Two years ago today, I asked Amy to marry me. It was the smartest, wisest and without-a-doubt the best thing I've ever done.

The good Lord saw fit to bring us together; surely I've had the most benefit.

I love you, Amy. More today than yesterday.

This one excerpt all at once shows my love-hate relationship with both the genitive and with Charles Ellicott's commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (amazon.com). Here he discusses επαγγελιαν .. ζωης in 1Ti 4.8:

'promise of life.' The genitival relation is not perfectly clear. If it be the gen. of identity or apposition (comp. Scheuerl. Synt. § 12.1, p. 82), ζωη, the import or rather object of the promise, would seem at first sight to involve two applications, quantitative ('long life,' Eph. 4.3, De W.) when in connexion with της νυν, qualitative ('holy, blessed life') when in connexion with της μελλουσης. If again it be the gen. of reference to (Huth., comp. Alf.), or the point of view (Scheuerl. Synt. § 18. 1, p. 129 sq.), ζωη retains its general meaning ('vital existence,' etc.), but επαγγελια becomes indefinite, and moreover is in a connexion with its dependent genitive not supported by any other passage in the NT. This last objection is so grave that it seems preferable to adopt the first form of gen., but in both members to give ζωη its higher and more definitely scriptural sense, and to regarded it as involving the idea, not of mere length, or of mere material blessings (contrast Mark 10.30, μετα διωγμων), but of spiritual happiness (ευδαιμονια, Coray) and holiness; in a word, as expressing 'the highest blessedness of the creature:' see Trench, Synon. § 27, whose philology however, in connecting ζωη with αω, is here doubtful; it is rather connected with Lat. 'vivere' (Sanscr. jîv); see esp. Pott, Etym. Forsch. Vol 1. p. 265, Donalds. Cratyl. § 112, Benfey, Wurzellex. vol. 1. p. 684. There is a good treatise on ζωη in Olsh. Opusc. p. 187 sq. (Ellicott, 61)

First, on genitives. Does anyone seriously treat genitives like this with regularity? Is anyone consumed with classifying genitives (let alone datives, accusatives and nominatives)? Does one really need to label it in order to think about what it does in the passage; to the point of letting the label determine what the genitive can and cannot do in the phrase in question? I don't. And I can't imagine myself attaining command of the nearly 100 types of genitives that Wallace alone isolates and identifies. Why doesn't one simply just look at what the genitive does in a case without feeling a need to put it in a box?

Second, on Ellicott. Can you see why I love him and hate him, all at the same time? The references are great, the discussion makes you think. But it's tough to read. His conclusion is that " ... it seems preferable to adopt the first form of gen." (what's the 'first form' again?) and then gives it his own little twist. That's the frustrating part—why go to the problem of classifying it if your classification is going to be unique? Why not just discuss the function the thing?? On the plus side, you see all sorts of references (to grammars and syntaxes, to commentators, and to other references); this one doesn't even begin to list classical references like many of his other comments do. But it's a pain to wade through.

Long-time ricoblog readers know that I have a more-than-passing interest in stylometry and stylistic studies, particularly in the realm of authorship attribution.

I'm also reading a lot about the Fathers of the Church (via Drobner). And for the Church Fathers for whom we have much information and transmitted writings, there always seems to be mention of documents that had been attributed to a Father at one point in time that have since been proven/posited to not be from that Father.

So, the question: Does anyone have any references to stylometric studies of particular Greek church fathers?

There has been much ink spilt on the question of authorship attribution of New Testament epistles; but has anyone ever taken those same theories and applied them to the much larger corpora of some of the Greek fathers? My primary contention is that the NT is too small for the sorts of authorship studies folks do (vocabulary? bah, gimme a million word corpus from an author and maybe we can do something). In other words, I'd be interested in reading through if anyone has ever done for Chrysostom what P.N. Harrison did to the Pastorals in his 1922 tome The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, and what sorts of results they came up with.

Any help?

I've been taking a bit of a holiday. Logos (my employer) has a program for long-term employees that allows one month of a 'sabbatical' for every 10 years worked; this is in addition to any normal vacation/holiday time. They allow us to split it into two two-week portions. I'm taking my second two-week portion.

So I've been spending some time reading and writing, among other things. One book I've been camping in is Drobner's The Fathers of the Church (amazon.com). I have to say that overall, it is awesome.

Why is it awesome? Here are the two biggies, from my perspective:

1. Information but no overload. Drobner surveys the fathers roughly chronologically (I'm in the mid-400's right now). He has enough information about the person, his history, and stance on important issues (homoousia or homoiousia? Nicene? Condemned as heretic?) without getting into too many details. Additionally, there are further sections for most fathers detailing particular writings (e.g., "Exegetical Writings") or particular works if certain works are noteworthy.

2. Bibliographies, Bibliographies, Bibliographies. I can't say enough about the bibliographies. In the "Editions" bibliographies, where appropriate, there are volume/page citations to Migne's Patrologia Graeca, which you can now get to online. In the "Translations" bibliographies, there are series/volume/page citations to Schaff's Early Church Fathers (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Nicene/Post-Nicene Fathers Series 1, Nicene/Post-Nicene Fathers Series 2) all of which are online as well.

What else have I been doing with my time? I've also been reading (in smaller chunks than Drobner) Dooley & Levinson's Analyzing Discourse (amazon.com). I've read through the book before, but much of it bounced off of my frontal lobe and dissipated into the air around me. This time through, parts are actually sticking. This is a short book, intended to be introductory but it still has some lingo problems (seems as if every linguist in the world, even when trying to write in an introductory style, still uses terms and lingo that are unfamiliar to non-linguists). There are interesting concepts in the book, many of which can be applied to reading and analyzing the text of the Bible. It's been good to re-read the material; I'm looking forward to the section on participant reference as that is an area I've been thinking about recently.

This morning, minding my own business, I was surfin' the internet. On abcnews.com, I saw an interesting story: Story of Jesus Through Iranian Eyes. Here's the lede:

A new movie in Iran depicts the life of Jesus from an Islamic perspective. "The Messiah," which some consider as Iran's answer to Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," won an award at Rome's Religion Today Film Festival, for generating interfaith dialogue.

The article is an interview with the filmmaker. In the interview, the filmmaker mentions the Gospel of Barnabas several times as source material, as containing information that is confirmed in the Koran. Here's a quote from the filmmaker about the ending of the movie:

I thought, the Christians, when they see it, it'll be important for them. [In the Koran] God says, emphatically, he was not crucified. Somebody was crucified in his stead. In the Gospel of Barnabas, there are explications of this. The majority of [Muslims] say the one who betrayed Jesus [was crucified]. (abcnews.com)

I knew of the Gospel of Barnabas but have not read it, so I headed to Schneemelcher's NT Apocrypha. I've read the first volume, but Barnabas didn't ring a bell. And I couldn't find it in the table of contents. After searching the index in vol 2, I found this on vol 1 p. 85:

The Gospel of Barnabas, handed down in Italian and Spanish. It was already known in the 18th century (Tolland), but has received more detailed attention only in recent times. This gospel is a work of the 16th century, and evidently belongs in the area of the history of the Moriscoes. It is very doubtful that older material (of Jewish Christian origin) is included in it.
...
These two texts [the other text is the Arabic Gospel of John] are examples of the production of works which are indeed escribed as gospels and which are also interesting sources for the period of their origin, but do not belong in a collection of early Church apocrypha. (Schneemelcher, trans. R.Mcl.Wilson, vol 1 p. 85)

This is very interesting, because the filmmaker relied on the Gospel of Barnabas heavily. What the filmmaker says almost has an Ehrmanian vibe to it (but I won't go there ... ):

If you listen to what Jesus said, Jesus talked about the Prophet Mohammad, many, many times. And it was eliminated in the Gospels and the Bibles that [made it through] history. In 325, the Council of Nice was out to destroy all the other Gospels. One of those Gospels was the Gospel of Barnabas, which I used in great detail. (abcnews.com)

This charge (that Nicea eliminated a Gospel of Barnabas from the canon) is dealt with nicely in an article, from Vox Evangelica, by F.P. Cotterell, on the contents of the Gospel of Barnabas (with thanks to Rob Bradshaw for putting this stuff online so it's available at times like these).

What I do next will most likely turn Jim West's insides green. I'm linking to the Wikipedia article on the Gospel of Barnabas because it's actually good. If you want to be familiar with the issues, you should at least skim it -- particularly if you're a pastor and want to be prepared for when this question comes up. (Hey, it's getting close to easter, all of the whacko stories will be in the news shortly). If you're only going to read one of those links, read Cotterell's article. It's worth it, particularly if you think folks will ask you questions about this sort of thing over the next week.

Bottom line: It appears as if the filmmaker got it backwards. Read the F.P. Cotterell article for the details.

Ok, so in all likelihood Clement didn't have anything to do with Second Clement. But I needed a headline to get your attention.

Here's another dose of the preacher delivering the homily we know as Second Clement. This is from chapter 13:

For when the pagans hear from our mouths the oracles of God, they marvel at their beauty and greatness. But when they discover that our actions are not worthy of the words we speak, they turn from they turn from wonder to blasphemy, saying that it is a myth and a delusion. For when they hear form us that God says, "It is no credit to you if you love those who love you, but it is a credit to you if you love your enemies and those who hate you," when they hear these things, the marvel at such extraordinary goodness. But when they see that we not only do not love those who hate us but do not even love those who love us, they scornfully laugh at us, and the Name is blasphemed. (2Cl 13.3-4, Holmes' 3rd edition)

As I've mentioned a few times before, I'm (slowly) reading through Paul Trebilco's book, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (amazon.com).

I'd recommend just about anyone read the book. But that doesn't mean that I agree completely with what's going on in the book. Trebilco frequently has to read between the lines in order to recreate what's going on in Ephesus. He uses three different sources — the Pastoral Epistles, the Johannine Epistles, and the letter to the Ephesians in Revelation. He uses each of these as lenses to recreate Ephesus.

In so doing, he has to rely upon his reconstructions of the origin of these books, and that's where my primary beef is. Trebilco puts the Pastorals in 80-100 CE; with a follower of Paul who "clearly saw himself as standing in the Pauline tradition" (202). But Trebilco does see Ephesus as the letter's destination despite, according to his view, none of the named entities (Paul and Timothy) have anything whatever to do with the letter.

In later chapters (specifically chapter 8 section 2, pp 354-384) Trebilco posits that vocabulary unique to the Pastorals can be explained by "acculturation":

It also seems clear that the author presupposes that the language and concepts that he uses are familiar to his readers. For example, the Pastor does not explain the epiphany Christology that we will shortly discuss; rather he assumes that his readers are familiar with it and with the conceptual background that it presupposes. Similarly, concepts like ευσεβεια and σωφρων, which we will discuss, are not explained but are simply utilised. It seems clear then that the author presupposes that his readers are familiar with this language. It is therefore good evidence for the significant level of acculturation of the readers. (354, emphasis added)

Trebilco's poster child for this view is the Greek word επιφανεια, where he argues that the use of επιφανεια in First and Second Timothy more closely matches that of επιφανεια in the context of Greco-Roman religion; and that there is no real Jewish usage of the term (cf. 355).

My problem with reading all of this is that while Trebilco is consistent with his assumptions on authorship and audience, there are other ways to explain this that are more internally consistent with the content of First and Second Timothy.

First, if Paul really was the author of First Timothy, and if Timothy really was the recipient, then there is no need to come up with an explanation of "acculturation" for new concepts or things seemingly unexplained (like επιφανεια). Timothy would of course be familiar with that language; he was Paul's co-worker, likely for a span of over 10 years.

Second, Timothy's mother was Jewish, but his father was Greek. Isn't it possible that Timothy would've known how επιφανεια was used among pagan religion; and isn't it possible that Paul, widely traveled among Gentilies, would be familiar with it too? And why couldn't they have used this language in their dealings with the Ephesian church? After all, Ephesus had all sorts of pagan religion going on; doesn't it make sense — and even fit the Pauline mold of being a Jew to Jews, and a Gentile to Gentiles?

Third, we have examples of Paul using relatively non-Jewish concepts as metaphors for aspects of Christianity. One that comes immediately to mind is that of manumission; of slaves buying their freedom from their masters, via the temple, and then being owned by the god of the temple (cf. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 324-334, specifically p. 326). This is at least alluded to in 1Co 6.20; 7.23; Gal 5.1, 13. Why couldn't Paul use επιφανεια for Christian purposes too?

If the letter is from Paul to Timothy, then we have no need to come up with an explanation of how the church at Ephesus could possibly understand these references which seem to require some degree of acculturation.

Now, with all of that said, even though I bristle when I read some portions of Trebilco's book (like the portion on authorship/date/background of the Pastorals, and also this portion on acculturation) there really is good stuff in the book. If you're studying Paul and his letters at all; and particularly if your study has to do with Ephesus, then you can't ignore Trebilco. So break down and get the Eerdman's printing (amazon.com); it is actually in the realm of affordability.