databases (i.e., the online OpenText.org annotation and the Logos implementation of OpenText.org as well as the Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament). The dual goal is to verify the extent to which Hoey’s claim can be substantiated and to propose new avenues to adjudicate interpretational controversies.

Hoey's book is not about Hellenistic Greek, all of his examples are based on a 98 million word corpus composed largely of material from the Guardian Newspaper from 1991-1994. So this means you need to understand some basic grammar and not be afraid of linguistic terminology. However, Hoey writes well and the book is approachable by, I'd guess, just about anyone with an interest in grammar and linguistics. You don't have to have much linguistic background to really get into what Hoey is proposing.

Chris Tilling finally hits chapter 7 in his series on Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. Yay!

Chapter 7 is the one that discusses the "Plural to Singular Narrative Device". I've been digging around with this 'device' to see if it is used in the NT outside of Bauckham's listed instances (21 in Mark, 2 in Luke). As a matter of fact, I'm writing a paper for the 2007 NW Regional ETS meeting on one potential instance, Acts 18.19-21.

I've been intrigued by this device since I read about it and have done some poking around the NT. I present the paper on Feb. 24, I'll likely post a version of it here after the conference.

I can never remember if the words "Marcan" and "Lucan" are spelled with 'c' or 'k'.

Thankfully, for situations like this, there is GoogleFight.

Fight 1: Markan vs. Marcan.
Results: 755,000 to 3,520,000. "Marcan" wins!

Fight 2: Lukan vs. Lucan.
Results: 267,000 to 1,960,000. "Lucan" wins!

Even though I just started the book on Sunday, I finished it this morning. I have the week off so I've been spending some time reading, amongst other things.

I can heartily recommend Paul and First Century Letter Writing (amazon.com). Richards does a great job focusing studies of the mechanics of writing letters in the first century and applying what we know about Paul from his own letters.

Readers of ricoblog know that in the past I blogged about and recommended Hans-Jozef Klauck's Ancient Letters and the New Testament (amazon.com) as an introduction to epistolography. I still stand by that, Klauk's book is a good general introduction to epistolography (not just NT, but epistolography in general). I'd recommend Paul and First Century Letter Writing (amazon.com) over Klauck because Richards is less technical and more directly applicable to NT epistles, particularly those of Paul. I'd go so far as to say that if you teach a course on Paul's epistles, you'd do well to consider requiring Paul and First Century Letter Writing (amazon.com) as a text so the students can get a grasp of how Paul might've actually gone about composing his letters.

Here's the brief TOC of Paul and First Century Letter Writing (amazon.com):

Introduction
1: A Modern, Western Paul
2: Paul as a First-Century Letter Writer
3: The Tools of a Letter Writer
4: Secretaries in the First Century World
5: Paul's Use of a Secretary
6: Identifying Inserted Material
7: Weaving Together a Letter
8: Classifying Paul's Letters
9: Analyzing Paul's Writing Style
10: Preparing a Letter for Dispatch
11: Dispatching the Letter
12: Paul's Letter Carriers
13: Paul's Use of His Letter Carriers
14: Collecting Paul's Letters
15: Inspiration and First-Century Letter Writing
Conclusion

Again, this book is heartily recommended.

Next book in my queue: Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language (amazon.com) by Michael Hoey. This was recommended to me by my friend Randall Tan; we'll be writing a paper applying some of Hoey's concepts to NT Greek for International SBL in Vienna (though I won't be able to attend the conference). I'm sure I'll blog a bit about that as I read it. Dunno if I'll get through it as fast as this last one, though.

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

Phrasing/Translation

Ὃς ἂν οὖν ἐλθὼν διδάξῃ ὑμᾶς ταῦτα πάντα τὰ προειρημένα,
Therefore whomever comes and teaches you all these things mentioned before,
   δέξασθε αὐτόν·
   receive him:
ἐὰν δὲ αὐτὸς ὁ διδάσκων στραφεὶς διδάσκῃ ἄλλην διδαχὴν εἰς τὸ καταλῦσαι,
But if the teacher himself turns away and teaches a different teaching to destroy (all these things mentioned before),
   μὴ αὐτοῦ ἀκούσητε·
   do not listen to him.
εἰς δὲ τὸ προσθεῖναι δικαιοσύνην καὶ γνῶσιν κυρίου,
But if (his teaching) is for the increase of righteousness and knowledge of the Lord,
   δέξασθε αὐτὸν ὡς κύριον.
   receive him as the Lord.

Περὶ δὲ τὼν ἀποστόλων καὶ προπητῶν,
Concerning the apostles and prophets,
   κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τοῦ εὐαγγελίου οὕτω ποιήσατε.
   according to the ordinances of the gospel, in this way act.

πᾶς δὲ ἀπόστολος ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ὑμᾶς δεχθήτω ὡς κύριος·
Let every apostle coming to you be received as the Lord.
   οὐ μενεῖ δὲ εἰ μὴ ἡμέραν μίαν·
   Do not let him remain more than one day;
      ἐὰν δὲ ᾖ χρεία, καὶ τὴν ἄλλην·
      and if it is necessary, another.
   τρεῖς δὲ ἐὰν μείνῃ,
   But if he stays three days,
      ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστίν.
      he is a false prophet.

ἐξερχόμενος δὲ ὁ ἀπόστολος μηδὲν λαμβανέτω εἰ μὴ ἄρτον,
When an apostle goes out from you, let him accept nothing but bread
   ἕως οὗ αὐλισθῇ·
   until he finds lodging.
   ἐὰν δὲ ἀργύριον αἰτῇ,
   If he asks for money,
      ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί.
      he is a false prophet.

Καὶ πάντα προφήτην λαλοῦντα ἐν πνεύματι οὐ πειράσετε οὐδὲ διακρινεῖτε·
Any prophet speaking in a spirit do not test or judge;
   πᾶσα γὰρ ἁμαρτία ἀφεθήσεται,
   for every sin shall be forgiven,
      αὕτη δὲ ἡ ἁμαρτία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται.
      but this sin shall not be forgiven.

οὐ πᾶς δὲ ὁ λαλῶν ἐν πνεύματι προφήτης ἐστίν,
But not everyone who speaks in a spirit is a prophet,
   ἀλλ ̓ ἐὰν ἔχῃ τοὺς τρόπους κυρίου.
   but only if he has the manner of the Lord.

ἀπὸ οὖν τῶν τρόπων γνωσθήσεται ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης καὶ ὁ προφήτης.
Therefore one's manner will distinguish the false prophet from the (true) prophet.

καὶ πᾶς προφήτης ὁρίζων τράπεζαν ἐν πνεύματι οὐ φάγεται ἀπ ̓ αὐτῆς,
And every prophet who orders a meal in a spirit will not eat from it,
   εἰ δὲ μήγε ψευδοπροφήτης ἐστί.
   if he does otherwise, he is a false prophet.

πᾶς δὲ προφήτης διδάσκων τὴν ἀλήθειαν,
But every prophet who teaches the truth,
   εἰ ἃ διδάσκει οὐ ποιεῖ,
   if what he teaches he does not do,
   ψευδοπρφήτης ἐστί.
   he is a false prophet.

πᾶς δὲ προφήτης δεδοκιμασμένος,
But every prophet having been tested
   ἀληθινός,
   and found true;
   ποιῶν εἰς μυστήριον κοσμικὸν ἐκκλησίας,
   (who is) making a worldly mystery of the church,
      μὴ διδάσκων δὲ ποιεῖν,
      but not teaching (others) to do
         ὅσα αὐτὸς ποιεῖ,
         what he himself does,
      οὐ κριθήσεται ἐφ ̓ ὑμῶν·
      he shall not be judged by you:
         μετὰ θεοῦ γὰρ ἔχει τὴν κρίσιν·
         For with God he has his judgment;
            ὡσαύτως γὰρ ἐποίησαν καὶ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι προφῆται.
            just as it was with the ancient prophets.

ὃς δ ̓ ἂν εἴπῃ ἐν πνεύματι·
But whomever says in a spirit:
   δός μοι ἀργύρια ἢ ἕτερά τινα,
   "Give me silver or some other thing",
οὐκ ἀκούσεσθε αὐτοῦ·
you shall not listen to him.

ἐὰν δὲ περὶ ἄλλων ὑστερούντων εἴπῃ δοῦναι,
But if concerning others who are in need he says to give (to them),
   μηδεὶς αὐτὸν κρινέτω.
   no one should judge him.

Notes

This section has to do with those who come to the community purporting to have roles of authority (i.e. prophets or apostles). I think that the "apostles" in mind here are more akin to the normal use of the word (those sent from one church to another) and not having to do with the title of apostle claimed by Paul and the eleven original disciples of Jesus. 

There's a large part of me that thinks that "Christian" television networks (ahem: TBN and others) should run this text on the half-hour as a public service announcement, reminding those watching that the ones proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ are to preach Christ, they're not to be asking for stuff for themselves (you know, like "seed money"). Also, the ones proclaiming the gospel are the ones who hold to their own teaching and evidence their own teaching in their day-to-day actions.

The first line is interesting, mentioning "all these things mentioned before". The true teacher is to affirm the teaching of the Didachist; if a teacher brings contrary teaching, he is suspect.

The third verse, "Concerning apostles and prophets ... " is also worthy of (at least) brief discussion. As I read it, it is a preface to the guidelines that follow. The phrase "in this way act" looks forward to the prescriptions in the following text as they deal with apostles and prophets. The "ordinances of the gospel" are not specified though I'd guess they're in line with the general principles established in the following verses.

Also note that in verses 4 and 6, the text starts out specifying "apostles" who have arrived from a church/fellowship/community and who are sent out. These "apostles" (ones sent out) are to be considered "false prophets". It's interesting that they're not to be considered "false apostles" but "false prophets". These are basic guidelines for recieving someone sent by another church, or for those apostles sent out by a particular church as they're traveling.

So, what sorts of actions would lead a believer to consider an apostle or prophet to be a "false prophet"?

• If an 'apostle' remains for more than two days, he is a false prophet.
• If an 'apostle' accepts something besides food while traveling, he is a false prophet.
• If a 'prophet' speaks in a spirit in a manner not "of the Lord", he is false.
• If a 'prophet' requests a meal while in a spirit, and eats of that meal, he is false.
• If the teaching of a 'prophet' does not match his actions, he is false.
• If a 'prophet' requests money or valuables or some other thing for himself, he is false.

What about true apostles or prophets?

• If an apostle stays for a day, perhaps two, he is true.
• If an apostle only accepts food while traveling, he is true.
• If a prophet happens to order a meal while 'with a spirit' and does not eat of it, he is true.

There is a third option; where prophets are not to be judged positively or negatively:

• If an apostle or prophet's teaching jives with the Didachist's, he's in the clear.
• If a prophet says to give to those in need, he is not to be judged.

One major question I have after looking at this chapter has to do with how missionaries and mission organizations present themselves to individual believers and local bodies of believers (churches). I realize the Didache isn't scripture, but these warnings are sensible. How do we evaluate such presentations that, while detailing specific ministries and their impact, are really little but requests for funding? It really makes me think that I should be more aware of how much a given person or organization is about simply proclaiming the Lord, and not how much it is about helping social situations supposedly in the name of the Lord. This requires more thought ...

Next up: Didache 12

Yes, I've been quiet for the past week or so. Here's what I've been reading in that time:

• Clayton N. Jefford's The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament. I blogged about this previously. I finished it up. I had a slight criticism of the first few chapters: Jefford seemed apologetic in making his views known as opinions. I'm pleased to say that the balance of the book didn't exhibit that same degree of apology. Overall the book was good and it provides decent introduction and discussion particularly on the issues of "Christians as Jews" (chapter 5) and "Christians as Citizens" (chapter 6).
• Larry Hurtado, The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal (JBL 117:4, Winter 1998, pp. 655-673). If you're an SBL member, you can get this article through JSTOR. I read this as follow-up to a few footnotes in Hurtado's recent book The Earliest Christian Artifacts (which I've blogged about). Note another JBL article by George Howard: "The Tetragram and the NT" (JBL 96:1 (1977), pp. 63-68) which I have a note to read but haven't read yet. Maybe this afternoon. Again, I'll note: If you are into Biblical studies but not at or near an institution with easy journal access, an SBL membership and its included access to JBL back issues via JSTOR is a wonderful thing. If used frequently, it is worth the annual membership price alone. Same goes for the ETS and its JETS back-issues and annual subscription for members.
• E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection. This was a Christmas gift from my lovely wife (yay!). I've only read the first 100 pages or so, but I've already taken down at least four notes of books or articles to read in follow-up. For me, that's the sign of a good book — I'm stimulated to the degree of interacting with sources. I'll blog about this one more I'm sure.
• Didache 11 because I'm working on translating it. (See main post on my Didache series) This is a longer chapter than most in the Didache, so it's taking longer than usual.
• The Epistle of James because I'm in a home-group Bible study on this epistle. We'll be spending the next 11 weeks looking at it.

That's it for now.

I just received word that a paper I proposed for the 2007 NW Regional ETS Meeting has been accepted for presentation. The meeting is on Feb. 24 at Corban College in Salem, Oregon.

The genesis of this paper has to do with Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. I was reading the chapter that discusses the "plural to singular narrative device" in Mark and was intrigued. Here Bauckham was positing a syntactic structure that could, in certain cases, point back to eyewitness testimony. It got me thinking, and I wondered if the structure occurred outside of Mark. Bauckham allows for that; he himself cites two Lukan instances. I've been playing around with Logos Bible Software's syntax searching to locate other possible instances and work through them. The paper has to do with one of those instances. Here are the details:

From the Mouth of Paul: Acts 18.19-21 as Eyewitness Testimony

Paul's initial journey to Ephesus, mentioned in Acts 18.19-21, has been dismissed in some critical commentaries (e.g. Conzelmann's Hermeneia volume) as a Lucan insertion with no historical basis. Other critical commentaries (e.g. C.K. Barrett's ICC volume) simply dismiss Conzelmann's suggestion without fully refuting it.

A recent book by Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Eerdmans 2006) describes Marcan usage of something he calls the "plural to singular narrative device" (Bauckham 156-157). He defines the device using syntactic terminology: "a plural verb ... without an explicit subject is used to describe the movements of Jesus and his disciples, followed immediately by a singular verb or pronoun referring to Jesus alone" (Bauckham 156-157). Using this device, Bauckham posits Mark's usage of Peter's eyewitness testimony as underlying source for 21 different movements of Jesus (e.g. Mk 1.21).

The structure and context of Acts 18.19 fit within Bauckham's syntactic description. This exploratory paper proposes that Acts 18.19-21 be seen as an instance of the plural-to-singular narrative device, pointing to eyewitness testimony from Paul as basis of the short episode. If this analysis holds, this paper provides substance by which to dismiss the suggestion that the text is a Lucan insertion with no historical basis.

Thus, the paper will be a review of the primary commentaries on the passage; a review of Bauckham's (and, necessarily, C.H. Turner's) description of the device and how it is used, a discussion of using syntax searching to match Bauckham's criteria, and a discussion of how Acts 18.19-21 fit Bauckham's criteria. There are some rough spots, notably that of why Luke would use the device in this portion of Acts when he tends to remove it from shared Marcan material in his gospel.

We'll see what happens.

Since I finished Bauckham, I'm now reading Larry Hurtado's The Earliest Christian Artifacts. Yet another SBL purchase. After this comes either Wayne Kannaday on apologetic influence of scribes or a book on Paul and early letter writing.

I don't know that I'll blog on this one much. The first few chapters look at aggregate counts of Jewish and Christian documents and begin to make preliminary conclusions. The sample sizes (in light of known papyri) seem pretty small to base any conclusions from, but the insights and approach is interesting nonetheless.

Update (2007-01-15): Finished it this afternoon. Overall some things to think about, but nothing earth-shattering. Hurtado's proposals on the origin of the nomina sacra stimulate thought. The section on the staurogram had interesting background but wasn't surprising. If you're into early Christian MSS or even perhaps "Christian Origins" (whatever that really means) then you'll probably want to check this out.