My friend and colleague Steve Runge has recently had a few things published that you may find helpful.

In April, RBL published a review of Ivan Shing Chung Kwong's The Word Order of the Gospel of Luke: Its Foregrounded Messages (amazon.com). This sort of stuff (word order studies) is right up Steve's alley and I was looking forward to see Steve's take on Kwong's approach.* The review is thorough, even if it is only 8 pages. If you have even the slightest interest in Greek word order, you need to read this review.

The Journal of the Linguistics Institute of Ancient and Biblical Greek (JLIABG) has commenced publishing its inaugural issue online. Steve's article, "Relative Saliency and Information Structure in Mark's Parable of the Sower", is the first article in the inaugural issue. How cool is that? The PDF is available online, so do check it out. Here's the abstract:

Levinsohn claims that the near and far demonstratives (οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος respectively) can be used non-deictically to encode relative thematic saliency of discourse referents, with οὗτος being used to mark the more salient constituent. In applying this concept to the Markan explanation of the Parable of the Sower, Levinsohn’s claim would indicate that the descriptions of the three unfruitful scatterings of seed are more salient to the writer than the productive scattering that bears fruit. The other synoptic accounts do not seem to make such a distinction in salience, using the near demonstrative οὗτος for both the unfruitful and fruitful plantings alike. Are there other means of analysis to either corroborate or overturn the view that the unfruitful plantings are more thematically salient in Mark’s account?

This study applies the cognitive model of Chafe and Givón, and the information- structure model of Lambrecht as applied by Levinsohn to the Markan explanation of the Parable of the Sower (4:14-20). The primary objective is to identify and analyze other linguistic devices, besides demonstratives, which might clarify the apparent prominence given to the unfruitful scatterings in Mark’s account. This study provides the necessary framework for comparing Mark’s pragmatic weighting of salience to that found in the other synoptic accounts in order to determine whether Mark’s version is consistent or divergent with the other traditions.

Also note that the JLIABG has an RSS feed to notify of new article postings: http://feeds.feedburner.com/jliabg.

* Disclaimer: I actually badgered Steve into doing the review when I saw the title was available for review from RBL. He's repaid the favor by suggesting I look into the use of αλλα in non-negative contexts. I'd say we're about even.

Nick Norelli, in a post titled "Drivel: The Secret to Success" responds to Josh McManaway's statement about blogging being daunting. Josh writes:

I'll be getting back into more New Testament blogging shortly. I will say that I find as an undergraduate, blogging is daunting. When you're competing (if I can use that word) for readers' attention with people like Pat Mccullough, Chris Tilling, Jim West, Mark Goodacre, James Crossley, etc, it's difficult to have something intelligent and interesting to say on a regular basis when you're not as well-trained as them.

And Nick responds:

But the secret to blogging success is not to do what the next man does; that, my friend, is how you compete for readership.  It is for that reason that I stick to posting mostly drivel, because let’s face it, no one else does it on a consistent basis, yet surprisingly, people love to read it.  And the best part is that doing what I do requires no training!  In fact, training would probably just muck it all up.

Now I know Nick's response is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. My response is a little more serious, but no more complex. Simply blog what you want to. Blog what is interesting to you. Don't write posts to impress people, write posts that reflect what you're thinking and learning. For me, that's the best reason to blog. Not to sound erudite, or to compete with other bloggers for attention share. If you're genuine in your writing, then the folks that you really want to read your stuff will find it, and bookmark you, and aggregate you, and link to  you.

Since Nick really is genuinely interested in drivel, it works for him (yes, that's a joke). But it works for me. I mean, who really is interested in αλλα? Like that would be a topic I'd pick if I was interested in readership.

Many thanks to Hendrickson for sending David Scholer's Social Distinctives of Christians in the First Century: Pivotal Essays by E.A. Judge (amazon.com) along for review; apologies it took me so long to get to it. Why did it take so long? There are a number of reasons, but there are probably two primary reasons. The first is that I've had available time to read as of late (and this for a number of factors, the primary being doing research/background for my paper on αλλα); the second is that the book didn't suck me in.

Let me be a little more clear. I've really wanted to be sucked into this book; the title sounds like something I should really be interested in. But, apart from the first essay, it didn't. I'm grateful to have the book, and am sure the essays will prove helpful in the long run, but for now it isn't drawing me in.

Here is the blurb from Hendrickson:

This is a collection of pivotal essays by E. A. Judge, who initiated many important discussions in the establishment of social scientific criticism of the Bible.

What is it that made the work of Judge in 1960 and in subsequent years so important? Judge was the first in scholarship after the mid-twentieth century to clarify early Christian ideals about society by defining what the social institutions of the broader cultural context were and how they influenced the social institutions of the early Christian communities. Judge points out that earlier scholars had entered into this field of inquiry, but that, in general, they failed due to the lack of careful definitions of the Greco-Roman social institutions at the time based on a thorough use of the primary sources.

Thus, Judge was the “new founder” ( a turning point in scholarship) of what came to be called social-scientific criticism of the New Testament. Social-scientific criticism is the term in scholarship that refers to the use of social realities (e.g. institutions, class, factors of community organization) in the critical study of literary sources available (this is an advance over “merely” literary and traditional historical questions).

And here is the TOC:

Introduction by David M. Scholer
Permissions

1. The Social Pattern of the Christian Groups in the First Century
2. Paul’s Boasting in Relation to Contemporary Professional Practice
3. St. Paul and Classical Society
4. St. Paul as a Radical Critic of Society
5. The Social Identity of the First Christians: A Question of Method in Religious History
6. Rank and Status in the World of the Caesars and St. Paul
7. Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Groups in the First Century Paul: Some Clues from Contemporary Documents
8. The Teacher as Moral Exemplar in Paul and the Inscriptions of Ephesus

• A Comprehensive Bibliography of the Society Publications of Edwin A. Judge
• First Index of Modern Authors
• Index of Subjects
• Index of Ancient Sources

Amy and I moved from one house to another in late October. Since then, it has seemed that whenever I want a particular book I'm doomed to find that it is in an inaccessible box in the spare bedroom.

Today we finally got the office together, and books out of the inaccessible spots and onto shelves. Ella loved being around all the books, and she quickly dug into a pile of mine. I had to get a camera and record the event. She actually chose this book out of the pile, though I'm guessing it was because it was the biggest ... not because she had a question about how Philo might've used a particular word.

"Aposiopesis" is a new one for me. Stumbled across this one reading R.T. France on Mk 11.31-33 (in his NIGTC volume) this morning.

The four words that remain, ἀλλὰ εἴπωμεν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, can be construed either as the beginning of a second conditional clause matching ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ in v. 31, but with the ἐάν left unexpressed, or as a further deliberative question, ‘But shall we say “From men”?’, or even as a tentative decision on their part, ‘But let us say “From men” ’, which is then aborted by their recognition of the diplomatic gaffe that would involve. While the general sense is clear, the syntax is awkward, and the decision on how to punctuate the aposiopesis after ἀνθρώπων is a matter of taste.

France, R. T. (2002). The Gospel of Mark : A commentary on the Greek text (455). Grand Rapids, Mich.;  Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans;  Paternoster Press.

Here's the definition from MW's eleventh edition:

"the leaving of a thought incomplete usu[ally] by a sudden breaking off (as in “his behavior was—but I blush to mention that”)

Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Here's the text; France is referring to the spot in v. 32, at the end of the words attributed to the scribes and chief priests (where the ESV has an emdash).

31 And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ 32 But shall we say, ‘From man’?”—they were afraid of the people, for they all held that John really was a prophet. 33 So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” (Mk 11.31-33)

Update (2008-05-26): Two excellent comments on this post. The first, from David Fish, is a pointer to a blog post of his own where he recollects his first experience with aposiopesis. Do check it out, and check out David's blog, Random Thoughts from a Fish, as well. 

The second is a comment from Dave Novick, reminding us to check Bullinger's Figures of Speech for these sorts of things. Dave writes, "He's got an article devoted to it on page 151. The article divides the good number of Biblical examples into 4 categories: Promise, Anger and Threating, Grief and Complaint, Enquiry and Deprecation. I thought I'd pass that on, in case you (and others) weren't already familiar with it."

So there you go.

Why, oh why couldn't this have happened on I5 in the vicinity of Bellingham?

Location? Morris, Illinois.

The lede: "Got Milk? Police say a trailer loaded with 14 tons of double-stuffed Oreos has overturned, spilling the cookies still in their plastic sleeves into the median and roadway."

I'm hungry just thinking about it.

One thing I'm doing to get an idea of how αλλα functions is examining synoptic parallels for instances of non-negative αλλα. Do the parallels also use αλλα? If not, are they using different structures to communicate the same thing, or are they communicating different things?

Here's my initial rough draft for the instance in Mt 9.18.

Mt 9.18 (|| Mk 5.23 || Lu 8.41-42)

18 Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς ἰδοὺ ἄρχων εἷς ἐλθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων ὅτι
    Ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν
    ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπ’ αὐτήν καὶ ζήσεται
       (Mt 9.18, NA27)
18 While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying,
    “My daughter has just died,
    but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.”
        (Mt 9.18, ESV)

The parallels in Mark and Luke disclose that the “ruler” in this instance is Jairus. His daughter has died; he desires Jesus to heal her and restore her to life. In this case, there is a degree of contrast involved in the context. Jairus is asking for Jesus to move his daughter from the state of death (τελευτάω, aorist active indicative) back into the state of life (ζάω, future middle indicative). The underlying contrast is both lexical (contrast between death and life) and grammatical (between the aorist and future tenses). In this instance, αλλα functions as a hinge between the two contrasting statements, heightening the contrast and shifting focus onto the apodosis: Jairus believes that if Jesus comes and touches her, she will live.

The differences between the synoptic accounts of this event are notable. Here are the Markan and Lukan accounts:

23 καὶ παρακαλεῖ αὐτὸν πολλὰ λέγων ὅτι
    Τὸ θυγάτριόν μου ἐσχάτως ἔχει
        ἵνα ἐλθὼν ἐπιθῇς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῇ
            ἵνα σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ (Mk 5.23, NA27)
23 and implored him earnestly, saying,
    “My little daughter is at the point of death.
        Come and lay your hands on her,
            so that she may be made well and live.” (Mk 5.23, ESV)

41 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν ἀνὴρ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰάϊρος
καὶ οὗτος ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς ὑπῆρχεν
καὶ πεσὼν παρὰ τοὺς πόδας τοῦ Ἰησοῦ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ
    42 ὅτι θυγάτηρ μονογενὴς ἦν αὐτῷ ὡς ἐτῶν δώδεκα καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέθνῃσκεν
Ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑπάγειν αὐτὸν οἱ ὄχλοι συνέπνιγον αὐτόν (Lu 8.41-42, NA27)
41 And there came a man named Jairus,
who was a ruler of the synagogue.
And falling at Jesus’ feet, he implored him to come to his house,
    42 for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying.
As Jesus went, the people pressed around him. (Lu 8.41-42, ESV)

In the Markan and Lukan accounts, Jairus initially represents his daughter as being sick unto the point of death but still alive; information of the girl’s death comes later from a servant who arrives on the scene (Mk 5.35 || Lu 8.49). In Matthew she is represented as being dead throughout Jesus and Jairus’ interaction.

In Mark, Jairus’ request is twofold: “so that she be made well and live”. The request in Luke is much more subtle: “he implored [Jesus] to come to his house”. But recall that in Matthew, the request is not to make Jairus’ daughter well, but for Jesus to place his hands on her so that she may live again.

Matthew, compressing the event of Jesus and Jairus’ initial interaction, packs all of the contrast and drama of the event into Jairus’ request that Jesus, by touching his daughter, restore her life from death. Jairus by his statement shows that he thinks Jesus is able to, with his very touch, restore the dead to the living. Mark and Luke both spread this aspect of the drama out. First, Jairus requests that Jesus heal his daughter (Mark only refers to Jesus healing through touch; Luke has Jairus requesting that Jesus simply come to his house to heal, with means unspecified). Then the interlude with the healing of the woman with the issue of blood, who is healed through touching Jesus’ garment, which shows the power of Jesus to heal by touch. Only after this do Mark and Luke update the reader with the further information that Jairus’ daughter has died. They both do this by focusing on the hopelessness of the situation; now that the daughter has died there is no reason to further bother Jesus. But Jesus overhears this report (Mk 5.36 || Lu 8.50) and goes to Jairus’ house anyway, where his touch—in all accounts he takes the daughter by the hand—restores her to life.

In Matthew, then, Jairus’ request is initially larger and more hopeless. Instead of asking Jesus to heal his daughter from a grave illness, he asks that his dead daughter be restored to life. Each synoptic account uses different grammatical means to make this request: Mark focuses on means, requesting Jesus’ touch to reverse the slide from death back toward life. Luke focuses on Jairus’ method of request, passionately imploring that Jesus come to his house to heal his dying daughter. Matthew’s version, with αλλα in a non-negative context, relies on the contrast between death and restoration to life to quickly establish the impossibility of the situation. Mark and Luke reinforce/increase the hopelessness later (and thus increase the drama) by the introduction of the servant with news that Jairus' daughter has, in fact, died.

All three instances end up in the same place, with Jesus’ touch restoring Jairus’ daughter to life. Matthew’s use of αλλα in a non-negative context is the only instance that places all of the contrast at the head of the story, previous to the healing of the woman with the issue of blood.

(end of what I wrote this AM)

Which account do I like best? Actually, I like Mark's version the best because of the progression:

• Jairus: Your touch will heal my daughter, so she will live.
• Jesus: Whoa, who touched me?
• Woman: I did. And I'm healed.
• Jesus: Your faith has made you well.
• Jairus' servant: Don't waste your time bothering Jesus, Jairus, your daughter is dead.
• Jesus: Don't fear, only believe.
• Jesus goes to house.
• Mourners: You're too late, she's dead.
• Jesus: She's not dead, she's only sleeping.*
• Jesus: Takes her by the hand, asks her to rise, and she does.

The whole thing starts with Jairus stating Jesus' touch will heal. Then the woman with the issue of blood touches Jesus' garment and is healed. Then we find out that Jairus' daughter is dead. Then it's confirmed she's dead. Then his touch raises the dead girl; though Jesus is quick to teach it isn't necessarily his touch, it is the belief—the belief of the woman with the issue of blood that she'd be healed, and the belief of Jairus (stated at the start of this episode) that Jesus could make his daughter better. I think that ties it better together than Matthew's or Luke's versions of the story. I'd take Matthew as a close second. Mark creates more suspense/drama with the progression from gravely ill to dead; Matthew front-loads the contrast (using lexical and grammatical means, and marking it even more by using αλλα) and the drama, making Jairus' faith in Jesus to heal seem even greater.

* Resisting urge to write, "She's only mostly dead ..."

Why? Because, if you take the time to read or at least peruse their 330 page Introduction to their NT (amazon.com) (published in a second volume with an appendix), you see that they fill in most if not all of the details of the how & why of their edition.

What sort of stuff? Well ... who'd've thunk that two pages on casing of κυριος, Χριστος and υψιστος would be appropriate? Sometimes on reading an upper-cased Κυριος or a lower-cased χριστος (In NA27, not WH) I've often wondered "why is that one upper-cased/lower-cased?"

WH show their work and tell you why, at least in their edition — and why, in four instances in Luke (Lu 1.32; Lu 1.35; Lu 1.75; Lu 6.35) they also upper-cased Υψιστος. They take two pages (pp. 316-318; §§414-416) to tell you. Here's §416, explaining their capitalization of Υψιστος:

416. An initial capital has likewise been used for Υψιστος in the four places, all in St Luke's Gospel, in which it stands in the singular without an article. In this shape it exactly represents the anarthrous Elion, a very ancient name not confined to the Jews, and is virtually itself a proper name. In the LXX the article is usually inserted: but in Ecclesiasticus, doubtless a better authority for Palestinian custom, Υψιστος occurs frequently, and has the article but once, except in combination with another title.

More than you ever wanted to know, but helpful nonetheless. If you're looking for a copy of WH's Intro/Appendix, then you want the 1896 edition which has corrections/updates.

Why do I like this so? Whether I agree or not, I can at least know what in the world they were thinking. You can't do that with any other print edition; none are nearly as transparent as WH were. We'd all do well to re-learn this lesson.

Wipf & Stock have done a recent photo-reprint, available in paperback (amazon.com).

Hendrickson did a reprint in the late 1980's, in hardcover (amazon.com). Some used copies of this are available via Amazon.

Which do I recommend? I don't know, I've not used any of the reprint editions. Years ago, I found a copy of the 1896 edition via abebooks from a seller in Australia and snapped it up quickly.

If you work with the Greek New Testament and do anything remotely pertaining to textual criticism (the appendix "Notes on Select Readings" is a mini-Metzger for WH's edition and their "Notes on Orthography" will tell you more than you wanted to know about spelling in their edition); or if you have interest in orthography, punctuation, and other particulars of producing and fully utilizing a printed edition of the Greek NT, then you need this book; whether the Hendrickson hardcover (amazon.com) or the Wipf & Stock softcover (amazon.com).

Update (2008-05-14): Thanks to Mark from the Bible and Tech blog for pointing out that WH's Intro/Appendix volume is available via Google Books. So grab it and absorb!