Here's Ernest De Witt Burton, circa 1898:

5. The action denoted by a verb may be defined by the tense of the verb
     (a) As respects its progress. Thus it may be represented as in progress, or as completed, or indefinitely, i.e. as a simple event without reference to progress or completion.
     (b) As respects its time, as past, present, or future.
     The tenses of the Indicative mood in general define the action of the verb in both these respects.
     The tenses of the other moods in general define the action of the verb only as respects its progress, HA. 821; G. 1249.
     Rem. The chief function of a Greek tense is thus not to denote time, but progress. This latter function belongs to the tense-forms of all the moods, the former to those of the Indicative only.

Burton, E. D. W. (1898). Syntax of the moods and tenses in New Testament Greek (3rd ed.) (6). Edinburg: T. & T. Clark. [italics original, bold emphasis added]

Interesting to me is the bold portion, where Burton notes the primary thing tense conveys is progress, not time. And Burton's only nod to a temporal notion of tense is within the indicative mood.

Here's Zerwick (Biblical Greek Illustrated by Example), circa 1963 (at least, that's the translation date, first Latin(!) edition was 1944):

240.(180) In the title of this chapter the word «tenses» is put in inverted commas because the forms to be treated of are but inaccurately called «tenses». The «future» and the «present» do connote time so far as the name is concerned, but not even the names of the other «tenses» express the notion of time: the name «imperfect» connotes incompleted action and «perfect» completed, while «aorist» (privative α and ὁρίζω «define, determine») connotes simply the action without further determination. Hence the very names of the «tenses» warn us to distinguish carefully between the notion of the time of an action and of the manner in which the action is regarded, its «aspect». In fact, «aspect» is an essential element of the Greek «tenses» (leaving out of account the future) and hence is always distinguished by the form, whereas the time of the actions is expressed in the indicative only, and in the other moods is either lacking or secondary. Moreover the time expressed is only «absolute» time and not «relative» time, i. e. the relationship of simultaneity or anteriority with respect to (e. g.) the principal verb’s time: «relative» time is never expressed in Greek by the verbal form of itself, but can be gathered only from the sense in the context.

Zerwick, M. (1963). Vol. 114: Biblical Greek illustrated by examples. Translation of Graecitas Biblica. (English ed., adapted from the fourth Latin ed.). Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici (77). Rome. [bold emphasis added]

Sounds similar to Burton, even the marginally temporal notion of the indicative. Is Burton's "progress" Zerwick's "aspect" (?)

Update (2009-02-07): I didn't mean to get into the Aspect argument, and I'm not going to stay here that long. I've just been doing a little further reading on tense/aspect and voice, and this is where I ended up. A little further poking brings us to Porter's Idioms, as an attempt to understand how his position differs from what appears to be the traditional position, where Porter writes:

The original function of the so-called ‘tense stems’ of the verb in Indo-European languages (of which Greek is one) was not levels of time (past, present or future), as many suppose, but one of verbal aspect (i.e. how the verbal action was perceived to unfold; see section 2 below on history of discussion). In Greek, verbal aspect is defined as a semantic (meaning) category by which a speaker or writer grammaticalizes (i.e. represents a meaning by choice of a word-form) a perspective on an action by the selection of a particular tense-form in the verbal system. The semantic features (the ‘meanings’) of the different verbal aspects are attached to the tense-forms. The verbal aspects are therefore morphologically based (i.e. form and function are matched). Verbal aspect is a semantic feature which attaches directly to use of a given tense-form in Greek. Other values—such as time—are established at the level of larger grammatical or conceptual units, such as the sentence, paragraph, proposition, or even discourse (see Chapter 21). The choice of the particular verbal aspect (expressed in the verb tense-form) resides with the language user, and it is from this perspective that grammatical interpretation of the verb must begin.
Porter, S. E. (1999). Idioms of the Greek New Testament (20). Sheffield: JSOT.

Some grammarians—even if they recognize the non-temporal use of the tense-forms in the non-indicative moods (see Chapter 2)—insist on the tense-forms having time-based usage in the indicative mood. The following instances show that this position cannot be sustained.
Porter, S. E. (1999). Idioms of the Greek New Testament (29). Sheffield: JSOT.

The start of the first quote seems to me to be a straw man; the "dead grammarians" of, say, the late 1800s and early to mid 1900s don't focus on time as the primary notion of tense, as the above quotes show, where "progress" and "aspect" are seen as primary. This is corrected in the second quote, where the notion of time is restricted to indicative moods by the dead guys but Porter distinguishes himself by saying that time has nothing to do with it.

So, the obvious question: Are these guys talking past each other? Is Porter's "time" the same thing as what the dead guys meant by "time"?

Jim West will be aghast, but I'm going to quote Wikipedia.

Doing simple searches on "stylometry" landed me on the Wikipedia page, which has the following (and yes, Jim, the quotation is footnoted). The bold portion is the money quote:

The development of computers and their capacities for analyzing large quantities of data enhanced this type of effort by orders of magnitude. The great capacity of computers for data analysis, however, did not guarantee quality output. In the early 1960s, Rev. A. Q. Morton produced a computer analysis of the fourteen Epistles of the New Testament attributed to St. Paul, which showed that six different authors had written that body of work. A check of his method, applied to the works of James Joyce, gave the result that Ulysses was written by five separate individuals, none of whom had any part in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

All the more reason, at least for me, for being interested in stylometry as a better understanding of style, and learning more about how authors communicate. If your primary or even only interest in studying style is authorship attribution ... well ... you'll be disappointed.

Also: In many extended discussions on the authorship of the Pastorals, you'll run across Morton's name and work. Now, I'm not saying it's all bogus, there is important stuff in there about style. But discerning particular attributes of "style" (particularly through counting) does not mean one has discerned authorship. Of this, beware.

If I could pick a "life verse" from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, it would have to be MPoly 9.1 (actually, MPoly 9.1a):

But as Polycarp entered the stadium, there came a voice from heaven: “Be strong, Polycarp, and act like a man.”
Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers : Greek Texts and English Translations (Updated ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 233.

Τῷ δὲ Πολυκάρπῳ εἰσιόντι εἰς τὸ στάδιον φωνὴ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐγένετο· Ἴσχυε, Πολύκαρπε, καὶ ἀνδρίζου.
Michael William Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers : Greek Texts and English Translations (Updated ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999), 232.

Particularly, the portion spoken by the "voice from heaven", ἀνδρίζου. In BDAG, the headword is ἀνδρίζομαι; it is ἀνδρίζω in LSJ (why does BDAG do that?!). The word is also found in 1Co 16.13. Here's LSJ's relevant portion (sense II, not sense III):

II. make physically strong or manly, τοὺς γεωργοῦντας X.Oec.5.4.
2. endow with moral strength, Pl.Tht.151d; med., take courage, be resolute, X.An.4.3.34, Arist.EN1115b4, Lxx Jonah 1.6, 1Cor 16.13, D.C.50.24.7.

And here's BDAG:

conduct oneself in a courageous way w. κραταιοῦσθαι (like חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ; cp. 2 Km 10:12; Ps 26:14; 30:25) 1 Cor 16:13; w. ἰσχύειν (Dt 31:6, 7, 23; Josh 1:6, 7 al.) MPol 9:1. ἀνδρίζου act like a man! Hv 1, 4, 3. Of an old man, whose hope in life has been renewed v 3, 12, 2. Also of a woman who is girded and of manly appearance v 3, 8, 4.

Why bring this up, and what am I thinking? My application is in the area of professional criticism. I've been doing some writing and I had to buck up to accept some fairly harsh criticism in order to review, revise and edit the writing for an article I'm hoping gets published (more on that at the appropriate time, perhaps). Instead of bristling and being defensive (my typical response in such situations) I need to stand, accept the criticism and react to it positively so that the end product can be better. In this case, it has become better, and is sure to become even better down the road.

In his book A Stylometric Study of the New Testament, Anthony Kenny writes:

The Fribergs divide the Greek conjunctions of the New Testament into three classes. The two clauses or propositions of structures which are joined by a conjunction may be intended to have equal prominence in their context, or one may be given greater weight than another. Accordingly, the conjunctions which link them may be classed as co-ordinating (giving equal weight), as subordinating (introducing a clause less prominent than that to which it is linked), or as hyperordinating (introducing a clause more prominent than that to which it is linked). Thus every conjunction will be tagged either CC, CS or CH. (Kenny, 32).

Based on what I've learned about αλλα, my understanding is that αλλα should always be, in the Fribergs terminology, "hyperordinating". But an examination of their analysis shows that of the 638 NT instances, the Fribergs tag 553 of them hyperordinating (aka "superordinating"), 84 of them as coordinating, and one instance as subordinating. This post examines Rev 2.9, the lone "subordinating" αλλα in the NT.

Οἶδά σου τὴν θλῖψιν καὶ τὴν πτωχείαν, ἀλλὰ πλούσιος εἶ, καὶ τὴν βλασφημίαν ἐκ τῶν λεγόντων Ἰουδαίους εἶναι ἑαυτοὺς καὶ οὐκ εἰσὶν ἀλλὰ συναγωγὴ τοῦ Σατανᾶ. (Rev 2.9, UBS4)

I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. (Rev 2.9, ESV)

There are two αλλα in this verse; according to the Fribergs, the "subordinating" αλλα is the first, τὴν πτωχείαν, ἀλλὰ πλούσιος εἶ ("and your poverty (but you are rich)"). The second is "hyperordinating" (what would be expected).

So, what is it about the first instance that is different? Is it because the αλλα clause is seen as secondary to the primary clause; an in-stream parenthetical comment that doesn't seem to add much to the larger structure? The larger point seems to be built around the comparison between "your tribulation and your poverty and the slander ...", with the party doing the slandering further qualified as not Jews (though they confess to be Jews) but instead a "synagogue of Satan". In this latter instance, "the synagogue of Satan" has the prominence (indeed, Fribergs mark it as hyperordinating, thus it being the "more important" of the conjoined items). This is fairly standard with αλλα, the following statement offering correction to the first one and highlighting the correction.

[Note: The following paragraph has been added subsequent to the original post]

Upon further reflection, I believe the compared clauses are "I know your affliction and poverty" and "but you are rich". The corrective response is not simply to the note of poverty; "affliction" and "poverty" are one unit, joined by και (and perhaps too the genitive phrase following the αλλα?); the correction is to that unit, not simply to being poor.

[Back to the original post]

I'd argue the same thing for the earlier instance. In the context of the two conjoined items, "your poverty, but you are rich" it is the encouragement of the author to his audience. This is the letter "to the angel of the church in Ephesus", thus these words are from Christ to that church. While they find themselves temporally poor, they are to be encouraged that in fact they are rich in what matters. While their circumstances are tough, those circumstances will change—indeed, they already have begun to change. To me, this as well seems to be the basic "corrective" use of αλλα, correcting the first item and marking the correction as the important, salient bit in the comparison of elements.

I'd have to say that, at least with the first instance of αλλα in Rev 2.9, the Friberg's morphology should mark it as "conjunction, superordinating (hyperordinating)" instead of "conjunction, subordinating".

This as well serves as a case to show once again why I don't like such morpho-syntactic labels applied at the word level; it leads many who use such data to think there is something about αλλα itself in this instance that is "subordinating" or "hyperordinating". In reality, the conjunction morphology (part-of-speech) is just a convienent place to hang this item when it rightly belongs at a higher level of the annotation. But since "morphologies" only consider words as data tokens, they only have words to hang such data on—whether it rightly belongs on the word (as several "morphological" criteria do) or whether it rightly belongs at a higher level of the discourse (marking phrasal relations, clausal relations, or discourse-level relations).

While I am fairly sure that the Fribergs don't intend to mark αλλα itself as somehow morphologically producing a "hyperordinating", "coordinating" or "subordinating" result, less-informed use of such resources could easily make (and attempt to defend) such a conclusion. This is a common problem, and it is visible everywhere in everything. Calvin would (rightly) dispute against many who claim to be "Calvinists" as having misrepresented his thought; Darwin would also (rightly) dispute many who claim to be "Darwinists".

Anyway, enough from me. I don't know that I'll work through the 84 "coordinating" instances of αλλα to show how I would instead consider them to be "hyperordinating". But you never know. Maybe. In case you want to peek at them, here are the references:

Mt 24:6; Mk 3:27; 4:22; 6:9; 11:32; 13:7, 24; 14:28, 49; 16:7; Lk 6:27; 7:25, 7:26; 11:42; 16:21; 21:9; 23:15; 24:21, 22; Jn 1:31; 3:28; 5:42; 6:22, 36, 64; 8:26; 11:11; 14:31; 15:21, 25; 16:2, 4, 6, 7, 20; Ac 10:20; 19:2; 26:16; Ro 4:2; 5:15; 6:5; 10:2, 16, 18, 19; 11:4; 1Co 2:9; 3:2; 4:3, 4; 6:6, 11(3x); 1 Co 6:12(2x); 7:7; 8:7; 9:12; 10:5; 12:24; 15:35, 40, 46; 2Co 1:9; 7:11(6x); 8:7; 11:1; Ga 4:8; 4:23; Eph 5:24; Php 1:18; 2:17; 1Ti 1:16; Heb 3:16; Jas 2:18; 1Pe 3:16; Re 2:6; 10:7.

If you don't read Mike Aubrey's blog, ΕΝ ΕΦΕΣΩ, then you should. His post of this morning "Challenges for Literal Translation: Lessons from 4 Maccabees" is excellent. He's thinking through translation issues, but using a non-canonical text (4 Maccabees) as his springboard.

Even though quoting one's self can be self-serving (hey, it's a blog ... it's supposed to be self-serving!), here's what I wrote as a comment to his post:

I think working through these issues in non-canonical text from roughly the same era is a valuable thing. It causes us to start focusing on the text itself and what it communicates, not on what our presuppositions and heritage have already determined it should say.

I’ve found similar exercises with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers extremely valuable.

And I have. The most recent example is the post previous to this, on EpDiog 5.7.

Ran across this while reading EpDiog awhile back so I thought I'd blog it.

Here's the Greek, from Holmes' 2nd edition (matches his 3rd edition):

τράπεζαν κοινὴν παρατίθενται, ἀλλʼ οὐ κοίτην.

Here are all the English translations of EpDiog 5.7 I have to hand, in chronological order:

• They have their meals in common, but not their wives. (Lightfoot)
• They offer free hospitality, but guard their purity. (Lake)
• Free board they provide, but not their carnal bed. (Meecham)
• They share their food but not their wives. (Holmes, 2nd ed and 3rd ed)
• They share their meals but not their sexual partners. (Ehrman)

You can see how Holmes is influenced by Lightfoot, but that's OK because Holmes is a revision of Lightfoot. He's allowed to do that. Ehrman translates exactly the same, only giving "meals" and "sexual partners" instead of "food" and "wives". There seems to be a heritage here.

Lake is the one that mystifies me. Of course, the date is 1912, so Lake could be appealing to Victorian sensibilities, but he doesn't usually get that idiomatic in a translation. "Guard their purity"? The word is "bed" (κοίτην) and it is a reference to, at minimum, the marriage bed (cf. BDAG κοιτη 1b) and perhaps even "seminal emission" (cf. BDAG κοιτη 2b). Either way, the Greek is obvious as the balance of translations show. Lake makes it sound like the Christians are simply averting their eyes when they walk into the bath; if you didn't read the Greek you wouldn't know that it's really talking about adultery and fornication. But who knows. Maybe "guard their purity" was the completely obvious way to translate it for Lake's audience. But I doubt it; otherwise I'd guess Lightfoot would tend that direction as well.

I think Meecham does the best job as the word is in reference to the place of the act, not to the act itself (so Lake's "purity", I guess) or in reference to those involved in the act ("wives" Lightfoot and Holmes, "sexual partners" Ehrman). At least Ehrman's translation acknowledges it wasn't just females; it takes two to tango.

But while I like the second half of Meecham's translation, I don't like the first. It sounds like a bed & breakfast open for all. Free board? Really? Sounds like a great deal for college students! Somehow, I don't think that is what was happening either. Lightfoot seems better here too.

How would I translate it? I tend to try to stay literal and transparent at this point, even in word order where possible, largely so I can remember/guess at the Greek behind the translation, so I'd probably go for something like:

A common table they set, but not a [common] bed.

Whatever the case, and whatever the best translation, you really should read EpDiog 5 in any translation. When doing so, realize that these are the things that the author saw as distinguishing Christians from those around them.

The logical question for me at this point: How do Christians distinguish themselves from those around them these days? And is that distinguishing what it should be, or do we have more work to do in this area? I'd say we (yes, pointing fingers directly at myself here) have some work to do.

I'm reading through the Epistle to Diognetus in the Greek. Or, at least, I'm trying to. I'm in chapter 3, and was really scratching my head on the end of verse 5 in comparison with Lake's translation:

τῶν μὲν μὴ δυναμένοις τῆς τιμῆς μεταλαμβάνειν, τῶν δὲ δοκούντων παρέχειν τῷ· μηδενὸς προσδεομένῳ.
For it seems that the one offer to those who cannot partake of the honour, the others to him who is in need of nothing. (Lake)
the latter make offerings to things unable to receive the honor, while the former think they offer it to the One who is in need of nothing. (Holmes)
one group giving to gods who cannot receive the honor, the other thinking that it can provide something to the one who needs nothing. (Ehrman)
For the one class seem to offer sacrifices to things unable to partake of the honour, the other to Him who is in need of nothing. (Meecham, emphasis his)

Thankfully I've got Meecham's edition (from 1949, the last available critical edition in English) where he includes the note:

The text is corrupt. See Otto's full note. Stephanus reads τα μη δυναμενα. So Gildersleeve. Geffcken follows Wilamowitz' rdg. των μεν τοισ η δυναμενοις. For further emendations, see Blakeney (p. 42). We adopt the text printed by Funk, Lightfoot, and Lake, following Gebhardt. For the grammatical construction of the sentence see p. 13. (Meecham, 103).

Here's p. 13:

In general, the author's syntax is correct and careful. Some laxity, however, is seen in iii.5, where the sentence των μεν κτλ. is isolated, being either an irregular genit. abs. or a clause loosely attached to the preceding genit. των ... ενδεικνυμενων.

So that helps, somewhat. Recorded here so I don't have to look it up in Meecham again.

Any ideas as to what this might be?

Hint: It has to do with my BibleTech:2009 paper. (If you're using a feed reader like Bloglines, you'll need to see the post on ricoblog for the details)

Any ideas?

Ok, I'll give. The above is a representation of parts of speech in the first five books of the LXX (so, the pentateuch). Yes, lots of refining to do, but you get the gist. The order is: