You've heard about it for months, now you can read it too. I've posted my ETS 2008 paper on my conference papers web site.

If you're interested in the background posts I've made regarding the paper over the past nine months or so, see the ETS 2008 category. I've also written a lot that didn't make it in the paper due to length considerations; perhaps I'll consider posting that information in blog-post-sized chunks over the next while if there is interest. This extra material contains primarily review of lexicons, grammars and monographs as well as brief examination of particular instances. If you'd like to see that kind of stuff, please let me know by commenting on this post.

Finally, thanks to all who offered comments and feedback along the way. Particular thanks to Steve Runge for pushing, prodding, and encouraging me through the whole thing. I bit off much more than I could chew, but Steve's help and encouragement along the way saw me to the end. I understand much more now about conjunctions than I ever thought I would. Thanks, Steve.

This is in Gregory & Tuckett's The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers: The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (amazon.com), p. 130, note 5:

Hagner's monograph contains an extended methodological discussion of how scholars should evaluate what he refers to as 'variant [i.e. inexact] quotations' (in which he argues that these are usually best explained as memoriter quotations form known texts rather than as accurate quotations from unknown texts or oral traditions; see Hagner, Use [of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome], 80-108, on the use of the OT; 287-312, on the use of the NT) and also a helpful survey of how the pattern of 1 Clement's apparent use of the writings later canonized as the NT compares with that of the use of the same writings in other Apostolic Fathers (ibid. 272-87).

So, Hagner's distinction and methodology is helpful. Basically, unattested quotations/allusions are better treated as inexact quotations of known readings than as exact quotations of unknown readings.

I suppose this appeals to the lowest-common-denominator and is right more often than not, but of course it also means that in practice, all quotations/allusions are always accounted for among the known readings, so, for text-critical purposes, the Apostolic Fathers are ultimately useless as regards attestation of heretofore unknown readings.

In practice, however, this also means that where there is similarity between a quotation/allusion in the Apostolic Fathers, it can be used to help understand how the writer understood the NT text without falling into a text-critical black hole. And, at least for my purposes at present, this is helpful.

Jim asked, you all get to see. Here's my current desktop on my home machine:

What, you thought it would be something different?

Baylor Press recently provided a review copy of Hans-Josef Klauck's new book, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction (amazon.com). For blurbs and the TOC, see my previous post. I hope to blog some thoughts as I have time to read through the book.

But, my first impressions: As an introduction, this book is marvelous. Note that the actual text (translated or otherwise) is not contained in this book. But if you have never read or worked with this material before, I'd recommend using Klauck's book along with an edition of the text (I'd recommend Schneemelcher's second volume (amazon.com)) in order to familiarize yourself with what's going on.

If you're teaching this material, this is a great introduction and you'll probably want to use it. Make sure to stop by the Baylor Press booth at SBL and check out a copy of the book.

In this post, I'll briefly review Klauck's section on the Acts of John. Here is a detailed TOC of the whole section:

The Acts of John (pp. 15-45)
     Bibliographical material: Editions, Translations, Secondary literature (p. 15)
     A. Context (pp. 16-18)
     B. Contents (pp. 19-40)
          1. The First Period in Ephesus (ActJoh 18–55) (p. 19-24)
               Cleopatra and Lycomedes (p. 20)
               The Apostle and his Portrait (pp. 20-21)
               The Old Women (pp. 21-22)
               The Destruction of Artemis (pp. 22-23)
               Fornication with Dramatic Consequences (pp. 23-24, includes bibliography)
          2. Intermezzos (ActJoh 56-61) (pp. 24-26)
               A Partridge or the Sons of Antipatros? (pp. 24-25)
               The Obedient Bugs (pp. 25-26, includes bibliography)
          3. The Second Period in Ephesus (ActJoh 62-86) (pp. 26-30)
               The Death of Drusiana (p. 27)
               In the Tomb (pp. 27-28)
               The Raising Up of Callimachus and Drusiana (pp. 28-29)
               The "Unsuccessful" Raising of Fortunatus (pp. 29-30)
          4. The "Polymorphous" Earthly Lord (ActJoh 87-93, 103-5) (pp. 30-33, includes bibliography)
          5. The True "Passion" of the Lord (ActJoh 94-102) (pp. 33-36)
               The Dance Hymn (pp. 33-35, includes bibliography)
               The "Passion" Narrative (pp. 35-36, includes bibliography)
          6. The Death of the Apostle (ActJoh 106-115) (pp. 36-38, includes bibliography)
          7. Fragments that Cannot Be Localized (pp. 39-40)
     C. Evaluation (pp. 40-42, includes bibliography)
     D. Later Narratives (pp. 42-45)
          1. The Syriac History of John (pp. 42-43, includes bibliography)
          2. The Acts of John by Pseudo-Prochorus (pp. 43-44, includes bibliography)
          3. Virtues Johannes, Passio Johannes (p. 44, includes bibliography)
          4. The Acts of John in Rome (p. 45, includes bibliography)

One of the many strengths, as you can see, is the inclusion of bibliographic material at various levels. If there are articles or whatnot that pertain specifically to a given section, they are listed with that section. Also, the organization (at least of this portion) outlines the text itself under discussion. The text itself serves not only as introduction, but also as a short commentary and discussion of the text. All of this, particularly when combined with a reputable edition of the text (amazon.com), gives the reader good apprehension of what is going on in this somewhat neglected and sometimes weird literature.

I had an earlier post on Tracking Down Similarities Between the NT and the Apostolic Fathers. I suppose this is a continuation of that post.

This is from the Edito Critica Maior edition of James (Volume IV, Installment I, Part 1). Note that the ECM's interest is in Patristic citations of the NT and they are not specifically focused on the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, as I am. So their pool is wider and deeper. But still, here is their definition:

The difficulty of distinguishing true quotations from allusions or paraphrases is well known. Considering the great mass of the variant readings found in the manuscript tradition of the first millennium and recorded in the present edition, the following rule of thumb is observed: a true quotation is one where the wording of the Father's text is identical with a reading found in the manuscript tradition. Readings attested exclusively by a Father are only rarely recorded. Allusions are considered only if they clearly reflect a known reading. Variants are excluded from the apparatus if they may be ascribed to a Father's stylistic tendencies and are unlikely to have been in his manuscript source. In essence, the criteria for patristic quotations are restrictive in order to ensure their reliability. (ECM IV.I.1, p. 12*-13*)

So, in essence, the rule is restrictive. Data from the Fathers can only be used as support for existing readings, not as datapoints of new and heretofore-unknown readings. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I can see why it was drawn there.

Of course, with that rule, there will be very little if anything from the Apostolic Fathers that plays a part in the apparatus of the ECM (and, thus, NA28). Some, yes. But not a lot.

But, on the flip side, if you're looking for patristic citations in general, then you need to add examining the ECM to your list. Oh, and since my last post I've been able to consult some volumes of Biblia Patristica, and you need to add those to your list too.

I believe I'm done with my paper for this year's ETS meeting. I'll probably sit on it for a few days, then re-read it just to hit the last remaining stuff that jumps out at me. But honestly, for all intents and purposes, it is done. It's a good feeling.

I mentioned the paper initially back in March of this year ("In Praise of Almighty αλλα") and have blogged about different aspects along the way (see the ETS 2008 category). If you work through those, I don't think you'll run across anything too surprising when you hear/read the paper.

I will post a copy of the paper and the conference handout to the blog, probably sometime next week (Wednesday or Thursday, likely).

I don't normally do link posts, but today there are some good things to point out, so here is the link dump, with brief commentary.

First, check out NTDiscourse.org. My friend and colleague, Steve Runge, (editor of the popular and helpful Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament and the upcoming Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction to Discourse Features for Teaching and Exegesis) has started blogging. His focus is on Discourse Grammar and in demystifying an approach to discourse. The blog will variously examine different discourse structures and also work through passages from a discourse level. Steve's heart is in making this stuff approachable for pastors and teachers, so that sermons, lessons and Bible studies can benefit. Get this one on your feed reader.

Second, head to Roger Pearse's eponymous blog and see if you can help him with his bleg concerning "A difficult piece of Greek in Eusebius".

Third, RBL released its latest round of book reviews. One looks particularly interesting, to me anyway: Watching a Biblical Narrative: Point of View in Biblical Exegesis. (No, I haven't read it yet) I'm wondering how the information in this book jives with what Bauckham did in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (amazon.com) (which is now in paperback), or how it treats the "we" passages in Acts. The book is a T&T Clark title and retails at $130, though. Hopefully it'll be in paperback soon; until then check your library.

That's it for now.

I've written before (and also hold this in my paper for the upcoming ETS meeting) that αλλα is a marker of contrast. This means that when one runs across an αλλα, the first thing that one should do is determine the items being contrasted. You'll likely miss the import of the passage and the structure if you don't do this.

In most cases this is easy. Here's an example from 1Cl 4.13, the Greek and English are that of Lake:

13 διὰ ζῆλος Δαυεὶδ φθόνον ἔσχεν
     οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων,
     ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ Σαοὺλ βασιλέως Ἰσραὴλ ἐδιώχθη·.

13 Through jealousy David incurred envy
     not only from strangers,
     but suffered persecution even from Saul, King of Israel.

This is a pretty standard "not only ... but also" / οὐ μόνον .. ἀλλὰ καὶ construction. It happens in the NT frequently. The idea here is that David may very well have expected to incur envy from strangers, but Clement says that even Saul was jealous of him to the point of persecuting him. The contrast is between the 'strangers' and Saul. Most examples of αλλα are like this. Particularly when a negator is used, the items being contrasted are fairly easy to find.

But then, right after this verse, we come to 1Cl 5.1. A chapter that actually starts with αλλα. So what is being contrasted?

1 Ἀλλ ̓ ἵνα τῶν ἀρχαίων ὑποδειγμάτων παυσώμεθα, ἔλθωμεν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἔγγιστα γενομένους ἀθλητάς· λάβωμεν τῆς γενεᾶς ἡμῶν τὰ γενναῖα ὑποδείγματα.

1 But, to cease from the examples of old time, let us come to those who contended in the days nearest to us; let us take the noble examples of our own generation.

Chapter 4 of First Clement is a laundry list of OT personages, listing examples of jealousy (such as that described in 4.13 above). Chapter 5 switches the focus from examples of the past to examples of the present. The balance of chapter 5 speaks of "pillars of the church" and gives further examples of Paul and Peter.

This example of αλλα is interesting because the contrasted items are at the paragraph level and perhaps might even be said to be at a higher level. But most, if they were classifying this instance of αλλα, would call it transitional because it seems to transition the discourse to a different topic. And that's true, it does. However, this isn't a different use or sense of αλλα; it is simply αλλα doing what it does at a higher level in the discourse; instead of functioning as a conjoiner of phrases or clauses, this instance joins (depending on how you view it) paragraphs or clause complexes and clues us in that these higher-level discourse items are being contrasted.

Denniston (The Greek Particles (amazon.com)) notes this sort of usage, but it is hard to find in grammars that focus specifically on the Greek of the New Testament era.

Yet another reason why reading Greek, and reading Greek from outside of the NT but still in the same general era can be an enlightening exercise.