Some of you have no doubt noticed the Amazon.com links on the sidebar and the occasional links to books on Amazon.com in my blog posts over the past few months.

Thanks to those of y'all who have clicked and eventually purchased things from those links, I was able to do a little shopping on Amazon.com today.

What did I get? Well, commissions from those sales helped me out in purchasing:

• Luke Timothy Johnson's Anchor Bible volume on First & Second Timothy (amazon.com)
• Jerome Quinn's Anchor Bible volume on Titus (amazon.com)

Thanks again! Amy and I appreciate your support of my bibliophilia!

[This is part of a series of posts looking at "thorough-going eclecticism" as practiced by J.K. Elliott in his book The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. See the introductory post for more information. --RWB]

NB: In this post, I abbreviate "homoioteleuton" with "hom." (as Elliott does in his book). I've also posted on homoioteleuton before.

The first basic principle Elliott lists is that of hom. In his introduction, he uses 1Ti 5.16 as an example, where a shorter text (πιστος η πιστη) is explained by an instance of hom. from the longer text (ΠΙCΤοςηΠΙCΤη). Elliott writes:

... the scribes eye has passed from the first ΠΙCΤ to the second, and he has omitted the intervening letters. Hom. seems to have been a frequent cause of error in the Pastoral Epistles ...

Elliott provides several examples from the first chapter of First Timothy where hom. may be appealed to to explain a variant and, therefore, argue for the longer text. These instances include:

• 1Ti 1.9: MS 1874, 623, and 1836 omit καὶ μητρολῴαις from πατρολῴαις καὶ μητρολῴαις. This as well can be explained by hom.: παΤΡΟΛΩΑΙCιακμηΤΡΟΛΩΑΙC. After writing the first word, the scribe's eyes skipped to the same ending on the second word, and progressed from there.
• 1Ti 1.10: MS 915 and 917 omit πόρνοις. The word that ends v. 9 has the same ending (ἀνδροφόνοις πόρνοις) , so hom. can be used to explain the omission: ανδροφοΝΟΙCπορΝΟΙC
• 1Ti 1.14: MS 1908 and 489 have καὶ ἀγάπης ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (omitting the article) while NA27 have καὶ ἀγάπης τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Elliott notes that hom. may be a contributing factor to 1908 and 489 omitting τῆς: αγαΠΗCΤΗCεν
• 1Ti 1.17: Uncials S^c D^bc K L P H along with TR (hence KJV) and most minuscules have μονῳ σοφῳ θῳ (only wise God) while UBS/NA have μόνῳ θεῷ (only God). Hom. can explain the longer reading as being shortened; the scribe's eyes wandered from omega to omega: μονΩσοφΩΘΩ. The scribe, I'd guess, would be less likely to omit θῳ; perhaps he could've even missed σοφῳ in his anxiousness to not miss θῳ. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament provides the flip side of the coin:

  After μόνῳ the Textus Receptus inserts σοφῷ, with אc Dc K L P most minuscules syrh goth. The word is no doubt a scribal gloss derived from Ro 16.27; the shorter reading is strongly supported by good representatives of both the Alexandrian and the Western types of text (א* A D* F G H* 33 1739 itd, g vg syrp copsa, bo arm eth arab).
  Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (572). London; New York: United Bible Societies.

  I'd never really considered hom. as responsible for the omission of σοφῷ; I'll have to think about this a little more.

You'll note that one consequence of a thorough-going eclecticism is that of disregarding documentary evidence. Surely one can't tell everything from textual provenance and the general quality of readings in a MS. It is possible for the better MSS to be wrong, and the less trustworthy MSS to be correct. But I'd think the better road is in the middle, not on the edges. Even so, there are some decent real-world examples above where hom. may be at play in the readings. Seeing these examples and working through them helps me know what to look for in the future when considering variants listed in various apparatuses.

Next up: Line omission.

From Tim Bulkeley (SansBlogue) comes news of a new blogging engine called Tumblr. Check out their blog. Tumblr (finally!) recognizes that there are different types of blog posts, and that those posts each have a common sort of form. They focus on some unique thing, but also have a lot of the same overhead. Tim quotes another source that describes Tumblr as:

The neatest thing about tumblelogs is that unlike regular blogging - which confronts you with a large, empty textarea to type your thoughts into - there are 6 distinct types of posts that have their own visual format: a "traditional" blog post, a photo, a quote, a single link, a conversational transcript, and a video.

In my 2005 SBL paper on biblioblogging, one of the things I stressed was that different "types" of posts should have different entry forms with different features that the form supported. So, one post type for 'normal' blog posts, another for bibliography entries, another for link entries ... and so forth. While I won't be using Tumblr because I just don't blog that way, it's great to see a blogging engine start to support different post types.

From the What's New in Papyrology blog comes word of the US release of a very interesting sounding title.

Jean Bingen and Roger Bagnall (eds.). Hellenistic Egypt: Monarchy, Society, Economy, Culture. Selected Essays on Ptolemaic Egypt, with introductions by R.S. Bagnall (amazon.com).

The UK edition is published by Edinburgh University Press. The US edition will be published by University of California Press and is scheduled for a May release. in both hardcover ($65) and paperback ($24.95).

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

Phrasing/Translation

¹ Γρηγορεῖτε ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν·
Watch on behalf of your life:
   οἱ λύχνοι ὑμῶν μὴ σβεσθήτωσαν,
   that your lamps are not extinguished,
   καὶ αἱ ὀσφύες ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκλυέσθωσαν,
   and that your loins are not ungirded,
      ἀλλὰ γίνεσθε ἕτοιμοι·
      but be ready:
         οὐ γὰρ οἴδατε τὴν ὥραν,
         for you do not know the hour,
            ἐν ᾗ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἔρχεται.
            in which our Lord comes.

² πυκνῶς δὲ συναχθήσεσθε
Frequently be gathered together
   ζητοῦντες τὰ ἀνήκοντα ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν·
   seeking what your souls need:
      οὐ γὰρ ὠφελήσει ὑμᾶς
      For [it is] of no benefit to you,
         ὁ πᾶς χρόνος τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν,
         the full time of your faith,
         ἐὰν μὴ
         unless
            ἐν τῷ ἐσχάτῳ καιρῷ
            at the last time
         τελειωθῆτε.
         you are found complete.

³ ἐν γὰρ ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις
For in the last days
   πληθυνθήσονται
   shall be multiplied
      οἱ ψευδοπροφῆται
      false prophets
      καὶ οἱ φθορεῖς,
      and corrupters;
   καὶ στραφήσονται τὰ πρόβατα εἰς λύκους,
   and the sheep will be turned into wolves,
   και ἡ ἀγάπη στραφήσεται εἰς μῖσος.
   and love will be turned into hate.

   ⁴ αὐξανούσης γὰρ τῆς ἀνομίας
   For as lawlessness increases
μισήσουσιν ἀλλήλους
they hate one another
   καὶ διώξουσι καὶ παραδώσουσι.
   and they will persecute and betray.

καὶ τότε φανήσεται ὁ κοσμοπλανὴς ὡς υἱὸς θεοῦ,
And then the deceiver of the world shall appear as the son of God,
   καὶ ποιήσει σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα,
   and he shall make signs and wonders,
   καὶ ἡ γῆ παραδοθήσεται εἰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ,
   and the earth will be betrayed into his hands,
   καὶ ποιήσει ἀθέμιτα,
   and he shall do incessantly vile things
      ἃ οὐδέποτε γέγονεν ἐξ αἰῶνος.
      which never before have been since time began.

⁵ τότε ἥξει ἡ κτίσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων
Then the creation of mankind shall come
   εἰς τὴν πύρωσιν τῆς δοκιμασίας,
   into the burning ordeal of testing,
   καὶ σκανδαλισθήσονται πολλοὶ καὶ ἀπολοῦνται,
   And many will be led astray and destroyed,
      οἱ δὲ ὑπομείναντες
      but the ones persisting
         ἐν τῇ πίστει αὐτῶν
         in their faith
         σωθήσονται
         will be saved
            ὑπ ̓ αὐτου τοῦ καταθέματος.
            by the accursed one himself.
            [that is, Christ—the one cursed by those led astray. RWB]

⁶ καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὰ σημεῖα τῆς ἀληθείας·
And then the signs of the truth shall appear:
   πρῶτον σημεῖον
   Firstly a sign,
      ἐκπετάσεως ἐν οὐρανῷ,
      the opening of heaven,
   εἶτα σημεῖον
   the next sign,
      φωνῆς σάλπιγγος,
      the call of a trumpet,
   καὶ τὸ τρίτον
   and the third (sign),
      ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν.
      resurrection of the dead.

⁷ οὐ πάντων δέ,
Not all (of the dead),
   ἀλλ ̓ ὡς ἐρρέθη·
   but as was said:
      Ἥξει ὁ κύριος
      "The Lord shall come
         καὶ πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι μετ ̓ αὐτοῦ.
         and all of the holy ones (shall come) with him".

⁸ τότε ὄψεται ὁ κόσμος τὸν κύριον ἐρχόμενον ἐπάνω τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.
Then the world will see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

Notes

There are several probable NT parallels in this text, particularly with Matthew 24. I won't rehearse all of those here, that's been done elsewhere. See Alan Garrow's Gospel of Matthew's Dependence on the Didache (amazon.com) and the companion book web site; see also Stephen C. Carlson's review of Garrow here and some notes from Mark Goodacre here. I think Garrow claims too much, but that the Didache contains some material also found in Matthew seems plainly evident.

What I will do, however, is look at this section in its larger context. The Didache warned about the way of life and the way of death, commending the way of life. The practice of a believer was set out; things like baptism, eucharist, prayer, hospitality to travelers and prophets and teachers, and leadership of the community have been discussed. After all personal and corporate issues of belief and practice have been highlighted, the Didache ends by looking forward to the days to come.

What will these days consist of? It's not a pretty picture. Things will get worse before they get better.

The most interesting thing I noticed, however, was the parallel between v. 4b and v. 6, with 5 in the midst of that. 4b has "the deceiver of the world" appearing as "the son of God". Verse 6 has "the signs of truth" appearing, with verse 5 summing up what will happen in between those two times. The same verb (which I've translated "appear") is used in both v. 4b and v. 6, which provides the parallel relationship between them.

The Didache ends with hope. As I wrote above, things will get worse before they get better. For the believers, though, things get better. Signs of the impending arrival of the Lord are made evident. A trumpet sounds and the dead (those of the Lord's) are raised. The Lord returns! (marana tha!) And all the world will see it.

Closing Note

Thanks to all who have suffered through these sporadic posts. At some point (hopefully sooner than later) I'll gather all of my translations, perhaps work over them a bit, and put up a version of the whole thing. That'll likely be in a PDF for easy download and printing without worrying about fonts and such. I'll blog when that's ready. Until then, the complete outline is in the series introductory post, so you can work through that if you'd like.

What's next? Well, I'll be delving into a bit of textual criticism. But I also have a hankerin' to eventually get into Second Clement (the first chapter of which I translated awhile back, and I briefly discussed third and fourth chapters here). So we'll see what happens.

Yes, I'm still Jesus-tombed-out, but I have to pass this along.

I just received the following email from my friend and colleague Michael S. Heiser in regards to the so-called "Jesus Family Tomb". This is a direct response to the assertion that the statistical grouping of the names found on ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb is very significant and indeed likely wholly unique.

One standard response to Jacobovici/Pellegrino/et. al. has been that the names are common, and the grouping likely isn't therefore unique. What would happen to Jacobovici & Pellegrino's allegation if another tomb with that grouping of names was found?

Read on:

Dear Professors and other Bloggers

I’d like to report something of potentially great interest with respect to assessing the Jesus tomb theory offered by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino (and, by extension, James Tabor).

Many scholars have demonstrated the glaring weaknesses of this theory with respect to the inscriptions, the names themselves, the shaky logic, etc.  And despite the clear, coherent response to the statistical framework and analysis offered by my friend Randy Ingermanson, the public continues to be bludgeoned with the “improbability” of it all. Well, it appears that having the names of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Matthew, and Martha (“Mara”) on ossuaries at one location isn’t as improbable as Jacobovici, Pellegrino, and Tabor would have the world believe.

I want to draw your attention—and the attention of scholars and interested parties who read your blog — to a SECOND site that has all those names. In 1953-1955, Bellarmino Bagatti excavated the site of Dominus Flevit (“The Lord wept”) on the Mount of Olives. The excavation uncovered a necropolis and over 40 inscribed ossuaries — including the names of Mary, Martha, Matthew, Joseph, Jesus. These ossuaries are not, as far as I can tell, in Rahmani’s catalogue. I’m guessing the reason is that they are not the property of the Israel Antiquities Authority (see Rahmani’s Preface). The necropolis was apparently used ca. 136 BC to 300 AD. Here is a link that discusses the site. A few scanned pages of Bagatti’s excavation report (written in Italian) can be found here as well.

I’ll be tracking down this report (and perhaps buying an Italian dictionary). I found this information last night (actually 2:00am) while working on my portion of a lengthy response to the Jesus tomb theory (to be co-authored with Randy Ingermanson). I didn’t want to wait until that was done to alert scholars to this so we can collectively look at this data. It appears that the statistical odds touted in such assured terms have taken a sound beating — fifty years ago.

One more really intriguing thing about the Dominus Flevit site is that it is referenced by Jacobovici with respect to his argument about the cross symbol’s antiquity, and Bagatti’s book is in his bibliography. And yet he and Charlie Pellegrino somehow overlooked the fact that ossuaries were found at that site with all the names accounted for. One can only guess whether the omission was due to careless scholarship or an effort to deceive the public.

Mike Heiser, PhD
Academic Editor, Logos Bible Software

Mike's web page is MichaelSHeiser.com; he has some further links on the Talpiot tomb hullabaloo as well.

I've recently been able to finally examine J.K. Elliott's The Greek Text of the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (vol. 36 in the Studies and Documents series published by the University of Utah Press, published in 1968). It is out of print and tough to come by. I'd link to Amazon, but there's only a stub there that says it isn't available. LibraryThing has no listing either. If you're interested in this book, get thee to a theological library!

In the volume, which forms some portion of Elliott's doctoral dissertation from Oxford, Elliott argues against Westcott & Hort's geneaological methodology. Here's what he has to say about the geneaological method:

But it is not only the disintegration of the theory of local text types which has made W. and H.'s (and Streeter's) genealogical method impractical. Mixture makes it impossible to confine a text to a certain geographical area or text grouping. Similarly, a full genealogical plan cannot be constructed to work back to an archetype. The genealogical method is possible in only a restricted way, such as in the building up of family 1, family 13, and family pi. F.H. Tinnefeld works back from D E F G to an archetype.  But such a genealogical method is limited, and even in these family groups, variants, corruption and conflate readings occur. They have to be explained, and as a result the term 'family' can be applied only in a loose way. (Elliott, 3-4).

This volume presents Elliott's application of "thoroughgoing eclecticism" to the Pastoral Epistles. The introduction necessarily defines this methodology, and does so rather succinctly. He derives five primary "principles for use in a thoroughgoing eclectic study of the N.T. text" (Elliott, 6). These are:

• Homoioteleuton and line-omission
• Author's style and usage
• Atticism
• Deliberate alterations
  • Theological or liturgical alterations
  • Grammatical and linguistic alterations
  • Assimilation or harmonization of parallel passages
• Accidental errors

Notably absent in Elliott's principles are any mention as to manuscript quality or provenance. That is, no given MS is preferred over another. Indeed, Elliott takes some readings that by documentary evidence alone are incredibly weak—but Elliott's criteria render more appealing. What his methodology ends up requiring is thinking about each variant from a number of angles, doing research on variants, and—ultimately—really getting to know the text. It speaks volumes against the "cult of the best MS" (Elliott, 4):

The increase of Biblical and textual studies since the time of W. and H. has done much to dispel the 'cult of the best ms.' Some critics still try to clutch at the remnants of W. and H.'s methods. But, with the distrust of the superiority of any given ms. or text type, with the disintegration of closely-knit family units, and with the recognition that the genealogical method is impractical, it is difficult to justify the use of these methods. A more rational system of textual criticism is obviously necessary to replace the old, and it is possible using new knowledge. For example, there is much greater knowledge of Koine Greek due to papyrological studies, more grammars of N.T. Greek are available, the readings of fathers, versions and papyri are accessible. Past methods have been disproved, new knowledge is available: the way is clear for an eclectic study of the N.T. text. (Elliott, 4)

How easy is it for us to say, "yeah, that reading is in B and aleph, so it's gotta be the best"? Pretty easy. How easy is it to actually look at the variants and consider if some form Elliott's principles may have happened? That requires thought, it requires familiarity with the language and the manuscripts, it requires familiarity with syntax and grammar, it requires familiarity with author style. It requires a whole lot more than simply looking to see which MS are earliest and from a provenance we happen to like.

In a series of posts, I hope to go over these main principles of Elliott's methodology, provide examples from his work in the Pastorals, and discuss them just a bit. At least, that's what I hope to do. My intent is simply to sharpen my own understanding of textual criticism and specifically to see what I think of Elliott's methodology as applied here. We'll see if it actually happens.

Lastly, if I may be so bold, another angle that an eclectic methodology may profit from is an examination of prominence and word order along the lines of Stephen Levinsohn (amazon.com). A colleague of mine is doing some really fascinating work in this area, and Jenny Read-Hiemerdinger has done some good work (in JSNTSup volumes here (amazon.com) and here (amazon.com)) in applying this perspective to textual criticism; specifically in examining readings in Acts of codex Bezae. Fun stuff.

Update I (2007-03-24): The series has begun.

• Update II (2007-03-24): Thorough-going Eclecticism Part I: Homoioteleuton
• Update III (2007-04-18): Thorough-going Eclecticism Part II: Line Omission

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)