This post has been percolating in my mind for awhile; recent events (my previous post) make me anxious to actually write it.

The short version: Being wrong about things is part of learning, and therefore part of scholarship. The one genuinely interested in scholarship and learning is willing and ready to admit wrongs and mis-steps. The one interested in securing position will likely not admit the validity of any opinion contrary to his own, no matter how obvious or well-argued, as this would potentially harm his investment in the position. No man is perfect, no position completely unassailable. Beware the one who admits no error or wrong in his work; this one may have motives apart from seeking knowledge and truth.

Now, the long version.

In his preface to his edition of the epistles of Ignatius, J.B. Lightfoot discusses the extant versions of these epistles. In the mid-1800's, Cureton published what is now known as the "short form" of the the Ignatian epistles, which is currently known only in the Syriac. There are three forms of the Ignatian epistles, the short ("Curetonian") form, the middle ("Vossian") form, and the long form. Almost no one holds to the long form being the genuine form, most hold to the middle form as the genuine form. Some do hold to the short form as the genuine form. When Cureton published the short form, however, there was apparently a rush to support the short form as the genuine form. Lightfoot writes (apologies for the lengthy quotation, but do note the bold text):

When I first began to study the subject [of the Ignatian epistles] Cureton's discovery dominated the field. With many others I was led captive for a time by the tyranny of this dominant force. ...

When however the short Syriac of Cureton appeared, it seemed to me at first to offer the true solution. ... For a time therefore I accepted the Curetonian letters as representing the genuine Ignatius, and this opinion was expressed in some of my published works. Subsequent investigation however convinced me of the untenableness of this position. At an early state an independent investigation of the relations between the Armenian and the Syriac assured me that there had existed at one time a complete Syriac version of the seven Vossian Epistles, fragments of which still remained, and of which the Curetonian recension was either the abridgement or the nucleus. ... Meanwhile, while revising my own exegetical notes, which had been written some years before, I found that to maintain the priority of the Curetonian letters I was obliged from time to time to ascribe to the supposed Ignatian forger feats of ingenuity, knowledge, intuition, skill and self-restraint, which transcended all bounds of probability. At this state I gave expression publicly to my growing conviction that after all the seven Vossian Epistles probably represented the genuine Ignatius. Afterwards I entered upon the investigation, which will be found in this volume (p. 282 sq.), into the language of the two recensions. This dispelled any shadow of doubt which might have remained; for it showed clearly that the additional parts of the Vossian Letters must have proceeded from the same hand as the parts which were common to the Curetonian and Vossian Recensions.

...

For reasons which will be found not only in the separate discussions devoted to the subject, but throughout these volumes, I am now convinced of the priority and genuineness of the seven Vossian Letters. (Lightfoot, preface, pp. v-vii)

In his preface, Lightfoot shares his journey from one position (short form is genuine) to the other (middle form is genuine). Reading this, I learned that really, really smart people can be wrong. What sets the good apart from the great is that the great ones are able to review and re-work the problem and admit they were wrong if it comes to that. Entrenched positions are not simply fortified through one's career; instead the solutions to problems themselves are worked, re-worked; evaluated, re-evaluated as one works the problems through one's career.

I learned from Lightfoot's preface that it is OK to change positions and admit error, even when those positions have been previously published.

Being wrong is OK. It's what you do when you realize you're wrong that sheds light on what sort of person one really is.

Thanks to Dr. Carl Conrad, I've been shown a fatal flaw in the below; I've confused the adjective ἄλλα with the conjunction ἀλλὰ. Now it all makes so much sense! Thank you, Dr. Conrad, for the correction. And for the reminder to double-check parsings before spending too much time trying to figure out something that doesn't make sense.

The below is left as testimony to my folly. When you need a laugh, do please read it again.

Here is Holmes' Greek for the first sentence of IgnEph 7.1, followed by his English.

7.1 Εἰώθασιν γάρ τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ τὸ ὄνομα περιφέρειν, ἄλλα τινὰ πράσσοντες ἀνάξια θεοῦ·

7.1 For there are some who maliciously and deceitfully are accustomed to carrying about the Name while doing other things unworthy of God.

The above is from his second edition, but the third edition is exactly the same. For some comparison, here's Ehrman:

For some are accustomed to bear the name in wicked deceit, while acting in ways that are unworthy of God.

So as to be complete, here's Kirsopp Lake's translation.

For there are some who make a practice of carrying about the Name with wicked guile, and do certain other things unworthy of God;

The Greek is the same in all three editions, so we're comparing apples to apples. The question is, what is αλλα doing in this statement?

My basic contention at this point is that αλλα is a marker of contrast (as Heckert has posited); I'm comfortable with saying that it indicates discontinuity (which is what Porter and O'Donnell note) but contrast seems the better term, and I really don't see much difference between "contrast" and "discontinuity" anyway. The second part of my contention is that when one encounters an αλλα, one must realize there need to be two parts in order for contrast to be made (or for there to be discontinuity); with αλλα, the latter part corrects/replaces the former part.

My contention, then, is that looking for these two things when examining instances of αλλα is essential, and that if you can do this you don't need to worry about sense-classifying αλλα. You don't need to worry if it is continuative, or adversative, or contrastive, or what-have-you.

Further, particularly in situations like we find here in Ignatius to the Ephesians, the latter part (the correction/replacement) is set up such that it is the more prominent/salient piece of the whole sentence/paragraph. It is the author's primary point, it gives the punch to what he's trying to get through our (well, mine, anyway) thick skulls.

This instance in Ignatius to the Ephesians provides a good example. The standard gloss "but" doesn't fit (mostly because there isn't a negative involved, which would heighten the contrast and make "but" feel more appropriate), so we see some translators use "and" (Lake) and others use "while" (Ehrman and Holmes, though perhaps in these instances "while" comes from the participle and αλλα is left untranslated). But that doesn't really help us to see the contrast (whatever degree of contrast is present is indicated by the context, not by αλλα) or the things being contrasted, and it isn't easy to see what corrects/replaces the other. So let's look at the Greek again:

Εἰώθασιν γάρ τινες δόλῳ πονηρῷ τὸ ὄνομα περιφέρειν,
ἄλλα τινὰ πράσσοντες ἀνάξια θεοῦ

Basically, there are some people who "bear the name" yet while bearing the name (note that this in itself is important to Ignatius, who calls himself "the God-bearer" in his epistolary introductions) they do things unworthy of God. This is the contrast, that they say represent themselves in one way, but act in another.

What is the correction/replacement? It is the same thing, basically. My boy Iggy is pointing out that these evil, nefarious people who claim to "bear the name" are really not to be trusted because their actions betray them. This is Iggy's point: They're not who they say they are, so beware. They should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up.

That this is the salient bit of this sentence is born out by the following sentence. Again, Holmes' translation:

You must avoid them as wild beasts. For they are mad dogs that bite by stealth; you must be on your guard against them, for their bite is hard to heal.

You can see exactly what Ignatius is doing now; paying attention to the discourse cues in the original language helps us understand even better how he got there.

Of all of the translations cited, I'd say I like Ehrman's best. But even then, the αλλα is obscured, and the basic sorts of things that I contend it clues us in to are hard to see. At the same time, accounting for all of that in a translation is hard, and I don't have a better suggestion. So, at the very least, consult the Greek as you read the English. Sometimes you'll be very surprised at how the translator renders what's happening in the original language text. But, particularly with particles and conjunctions, the work pays off.

I couldn't sleep on Friday night, so to let Amy catch some Z's I slipped into the study which is next door to our bedroom. I found Goodspeed & Colwell's A Greek Papyrus Reader on the shelf and figured I'd scan through it to see if I could find any interesting instances of non-negative αλλα in papyri.

Boy, howdy did I find one. Check out P.Oslo ii.55. Greek text is from Perseus; translation is from APIS.

Διογένης Πυθαγόρᾳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ χαίρειν.
ἴσθι Θέωνα τὸν παράδοξον τὸν ἀναδιδόντα σοι ταῦτά μου τὰ γράμματα οἰκεῖόν μου ὄντα καὶ σχέσιν ἀδελφικὴν ἔχοντα πρός με. καλῶς οὖν ποιήσεις, ἄδελφε, τοῦτον ὑποδεξάμενος ὡς ἂν ἐμέ. ἀλλὰ καὶ τόπον ἐπιτήδειον αὐτῷ ἀπὸ ποδὸς ἐξηρτισμένον παράσχες, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἐλθὼν μαρτυρήσῃ μοι τὰ τῆς προαιρέσεώς σου.
Πυθαγόρᾳ βουλευτῇ [ ϝαξ. ]

Diogenes to his brother Pythagoras, greeting.
Know that Theon, the extraordinary person who is handing you this letter, is a close friend of mine and has a brotherly relation to me. You would do well, dear brother, to receive him as you would me. Prepare a room as well as you can and let him have it, so that he can bear witness to me about your disposition.
Verso:;To Pythagoras, councillor.

There are two (!!) non-negative αλλα in this short letter, and the translation seemingly skips over them both. So what are these instances doing?

As I've read grammars, monographs, etc. and evaluated instances of αλλα in the NT and Apostolic Fathers, my basic approach in examining them has become twofold: First, I consider αλλα to mark some sort of contrast (or 'discontinuity', as Porter & O'Donnell would call it), the degree of contrast is provided by surrounding context; second, there is usually some correction or replacement going on with the contrasted items. I'm still working on this, but that's about as simple as I can boil it down right now.

[NB: At this point, I should make clear that I'm still thinking through this example; the below is me writing trying to apply things I've noticed to this example to see if they work. These things may change. —RB]

Goodspeed and Colwell (A Greek Papyrus Reader, p. 10, item 19) title this letter “Letter of Recommendation”, and that is what it is. The sender is providing a recommendation of the carrier, so that the carrier will be treated well by the letter recipient. Goodspeed and Colwell summarize the letter thusly: “Diogenes urges his brother Pythagoras to receive the admirable Theon as though he were Diogenes himself.” (Goodspeed & Colwell, 10).

In the letter, the first αλλα is a hinge within the paragraph, the two items that are being contrasted involve the status of the carrier, Theon. After introducing Theon as a friend who is as close as if he were a brother, Diogenes urges Pythagoras to “receive [Theon] as you would me”. He is to receive his own room, apportioned as well as possible. Pythagoras is not simply to perceive Theon as if he were Diogenes, his actions are to confirm this by preparing a place for Theon. The contrast is between receiving Theon (ὑποδεξάμενος) and furnishing a well-apportioned room for him (ἐξηρτισμένον). The correction/replacement is in the unstated expectation that Pythagoras is to do more for Theon than he would do otherwise. Instead of treating him as a visitor, he is to treat him as a brother, both in word and deed.

From this comes the second αλλα, this in conjunction with a ινα clause. This clause makes Diogenes’ expectations explicit: Treat Theon well, for he will report to me how you are doing. The translation of προαίρεσις as “disposition” is curious. LSJ provide a general definition of “choosing one thing before another” (LSJ 1466) but further delineate nine senses, one of which (#7) is “character, reputation” and another (#8) “devotion, affection, goodwill”. The correction is in the expectation. Diogenes purposes to ensure Theon is treated well, and underscores this by making explicit that Theon will report back regarding Pythagoras’ hospitality.

Diogenes' purpose for writing the letter is to ensure that Theon is treated well by Pythagoras. The use of αλλα in the second half of the letter helps Diogenes achieve this purpose, helping Pythagoras to understand the importance of treating his guest not simply properly but as if he were his brother Diogenes himself.

There is a progression in these statements tied together with αλλα: Don't just receive Theon, but provide him a room as you would do for me. And not only that, but know that he will report back to me how you have done in this matter. The important bit for Pythagoras: Make sure the report back to Diogenes is a good one.

Ran across this yesterday, figured I'd pass it along based on my previous post on this word:

Aposiopesis ( = "hushing") is the abrupt termination of a sentence whose ending may be inferred from tone or gesture, or gathered from what has gone before. Examples may be seen in Lu 13.9; Lu 19.42; Jn 6.62; Ac 23.9.
Moulton, James Hope. An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek. (p. 232) 2nd ed., rev. London: Charles H. Kelly, 1903.

As I mentioned earlier, a blog post I wrote a few years back was footnoted on p. 151 in the proceedings from the 2006 LIABG symposium.

The article is titled "Conjunctions and Levels of Discourse", by Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O'Donnell, running from p. 145 to p. 156 and is basically the same paper that was presented to the European Associate of Biblical Studies Annual meeting in Budapest, Hungary, from Aug. 6-9, 2006.

I never thought I'd be footnoted in a serious grammatical discussion; I suppose this is proof that the blogosphere can have some sort of influence/impact on current discussions in all areas of Biblical studies. Even blog posts by a motivated autodidact (read: no graduate degree held) such as myself.

The context is in the section of the article titled "3. The Greek Conjunction System", speaking of "Vertical Axis of Levels of Discourse". This has to do with the level of discourse on which the conjunction may function. Is it just a joiner of words or word groups, or is the joining further up (vertically) the ladder of discourse (join words, join word groups, join clauses, join clause complexes, paragraphs, discourses or whatever).

The post that Porter & O'Donnell refer to is about 1Th 5.15. In that post, I don't really make any statements, I just ask a lot of questions about how αλλα functions based on what happens with constituent order before and after αλλα. I was asking if αλλα might be doing something more in that context.

Porter & O'Donnell's point on p. 151 is that αλλα functions "only at the lower levels (but perhaps not the lowest level of the word). This conjunction joins word groups in Mt 9.13 ... clauses in Mk 4.17 ... and clause complexes in 1Th 5.15." (Porter & O'Donnell, Proceedings, 151).

Now, I would say that what I suggested in 2006 concerning αλλα in that instance was wrong (specifically the section breakdown near the top of the post); v. 15 is a standard μη .. αλλα instance, where v. 15a is a foil that serves to make 15b more prominent in the discourse. On the segmentation of units, I think Porter & O'Donnell's suggestion in the footnote (vv. 14-15a, 15b-18a, 18b-21ff) is fine. I have no problem using the term "clause complex" instead of "subparagraph" or "paragraph"; those are all strange terms that mean what one wants them to mean anyway. The idea that αλλα is somehow indicating a relationship between two separate clause complexes (vv. 14-15a & 15b-18) is the important bit for my concerns with αλλα at present.

My confusion today stems in the sentence that runs from p. 151 through 152. In the above-quoted portion of p. 151, they limit αλλα to word group, clause, and clause complex connections. But on the sentence running from pp. 151-152, they note:

An initial analysis indicates that there are a limited number of conjunctions that function at all of the levels of discourse. These include only και, δε, αλλα, and some of the negative conjunctions, such as ουδε and  μηδε. All of the rest of the conjunctions are more circumscribed in the linguistic levels at which they may be used (Porter & O'Donnell, Proceedings, 151-152)

Porter & O'Donnell's only level above clause complex is paragraph (I think, they don't seem to explicitly list them but they mention paragraph above clause on p. 151); and the only level below word group is word.

[Corrected, 2008-06-04] Porter & O'Donnell list the following discourse levels along the vertical axis: word, word group, clause, clause complex, paragraph and discourse (p. 151)

I would say that there are instances of αλλα that join paragraphs, and Porter & O'Donnell seem to acknowledge this as well (based on p. 152). That's good, because I plan to have examples of αλλα functioning at the paragraph level in my ETS paper (unless my preliminary analysis changes between now and then, which it may). But this discussion gives me some more support in positing αλλα as a paragraph conjoiner in certain contexts.

Poking around the LIABG ("Linguistics Institute of Ancient and Biblical Greek") site, I happened upon the proceedings from the 2006 symposium. This was nice, because while I was invited I wasn't able to make it (was married the previous month).

In the proceedings, I skimmed the article "What's Up in Syntax" and ran across the following, which I found helpful:

In traditional analysis predication involves a grammatical subject about which a predication is made. In the sentence All dogs have tails. The noun phrase All Dogs is the subject and the possession of tails is predicated of dogs with ‘have’ serving the predicating function. An alternative view of predication asserts that this relation is between a predictor and one or more arguments, in which case both All dogs and tails are viewed as arguments or terms with have (the predicator) functioning to form a relation of predication between the two. Complements are generally taken to be elements required by the predicator whereas adjuncts are nonobligatory elements, providing circumstantial information. Head terms or controlling terms govern the terms to which they stand in relation, as in ‘The head is the noun in the NP’ (Van Valin and LaPolla, 1997: 67). The marking of head terms typologically continues to be debated among linguists (see Zwicky, 1985; Hudson, 1987). Head terms receive various levels of modification in which a dependant terms modify the head through qualification (a limiting relation), specification (a classifying or identifying relation) or definition (further defining) (see Halliday, 1976: 59-66). A head term with its modifiers forms a group. Groups can be nominal, verbal, adverbial or conjunctive (Halliday, 2004: 310; Morley, 2004: 74-83). Coordination relations, realized through the conjunction system, are used to relate groups or modifiers within groups. (2006 LIABG Proceedings, p. 11)

If you've worked at all with the OpenText.org analysis in Logos Bible Software, the above may help a bit in understanding the analysis (which uses these labels). For example, if you've ever wondered what the difference between a complement and adjunct is, the above gives you a rule of thumb: Complements are required, Adjuncts are non-essential.

If you dig this stuff, or if you want to know more, I'd recommend reading the introduction to Jeffrey T. Reed's A Discourse Analysis of Philippians (amazon.com) (also part of the "Studies in New Testament Greek" collection, hopefully available sometime in the future for Logos Bible Software (on pre-pub at the time of post composition))

Bonus: A blog post I wrote in 2006 is footnoted in one of the articles of the proceedings (p. 151 of the proceedings). It was news to me when I learned of it. Interestingly, that blog post had to do with αλλα. Let's just say I've come a long way in understanding αλλα in the past two years. Maybe I'll write about the footnote in a future post.

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.