So there I was last week Thursday, minding my own business, driving in my car listening to the radio. A commercial was on for some sort of local home supply place (think fixtures). The advertisment spoke of the company's "captivating showroom", conveying that it was spacious, beautiful, and attention-getting.

I have no idea why my mind works like this. I really don't. But the first thing I thought of was "What would happen if we did a 'word study' on the English word captivating using techniques commonly used in so-called 'Greek Word Studies'?" That is, let's assume we don't know English but we want to come to understand what this word "captivating" means.

First, we'd likely attempt to look up the root word. We'd probably guess 'captive' was the root word. So here it is from Merriam-Webster: captive:

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin captivus, from captus, past participle of capere
1 a : taken and held as or as if a prisoner of war b (1) : kept within bounds : CONFINED (2) : of or relating to captive animals <captive breeding>
2 : held under control of another but having the appearance of independence; especially : owned or controlled by another concern and operated for its needs rather than for an open market <a captive mine>
3 : being such involuntarily because of a situation that makes free choice or departure difficult <the airline passengers were a captive audience>
- captive noun

There are three senses listed; but since this is a 'word study' we probably wouldn't worry about any particular sense, we would likely establish the wideness of the meaning of the word, noting that it has to do with being held involuntarily or outside of our own control -- to be prisoner against our will.

Then we'd have to import that 'root' meaning back into the original context, and note that the showroom in question must keep us there against our will. It sucks us in against all of our better judgment and holds us for an indeterminate period, unwillingly, and we are unable to escape from it's enclosing grasp.

Now, to be fair, "captivating" has some sense of being held. But "captivating" has to do with being held by astoundment, wonder and awe; not of being held forcibly like a prisoner. We know that because we speak the language. But if we didn't, then we wouldn't know that — we'd only have posited that 'captive' is the root on which the word is based. If we do a 'word study' to determine the 'original meaning', we could end up far afield from where we started.

And that, in a nutshell, is the main problem with word studies. If one is intending to learn more about the scope of meaning (semantic range) of a term, that's fine. But importing that whole range back into one specific instance and its context is wrong.

That's why word studies, when attempting to understand a particular instance of a word in a particular context, need to start with that context. One can't just find some other instance of the word, one needs to locate instances of the word in similar contexts. The immediate context must also be examined to see if there are contextual cues for determining the meaning of the word itself.

To go back to our example, if the ad copy for the 'captivating showroom' further noted things like "spacious displays", "gorgeous fixtures" and "beautiful floor models" then we might have a better idea of what we'd be 'captivated' by — all without looking up anything, root form or otherwise.

So, to sum up:

• Semantic range may include a specific instance's meaning, but by no means is equivalent with a specific instance's meaning.
• Context is very important.
• "Word Studies" that focus on meaning of root words can be misleading.

Please note that I have no problem with word studies per se; I'm even working through the Pastoral Epistles looking at words in context to determine specific usage. I do, however, have problems when they're done sloppily.

(OK, I'm off of my soapbox now)

So there I was in the doctor's office this morning, reading through Ehrman's edition of Papias and Quadratus (amazon.com), which is volume 2 in the set.

Anybody else notice a skip from p. 108 to p. 111? The pages in my edition are in the following order:

• 108: Latin/Greek of Papias frag. 5 (end) through 8 (start)
• 111: English of Papias frag 8 (end) through 10
• 112: Greek of Papias frag 11 through 12
• 111: English of Papias frag 8 (end) through 10
• 112: Greek of Papias frag 11 through 12
• 113: English of Papias frag 11 through 12

In other words, the bold pages are repeated and pages 109-110 are missing. 109 would have the English of Papis 5 (end) through 8 (start), 110 would have the Greek of Papias 8 (end) through 10.

Does anyone else with this print edition have this problem? If not, could you provide the missing Greek and English to me, either via scanned image or typing it in or whatever? I'd appreciate it.

Update (2007-03-07): Kudos to ricoblog reader Damian who confirmed that his print of Ehrman vol. 2 has the same issue and also provided me with images of the proper pages. Thanks, Damian! In the meantime, I've contacted Harvard University Press regarding the misprint and am awaiting their response. If/when they respond, I'll update this thread.

Then one site to check is fsi-language-courses.com. These are US Foreign Services courses in the public domain. Many have student books (PDF facsimile) and audio. Here's what the site intro says:

Welcome to fsi-language-courses.com, the home for language courses developed by the Foreign Service Institute. These courses were developed by the United States government and are in the public domain.

This site is dedicated to making these language courses freely available in an electronic format. This site is not affiliated in any way with any government entity; it is an independent effort to foster the learning of worldwide languages. Courses here are made available through the private efforts of individuals who are donating their time and resources to help others.

So, grab your glottal stops and head over to try to learn Arabic, or perhaps some German, or perhaps fool around with some modern Greek.

If you've been following the Jesus Tomb saga, then you may want to read an alternate take on the statistics (and interpretation thereof) by Randy Ingermanson, who has his Ph.D. in Physics from UC Berkeley. Here's a snip from the intro of the rather long article:

In this article, I'll focus on the statistical analysis described in the book The Jesus Family Tomb. There, the authors explain why they believe that the odds are 600 to 1 that the tomb they found contained the bone-boxes of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary, his "wife" Mary Magdalene, his "son" Judah, his brother Joseph, and one other person named Matthew who might be either a disciple or a family member. The book describes a "Jesus Equation" that defines this probability.

I believe that the statistical calculations need to be done differently. I am not here to cast aspersions on Mr. Jacobovici or Mr. Pellegrino or the statistician they asked to do their calculations, Dr. Andrey Feuerverger. Name-calling solves nothing. What I want to do is to redo the calculation in a way that I believe answers the fundamental question more accurately.

And what is the fundamental question? That's very important. In science, getting the right answer is a whole lot easier when you start with the right question. Years ago, when I wrote my book on the alleged Bible code, I found time after time in which the Bible coders had asked the wrong question and then answered it correctly. They concluded that they had found powerful evidence that God encoded secret messages in the Bible. But I believe they were wrong, because they asked the wrong question.

Me? I'm Jesus-Tombed-out.

Here's some of the happenings in the Design & Editorial department at Logos. This is the department I work in, and Sean & Steve are great additions. We're all having fun working on getting more tools in y'all's hands!

I just read with interest Chris Wiemer's post on the Jesus Tomb stuff. One thing he mentioned concerned the Acts of Philip:

[The filmmakers] spent more time dealing with Mariamene, which they assumed could be contracted into Mariamne. They then apparently made the connection to Mary Magdalene, since in the Acts of Philip, Philip has a sister named Mariamne, and apparently (since I don’t think the Acts have yet been translated into English, at least according to Harvard Magazine and Harvard University Gazette) this Mariamne is Mary Magdalene. However, the connection itself isn’t solid-proof. Instead the discoverer of the manuscript, François Bovon, doesn’t claim, as far as I can tell from sources, that this is definitely Mary Magdalene, but that only it is possible for her to be identified with Mary Magdalene. Not having the text in my hand, I cannot say one way or another.

Now I'm curious. Everyone says that the name is found in the Acts of Philip, but nobody discusses the character of that text, its contents, or anything about it—as if the simple existence of the name in the text is all that matters and the nature, character and contents of the text means nothing.

I'd figured there was a text and transcription readily available. But after reading Chris' post, I guess it isn't. [Update: The translation is found in M.R. James' NT Apocrypha (amazon.com) and is available online. h/t Danny Zacharias, but see below for more] So I checked my copy of Schneemelcher's NT Apocrypha, vol. 2 (amazon.com) (here's vol. 1 (amazon.com) if you're interested). There are a few pages on contents (vol 2. pp. 468-473, sect. 12.1 Acta Philippi), but no translation. And the description is of a text in shambles. Some interesting excerpts below:

... we may conclude with a high degree of probability that the version of the Acta Philippi which has come down to us originated in encratite circles in Asia Minor somewhere about the middle of the 4th century. Since this version is however an artificial conglomeration of very diverse and sometimes contradictory material, the question of the authorship and origin of individual parts remains open. (p. 469)

So, in other words, folks think the text was composed/assembled in the middle of the 4th century ... 300+ years after Jesus' death and resurrection. No connection with Mary Magdalene is discussed. However, the next paragraph continues:

The report included at the beginning of the eighth act, about the division of the world among the apostles and the sending of Philip together with Bartholomew and Mariamne to the 'city of the serpent' forms a clear brak after the preceding first seven acts, and signals the beginning of the 'Acta Philippi in Heirapolis' with the appended martyrdom (cc. 94-148: Aa II/2, 36-90). This part is without doubt the most important—in terms of volume also—and oldest section of the Acta Philippi, and is conspicuous both for its stylistic unity and also for its depth of thought—in contrast to the episodes of the first seven acts, which are often intermixed without continuity, full of adventures and poor in ideas. (p. 469).

If Philip is in Heirapolis, then we're dealing with Philip the apostle, right? The one Papias mentions (see here, sect. IV)? So what is the connection of Mary Magdalene with Philip the apostle? None that I am aware of. Here's more on Mariamne in in Acts of Philip:

The fact that not all of the elements of this old tradition found their way into the 'Acta philippi in Heriapolis'—e.g. there is not a word about Philip's daughters, and instead the apostle is given his 'sister' Mariamne as a companion—and that (against this tradition) a martyrdom embellished with rich symbolism and profound trains of through was already added signals the relationship of our present Acts to the five older Acts of the Manichean corpus, although we cannot always demonstrate a direct dependence upon them. (p. 470).

There's more, this on parallels with other apocryphal literature:

Moreover, from act 8 of our present Πράξεις 'Mariamne', who is assigned to the apostle as sister and companion, plays a role similar to that to Thecla at the side of Paul..

The dialogue between Mariamne and Nicanora, in which the two women are described as 'twin sisters, daughters of the same mother' (c. 115, Aa II/2, 45.15-46.13) could, in A. Orbe's opinion contain an esoteric interpreatation fo the Heilgeschichte according tot he Valentinian myth with clear analogies to the Acts of Thomas. (p. 470)

So, some see parallels of Philip & Mariamne to Paul & Thecla. And there's also this bit about Mariamne's twin sister.(?) I'm unaware of Mary Madgalene having a twin sister, or of her being sister to the apostle Philip. There's nothing in Schneemelcher at all about Mary Magdalene even being potentially associated with the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip.

Another book I have to hand that discusses the Acts of Philip is Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature (amazon.com) by Moreschini and Norelli. Their treatment is much less detailed than that inside of the Schneemelcher volumes. However, they do say this:

The section comprising 8-15 and the martyrdom brings Philip the apostle on the scene again. He, along with his sister Maryanne and Bartholemew, is a missionary in the city of Ofiorime, which the manuscripts identify with Hierapolis in Phrygia. (vol 2, p 222)

Here, the name translated "Maryanne" has to be that of Mariamne. Again, no comparison of any sort with Mary Magdalene. Magdalene isn't mentioned at all. Heck, "Mary" isn't even mentioned.

So, how do the filmmakers make the connection? If their methodology is sound, then perhaps we can conclude today that this "Maryanne" foreshadows the "Maryanne" of Gilligan's Island? The logic is the same—find a matching name and go with it. You heard it here first, folks.

I can only imagine what the Discovery Channel will drag out next Easter ...

Update (2007-03-07): Chris Weimer (Thoughts on Antiquity) writes in a comment regarding versions of the Acts of Philip:

The Acts of Philip you found online were an older, fragmentary version. François Bovon found a complete manuscript just a couple of years ago, and that version has not been translated yet. You were looking at a translation from 1924, well before the discovery.

I knew M.R. James was from 1924, and I figured based on references to Bovon in both Schneemelcher and Moreschini & Norelli that there was a new MS find. I was about to write an update, and then Chris commented clearing everyting up. Thanks, Chris, for putting the dots together for us!

Update (2007-03-13): Stephen Pfann weighs in with a full re-examination of the so-called Mary Magdalene ossuary. His conclusion: No dice. Check out his paper Mary Magdalene is Now Missing: A Corrected Reading of Rahmani Ossuary 701.

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

Phrasing/Translation

¹ Χειροτονήσατε οὖν ἑαυτοῖς
Appoint for yourselves, therefore,
   ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους
   overseers and deacons
      ἀξίους τοῦ κυρίου,
      holy of the Lord,
   ἄνδρας
   men (who are)
      πραεῖς
      gentle
      καὶ ἀφιλαργύρους
      and not lovers of money
      καὶ ἀληθεῖς
      and truthful
      καὶ δεδοκιμασμένους·
      and well-proven:
         ὑμῖν γὰρ λειτουργοῦσι καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν λειτουργίαν τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων.
         for to you they themselves also minister the ministry of prophets and teachers.

² μὴ οὖν ὐπερίδητε αὐτούς·
Therefore you must not disregard them:
   αὐτοὶ γὰρ εἰσιν οἱ τετιμημένοι ὑμῶν
   for they are your honorable ones,
      μετὰ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ διδασκάλων.
      along with the prophets and teachers.

³ Ἐλέγχετε δὲ ἀλλήλους
Correct one another
   μὴ ἐν ὀργῇ,
   not in anger,
      ἀλλ ̓ ἐν εἰρήνῃ
      but in peace
ὡς ἔχετε
as you find
   ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ·
   in the gospel:
      καὶ παντὶ ἀστοχοῦντι
      and anyone who has done wrong
         κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου
         against another
      μηδεὶς λαλείτω
      shall not be spoken to
         μηδὲ παρ ̓ ὑμῶν ἀκουέτω,
         nor shall he hear from you
            ἕως οὗ μετανοήσῃ.
            until he repents.

   ⁴ τὰς δὲ εὐχὰς ὑμῶν
   But your prayers,
   καὶ τὰς ἐλεημοσύνας
   and your charity,
   καὶ πάσας τὰς πράξεις
   and all your observance
οὕτω ποιήσατε,
in this way do:
   ὡς ἔχετε
   as you find
      ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν.
      in the gospel of our Lord.

Notes

The beginning of the chapter transitions with a "therefore". Didache 14 is about keeping pure, Didache 15 transitions into leadership and other community guidelines. Thus I can only reason that proper leadership (overseers and deacons) combined with proper teaching (prophets and teachers), proper relationship (respond in peace, not anger), and proper practice (say prayers, give alms, etc.) all combine to ensure that the Eucharist is properly kept.

The problematic portion here, for me, is verse 3 which deals with the unrepentant one: He is to not hear from anyone until he repents. But that is prefaced with correcting in peace and not anger, as is "found in the gospel". The reference to the gospel, I'd think, must relate to Mt 18.15-20—particularly given the commonality of Matthew's gospel referenced in the Didache. So one has first approached the brother, then a group of two or three has approached him, then he has been put before the church. After this, then, the unrepentant brother is to be "as a Gentile and tax collector" (Mt 18.17). So I don't think it is as harsh as it seems once we plug in what the gospel says.

Next up: Didache 16. That's the last chapter!

The blogging engine I use (dasBlog) isn't that popular, so I haven't had many problems with comment spam. However, I awoke this morning to comment spam of an unsavory sort on one of my entries. It has been deleted, but it also has spurred me to enable comment approval.

So, when you make a comment, now I'll be emailed, and I have to actually approve it before it gets posted on the site. Apologies for that, but that's how it's gotta be.

Blasted spammers. We need to pray for their souls.