Do check out the new NT Gateway!. I know that Mark has been planning it for a long time, and it's finally up! Hopefully he'll find it easier to maintain.

Do note that Mark's academic blogging is now taking place at Mark Goodacre's NT Blog, so to keep up with the changes you'll need to do the following:

0: Unsubscribe your current subscription to the NT Gateway Weblog.

1: Subscribe to the new NT Gateway Blog, which (I'm guessing) will be centered around the content of the NT Gateway itself.

2: Subscribe to Mark's academic blog.

You should be ready to go!

This weekend, during whatever free time I may have, I plan to concentrate my reading efforts on Peter Lampe's From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (amazon.com). This was one of the books I recently purchased (thanks again, Mom & Dad!)

Here are reviews and a blurb from Amazon. I forget where I picked up a reference to this book, but I'm always interested in stuff like this. Any other volumes to recommend? (outside of Trebilco's Early Christians in Ephesus (amazon.com) volume, which I have and is on my need-to-reread list)

Review
"Lampe shows that there are both archaeological and literary grounds for saying that the early Roman Christian community was at first indistinguishable from the Jewish one, from which it emerged as perhaps a less affluent underclass of God-fearer. Lampe's book will impress all who read it as a well-informed attempt to synthesize a vast amount of data in a serious, informed, and scholarly way." —Alan F. Segal, Journal of Biblical Literature

"This impressive work puts our study of early Roman Christianity on a new and more certain empirical basis and must now serve as the point of departure for all subsequent research. . . . Lampe has expanded our database and has provided the most extensive social profile of Roman Christianity currently available." —John H. Elliott, Catholic Biblical Quarterly

"This study is so masterful in its grasp of a vast array of evidence, so solid and innovative in its methodology, and so audacious in conception that it is bound to become a classic. It is the most important historical and sociological study ever written on roman Christianity." —Robert Jewett, Interpretation

Product Description
In this pathbreaking study of the rise and shape of the earliest churches in Rome, Lampe integrates history, archaeology, theology, and social analysis. He also takes a close look at the inscriptional evidence to complement the reading of the great literary texts: from Paul's Letter to the Romans to the writings of Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Montanus, and Valentinus. Thoroughly reworked and updated by the author for this English-language edition, this study is a groundbreaking work, broad in scope and closely detailed. In six parts, comprised of 51 chapters and four appendices. Lampe greatly advances our knowledge of the shape of leadership and the Christians' relation to the Judeans living in Rome.

[NB: cross-posted from PastoralEpistles.com since I thought folks here might be interested too. RB]

One of the catchword arguments that P.N. Harrison uses in his book The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (amazon.com) has to do with how Paul usually expresses thanks. Here's Harrison:

In expressing his thankfulness to God, Paul consistently uses the word ευχαριστεω (Ro 1.8; 1Co 1.4; 2Co 1.11; Eph 1.16; 5.20; Php 1.3; Col 1.3; 1Th 1.2; 2Th 1.3; 2.13; Phm 4); this author never writes that word, but uses instead the Latinism χαριν εχω (= gratiam habeo) 1Ti 1.12; 2Ti 1.3. (Harrison, 28-29)

I've always been intrigued by this. First, because Harrison assumes his conclusion in the first sentence where he mentions what "Paul consistently uses"; second because he's right about the discrepancy (not Pauline authorship). The Pastorals don't use ευχαριστεω in thanksgiving sections, other Paulines do.

Why bring this up? This morning I began digging back into my translation of Second Timothy, and I ran into 2Ti 1.3, where χαριν εχω is used. And I have a few thoughts on this now.

Some of Harrison's cited instances (Eph 1.16; 5.20) use ευχαριστεω as a participle in a series of modifications, not as the primary verb. His 2Co 1.11 instance may implicitly refer to God as receiving the thanks, but is doesn't explicitly state it. And note that 2Th 1.3; 2.13 use ευχαριστεω as an infinitive, modifying the verb οφειλομεν. Again, not an exact syntactic parallel for the phenomenon under discussion. Note also that Harrison missed 1Co 14.18, which should be added to his list.

Of course, I'd suppose that Harrison (and others) would see these as evidence that Ephesians and Second Thessalonians aren't Pauline either. In any case, the are not direct examples of the phenomenon he is trumpeting, so they shouldn't be listed as evidence for or against his lexical/syntactic argument here.

In the non-Pastorals usage at the head of thanksgiving sections, ευχαριστεω always takes "God" as its complement: "I give thanks to God". More specifically, it is ευχαριστεω τω θεω. In 1Ti 1.12, it is not "God" that Paul thanks with χαριν εχω, it is "the one who has empowered me, Christ Jesus our Lord". Still in the dative, but not quite apples-to-apples.

But that still leaves 2Ti 1.3, which has χαριν εχω τω θεω (compare to ευχαριστεω τω θεω in Ro 1.8; 1Co 1.4; 14.18; Php 1.3; Col 1.3; 1Th 1.2; Phm 4). This is actually Harrison's stronger counterexample (though he doesn't mention it).

My thoughts? Well, εχω (present active indicative first-person) + dative is not unknown in Paul (Ro 12.4; 15.17; 1Co 2.16; 7.25; 8.1; 9.4, 5, 6, 17; 11.16; 12.21; 2Co 3.4; 4.7; Gal 6.10; Eph 1.7; 2.18; 3.12; Col 1.14; 2.1; 2Th 3.9), so it is a structure that Paul could've used. I haven't examined these instances so I don't know exactly what contexts they occur in, if they take references to the deity as complements, etc.

But one interesting item that comes up is Luke 12.50 (yes, Luke). I've always been enamored with the theory that Luke was Paul's amanuensis for the Pastorals, and that his role may have even been closer to co-author. Luke 12.50 is as follows:

NA27: βάπτισμα δὲ ἔχω βαπτισθῆναι καὶ πῶς συνέχομαι ἕως ὅτου τελεσθῇ
ESV: I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished!

This is mildly interesting to me because the same thing could be said a different way. In fact, it is said a different way in Mark 10.38:

NA27: ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· οὐκ οἴδατε τί αἰτεῖσθε. δύνασθε πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον ὃ ἐγὼ πίνω ἢ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι;
ESV: Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?”

In other words, in Luke's rewrite of this idea (sure, I think Luke used Mark as source (cf. Lu 1.1-2), but I also think Q is a load of hooey) he uses "I have a baptism" instead of "I am baptized". He uses an εχω construction instead of the plain verb.

I realize it's a reach built on next to nothing, but hey, this is a blog post so why not? Could Luke have done the same thing with Paul's words? Paul says ευχαριστεω τω θεω; Luke writes χαριν εχω τω θεω. Same idea, same stuff being communicated, just a different way of doing it. As Witherington posits, it's the voice of Paul but the hand of Luke.

I've always seen the amanuensis argument (whether it is Luke or not) as a strong one in favor of Pauline authorship/responsibility because we know that Paul uses an amanuensis in other letters. Many of the "style" arguments that seem so valid in challenging Paul's authorship can probably be seen (I'd say better seen) as pointing to different amanuensis situations, not to mention different roles of the amanuensis, influence of listed (and perhaps unlisted) co-authors, genre and the target of the letter.

Anyway, this is too long and I've gotta go. Perhaps more on this later (but perhaps not).

In a previous post, I threatened to do some comparisons between Comfort, Metzger, Omanson's rewrite of Metzger and (where applicable) Westcott & Hort's "Notes on Selected Passages". First, the list of books:

• Comfort: New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (amazon.com) (Tyndale, 2008)
• Omanson: A Textual Guide to the New Testament (amazon.com) (German Bible Society, 2006) This is a "geared towards translators" edition of Metzger's Textual Commentary.
• Metzger: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (amazon.com) (United Bible Societies, 1994)
• NET: NA27/NET Diglot (amazon.com) (Biblical Studies Press, 2004). I realize that the non-diglot NET has more notes and may have greater coverage, but the diglot is the only edition I have to hand at present.
• Westcott & Hort: The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction and Appendix (amazon.com) (Vol. 2). (MacMillan & Co., 1896)

In this post, I'll provide a list of readings covered in the book of First Timothy. I may expand upon some of the readings in subsquent posts. In this list, the following abbreviations are used: C = Comfort; O = Omanson; M = Metzger; NET = NET Bible TC notes; WH = Westcott & Hort

• 1Ti 1.1: C O M NET
• 1Ti 1.4a: C O M
• 1Ti 1.4b: C O M NET WH
• 1Ti 1.12: C
• 1Ti 1.15: O M
• 1Ti 1.17a: C O M
• 1Ti 1.17b: C M NET
• 1Ti 2.1: C O M
• 1Ti 2.7a: C O M NET
• 1Ti 2.7b: C
• 1Ti 3.1 segmentation: O
• 1Ti 3.1: C M WH
• 1Ti 3.3: C M
• 1Ti 3.16 segmentation: O
• 1Ti 3.16: C O M NET WH
• 1Ti 4.3: WH
• 1Ti 4.10: C O M NET
• 1Ti 4.12: C M
• 1Ti 5.4: C
• 1Ti 5.5: C
• 1Ti 5.16: C O M NET
• 1Ti 5.18: C O M
• 1Ti 5.19: M WH
• 1Ti 5.21: C
• 1Ti 6.3: C M
• 1Ti 6.5: C O M NET
• 1Ti 6.7: C O M NET WH
• 1Ti 6.9: C O M
• 1Ti 6.13: C O M NET
• 1Ti 6.17: C O M
• 1Ti 6.19: C O M
• 1Ti 6.21a: C O M NET
• 1Ti 6.21b: C O M
• 1Ti subscription: C M

Interesting standouts: First, Comfort's coverage is most thorough in number of variations handled. Outside of the "segmentation" issues only noted by Omanson, Comfort misses 1Ti 1.15; 4.3; 5.19. These are areas that are of some text-critical interest, but not necessarily where differences arise in translation. Items that Comfort alone handles include 1Ti 1.12; 2.7b; 5.4, 5, 21.

Westcott and Hort don't intend to be comprehensive (they only have 140 pages for the whole NT), but it is interesting that in 2 of the 5 places they show up, Comfort is silent: 1Ti 4.3; 5.19. The discussion in 1Ti 5.19 is about how a phrase in the Greek text is not found in some extant Latin witnesses. In the case of 1Ti 4.3, it is simply difficult extant text. While these are issues, it is pretty obvious that these sorts of things don't really fit the target that Comfort (and Omanson) are trying to hit. W&H give text-critical information to text critics; Comfort and Omanson translate the text-critical information for a larger audience. Metzger sort of sits in the middle of both.

I may dig further into some of these, particularly those that have examples in every listed source (perhaps 1Ti 1.4b or 1Ti 6.7? 1Ti 3.16 is so well-known as to be over-analyzed), just to compare the level of discussion and style of notes each edition has. Let me know if you're interested in that sort of thing.

Unbeknownst to many, Westcott and Hort published an Introduction (amazon.com) as a second volume to their epochal edition of the Greek New Testament. The Introduction (amazon.com) has a massively detailed description of their text-critical method (330 pages!). It is, essentially, them showing their work. (Oh that other editions ... you know which one(s) I'm talking about ... would follow their lead!)

Another component of the Introduction (amazon.com) is the first Appendix, "Notes on Select Readings", 142 pages of text-critical notes and discussion on problematic readings. Think of it as the precursor to Metzger's Textual Commentary (amazon.com).

I've never read the two (Metzger and WH) against each other. So imagine my surprise when I read the note for 1Ti 5.19 in both, I added the bold:

Westcott-Hort

v 19 ἐκτὸς ... μαρτύρων ] < Latin MSS known to Hier; also apparently Cyp Ambst, who quote no further than παραδέχου; not D2 r nor (<ἐπὶ) G3.

Metzger

5.19     ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων
These words, found in all extant manuscripts of the passage, were absent from some Latin manuscripts known to Jerome, and perhaps also from the copies used by Cyprian and Ambrosiaster, who quote no farther than παραδέχου.

I'm not accusing anyone of plagiarism; I would be surprised if Metzger hadn't consulted WH in writing his volume. This just surprised me.

The release of articles for volume 6 (2009) has commenced. The first article is:

Jintae Kim, "The Concept of Atonement in the Gospel of John"

This journal publishes online first. The PDFs are available throughout the volume year; once the year is over the PDFs are removed and the journal is published in print (by Sheffield Phoenix).

So grab the articles while you can. The volume 5 (2008) PDFs are still up, so grab them while you can; who knows when they'll be taken down.

Also, be sure to subscribe to the RSS feed.

Got some new books in the mail today (with some Christmas fundage from Mom & Dad B; thanks!). I'll likely be blogging about them as I read them. One of them is Philip Comfort's new (and, upon initial review, very excellent) title New Testament Text Translation and Commentary (amazon.com). This is like Metzger's Textual Commentary (amazon.com) only with English New Testament readers in mind as primary readers, though detailed text-critical and Greek variation data is included.

Here's a paragraph from the introduction; this is in the "makes you go hmmmmm ..." department:

Nonetheless, the reader will see that he NU and WH editions often agree on matters of major textual significance. Where the WH and NU diverge, however, NU far more frequently concurs with TR than does WH. Furthermore, where WH and NU differ, I am inclined quite frequently to agree with WH on the basis of documentary evidence. (Comfort, xxvi, bold emphasis added)

Did you catch that? According to Comfort, when WH and Nestle/UBS ("NU" in Comfort's abbreviation) disagree, NU agrees with the TR far more frequently than WH does. I find that very interesting, particularly for the derision and scorn the Alands seem to have for the TR text (second only to their dislike of WH, which for whatever you want to say, seems to me to be the basis of their text).

Appendix D has further information about this, particularly a critique of the "local-geneaological" method which NA/UBS follows. This is interesting as I just read another critique of the local-geneaological method last night in Fee & Epp's NT Texts volume.

Also, I may do some comparisons between Metzger, Roger Omanson's rewrite of Metzger, and Comfort (and, perhaps, W&H's introduction for passages that include material) just to see how they all compare to and complement each other. If that sounds interesting, let me know.

Longtime ricoblog readers may remember two years ago when I posted some on what is known as "Thorough-going Eclecticism", which is the method described, applied and advocated by J.K. Elliott. (Yet another unfinished series ... oh well)

I have to admit some admiration for thorough-going eclecticism, if only as a corrective to the "cult of the best manuscript" phenomenon. It reminds that there are all sorts of reasons for variants, and each one must be studied carefully in light of all sorts of information. For that, I like it. For it's dismissal of all external evidence, I'm not so happy.

I've been reading some in Epp & Fee's* Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (amazon.com). Chapter 7 in this volume is "Rigorous or Reasoned Eclecticism—Why"? In it, Gordon Fee responds strongly but charitably to the primary proponents of "Rigorous Eclecticism" (Kilpatrick and Elliott, one of his students). It is well worth the read. Here is Fee's final paragraph, with which I concur:

Rational eclecticism is indeed the currently reigning method, and it appears to be a valid one, for it takes seriously both internal questions and the manuscript evidence. Rather than search for a new method as some propose, or jettison historical study as rigorous eclecticism tends to, the present methodological task would seem to be the implementation and refinement of rational eclecticism. It is here that the labors of Professor Kilpatrick and Dr. Elliott should prove to be most useful. Their contributions as to various stylistic features of the NT authors as well as their isolation of the variants where Atticism might be a possible factor have not only increased our knowledge but also widened our perspective when asking the internal questions. For this we express unqualified appreciation.
Epp, E. J., & Fee, G. D. (1993). Studies in the theory and method of New Testament textual criticism (amazon.com) (140). Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans.

* How often can you find a volume edited by two people, each with three-letter last names, one of which is vowel-consonant-consonant and the other which is consonant-vowel-vowel?