Steve Runge mentioned a comment I made to him yesterday in a blog post he posted this morning:

I am working my way through Con Campbell’s Verbal Aspect, The Indicative Mood and Narrative, currently in the section on the present tense form. He has made some great observations about the kinds of verbs that are found in the historical present (HP), viz. that most are either verbs of speaking/communication, or verbs of propulsion i.e. movement. However, Rick Brannan pointed out that these two semantic classes of verbs are also the most frequently occurring, based on the LN semantic domains. Notwithstanding Rick being the precise contrarian, some hay can be made from Campbell’s point, but a bit further on.

Since Steve mentioned me above, I thought I'd provide some numbers on this assertion. These are all based on the Louw-Nida annotation including in the Lexham Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, which also provides LN domain.article references for every word in the NT.

When I made the comment to Steve, I was thinking particularly of domains 33 (Communication) and 15 (Linear Movement). These are two of the largest domains in terms of division into subdomains. Domain 15 has 56 subdomains; Domain 33 has 35 subdomains. This division is one indicator of their frequency. But I did some searches too. First note there are 28,000+ verbs in the NT.

• Items with Domain 33 (Communication): 7819 items total, 5469 are verbs
• Items with Domain 15 (Linear Movement): 3517 items total, 3416 are verbs

For comparison, Domain 88 ("Moral and Ethical Qualities") has 38 subdomains (highly divided), there are 2129 words classified as belonging to that domain, but only 488 of them are verbs. Domain 79 ("Features of Objects") has 29 subdomains, 544 instances, with 172 of them verbs. These domains (15, 33, 79, and 88) are the most highly subdivided.

If you want to get a glimpse of instances of domains within pericopes, see my Distribution of Semantic Domain by Section in the Pastoral Epistles (note I do not include domains for particles, articles, prepositions, contractions, etc.; only verbs nouns and adjectives). You'll see that domain 33 is very frequent, which, on afterthought, it is not surprising in written communication that the author would be using language in the semantic domain of communication.

So, while Campbell likely is onto something, that verbs of speaking or movement are common HP instances doesn’t seem too surprising seeing as how verbs of speaking and movement seem to be generally common within the NT literature.

I’ve mentioned Armenian in passing before, usually in the context of textual criticism (see here and here).

If you’re interested in the Armenian NT, the Zohrab edition (which is the primary Armenian source the NA27 points to when it cites ‘arm’, as I recall*) is available as PDF from archive.org: New Testament in Classical Armenian.

I found the link on Robert Bedrossian’s site Internet Resources for the Study of Classical Armenian (Grabar), which I happened upon a few clicks down the road after reading one of Roger Pearse’s blog entries (which pointed to this cool site about Papias Fragments).

* Further digging leads me to the NA27 intro, p. 28*, which cites:

Yovhannes Zohrapean, Astuacasunc Matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranac, IV, Venice 1805.

The date matches the date on the Zohrab NT above. The ECM volume on James (p. 15*) points to the same source as its Armenian basis, with translation of the title confirming that it is an Armenian OT and NT.

I recently attended my 20th high school reunion. I only made one event (the Sunday BBQ), but the photos from the Saturday night slideshow were put online (on Facebook, thanks to Leo for uploading them!).

Here’s one notable image of yours truly.

Yep, I was pretty cool. Well, at least I thought I was. I think this picture was taken at church, when the graduates were being honored.

If you’ve read the writings known as “The Apostolic Fathers”, you know that the seven letters of Ignatius are a large part of that corpus, and that we can (responsibly) pull a good deal of information from them about the formation and thinking of the early church.

One of the best blogs you’re probably not reading is Mike Aquilina’s The Way of the Fathers. In one post today, he talks about two new books (one released, one to be released) on Ignatius. Please note, I’ve not read either of them yet so I can’t offer personal recommendations.

The first is Kenneth Howell’s Ignatius of Antioch: A New Translation and Theological Commentary (amazon.com). Here’s the Amazon.com blurb:

One cannot understand the early Church or Catholicism today without understanding St. Ignatius of Antioch. The man who succeeded St. Peter as bishop of Antioch and was the spiritual son of St. John the Apostle is the key to truly knowing the Christians of the first two centuries and what they believed. Ignatius' seven letters give us snapshots of the faith and life of the churches of Asia Minor in a way equaled only by the Acts of the Apostles and the Book of Revelation. Now renowned convert and former Presbyterian minister Dr. Kenneth Howell highlights and emphasizes for you the similarities between this Church Father's writings and the New Testament. He does the same with how later Christians used the writings of Ignatius. This great saint may seem like a man from a distant world, but Howell shows he is as real and pertinent in our own time as he was in his own. As a result, readers will find he helps them love Jesus Christ and His Church with the same all-consuming love that Ignatius had.

The second is Thomas A. Robinson’s Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish-Christian Relations (amazon.com). This one sounds much more up my alley. Hendrickson (who are always publishing fine titles) is the publisher. Here’s the Amazon.com blurb, which is a couple of back-cover blurbs and not a description:

"A vigorous, impressively researched and incisive study of Ignatius, firmly rooting him in historical context. Robinson challenges effectively some fashionable ideas about Ignatius and early Christianity, e.g., multiple `Christianities' and `Judaisms,' and the supposedly late differentiation of Christianity from its Jewish matrix. This is an important work whose arguments must be reckoned with hereafter." —Larry Hurtado, Head of the School of Divinity and Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology, New College, University of Edinburgh

"Thomas Robinson succeeds in introducing readers to the multiple issues involved in interpreting Ignatius' comments about Judaism with an accessible style alongside evident mastery of a wide range of recent discussion. Its detailed analysis of the social and historical setting of Jews and Christians in Antioch is a model of what is needed in exploring particular situations and writings, and will ensure that the book becomes a standard contribution to the `the Parting of the Ways debate' as well as to the study of Ignatius himself." —Judith Lieu, Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity, Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge

If I do happen to obtain either, I’ll certainly blog about them.

… on that Calvinist test thingie that’s making the rounds. Here’s the proof (and no, I didn’t just clip it from Dr. J’s site, I actually took the test). Make of it what you will.

As my regular, very intelligent, highly esteemed, and most worthy readers know, I spent a lot of time dealing with the conjunction αλλα in 2008; the results of which are in the paper I wrote for the 2008 national ETS meeting (paper here).

Today I was doing a quick read the text of First Thessalonians (reconciling English with Greek) and I noticed some good examples of αλλα, so I thought I’d blog them. There are 13 examples. I’ll list each briefly and offer (hopefully brief) comments. Actually, I only got through eight before I stopped (not enough time), but hopefully you get the picture.

My basic premise is that αλλα indicates either correction or replacement. That is, the item following αλλα corrects or replaces the item preceding; and that additionally these items are contrasted such that the latter item is highlighted. In other words, the second item in the contrast is the more important information; it is what the structure puts in the spotlight. After the Greek is a very quick and not well thought out translation of relevant text (but not all of the Greek, I’m trying to work quickly here). Also, since I am working quickly, note I haven’t proofed/revised/rewritten anything, this is pretty much a raw dump — please offer feedback on whatever you see.

1 Thess 1:5
ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ ἐν πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν ἐν ὑμῖν δι ̓ ὑμᾶς 
that our gospel did not come to you in word alone, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with much certainty,…

Here the correction is in how the gospel came to the Thessalonians: It didn’t just come in word, but it came (that’s the correction) in power, with the Holy Spirit, and with much certainty (and that’s the important part). It was more than mere words. This “not only/but also” is a frequent formula and typically indicates correction. 

1 Thess 1:8
ἀφ ̓ ὑμῶν γὰρ ἐξήχηται ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου οὐ μόνον ἐν τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἀχαΐᾳ ἀλλ ̓ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἐξελήλυθεν ὥστε μὴ χρείαν ἔχειν ἡμᾶς λαλεῖν τι 
For from you the word of the Lord has sounded forth not only in Macedonia and in Achaea but in every place your faith, that which is in God, has gone out, so that we have no need to say anything

Again, we have correction and the “not only/but also” formula. The word of the Lord didn’t just go through Macedonia and Achaia; it went everywhere the news about the Thessalonians went. The important part is how this news has spread.

1 Thess 2:1-2
Αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε ἀδελφοί τὴν εἴσοδον ἡμῶν τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὅτι οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν ἀλλὰ προπαθόντες καὶ ὑβρισθέντες καθὼς οἴδατε ἐν Φιλίπποις ἐπαρρησιασάμεθα ἐν τῷ θεῷ ἡμῶν λαλῆσαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν πολλῷ ἀγῶνι
… that it was not in vain, but after we had already suffered and been poorly treated, just as you know, in Philippi, we had the courage in our God to speak to you the gospel of God, in much opposition/conflict.

Here Paul is clarifying/correcting that his (and Timothy, and Silas, see the prescript (1Th 1.1) arrival in Thessalonica was not in vain or in error; but that it was — after what happened in Philippi — indeed meant to happen. Paul is saying that it wasn’t an accident, instead it was intended of God for them to bring the Thessalonians the gospel in this way, after the incident(s?) in Philippi. Note the next clause group is another αλλα statement.

1 Thess 2:3-4
ἡ γὰρ παράκλησις ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ ἀλλὰ καθὼς δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον οὕτως λαλοῦμεν οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες ἀλλὰ θεῷ τῷ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν
For our appeal does not from error, or from impurity, or with deceit, but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so that we speak not as people-pleasers but as to God, the tester of our hearts.

Here there are two different αλλα statements. Paul is first clarifying the source; the word he brings comes not deceitfully but in fact they have been “approved” by God to do this. That’s pretty much the opposite of deceit. Secondly, as to motive, Paul corrects that they come not to please people, but to please God. The important bits are that Paul’s message comes from God, and that Paul speaks not so that people will be pleased, but so that the one who tests Paul’s heart will be pleased with the results of the test.

1 Thess 2:7
δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι ἀλλὰ ἐγενήθημεν νήπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα
While we could have made demands as Christ’s apostles, instead we became as infants in your midst, as a nursing mother cherishes her own children.

The first portion of the αλλα statement may actually run up to the start of v. 5 (see Runge, Lexham Discourse Greek New Testament) but this is enough to get the idea. Note the contrast between making demands as apostles and instead being as infants. While they could’ve made demands, they instead took the more gentle route, and this is what Paul desires to highlight in the context. He gets their attention with the first statement, and then turns it on its head with the second (now more salient) statement.

1 Thess 2:8
οὕτως ὁμειρόμενοι ὑμῶν εὐδοκοῦμεν μεταδοῦναι ὑμῖν οὐ μόνον τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς διότι ἀγαπητοὶ ἡμῖν ἐγενήθητε
In this way longing for you, we determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own souls/life 

The correction is in what was shared. They didn’t just share the gospel (cf. 1Th 1.5 above) but they shared their whole lives, so it was evident how the gospel had affected them. This again, by heightening the contrast, puts the spotlight on the second portion of the statement. If you’re preaching this, the important part is that Paul/Timothy/Silas shared their whole souls/lives with the Thessalonians. That’s how they were able to model the gospel to them.

1 Thess 2:13
Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῷ θεῷ ἀδιαλείπτως ὅτι παραλαβόντες λόγον ἀκοῆς παρ ̓ ἡμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐδέξασθε οὐ λόγον ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ καθώς ἐστιν ἀληθῶς λόγον θεοῦ ὃς καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἐν ὑμῖν τοῖς πιστεύουσιν
… you accepted it not as the word of men but just as it truly is, the word of God

Again, remember my premise: correction or replacement is involved, and the second item is highlighted (prominent) in the current context. Here there is contrast innate between “the word of men” and “the word of God”. Paul had gone to pains earlier (using αλλα) to note the source of their preaching and the motive of their preaching (cf. 1Th 2.3-4 above): It was from God, to please God. Note also the “just as it truly is” statement. This puts even more prominence/importance on the second half of the structure.

So, to recap my position on αλλα, which I’m hoping the above discussion has made evident:

• it indicates correction or replacement
• it involves comparison/contrast between two items: the first premise and the following correction or replacement of that premise
• as such, the correction/replacement is the more important information. If you’re preaching, that is the thing you should focus on, because that is what the author (here Paul with some help from Silas and Timothy) has highlighted in the immediate context.

Since “Five Books” meme seem to be all the rage amongst the kiddies these days, I’ll try my hand at starting another.

The Five Biblical Studies Books I’m Stupider for Having Read

Here are the rules:

1. These are Biblical Studies books. Note that anything written by Tim LaHaye is not a Biblical Studies book.
2. Feel free to list multiple books by the same author, but you need to have at least three authors out of the five books.
3. You’re free to include books that were so stupid you couldn’t finish them.
4. Explain, in as few or as many words as you can muster, why the book in question was so mind-numbingly stupid.

Here are my Five Biblical Studies Books I’m Stupider for Having Read. The order is not significant, they all killed brain cells.

1. James D. Miller, The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents (SNTS monograph series, #93). I are more dumber for having read this book. According to Miller, it seems as if there aren’t two single words within the Pastorals that cohere.

2. Bart Ehrman, The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. I feel pain for any other unfortunate soul who read this book. I had to read it as I received a review copy from Oxford. These are brain cells I will never, ever get back.

3. Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities. I couldn’t finish this book. Standard Ehrmanian fare, proto-orthodox, down with alternate orthodoxies, blah, blah, blah. I still wish I hadn’t spent the $20 on the two volume edition (even though it was paired with Ehrman’s Lost Scriptures, which is actually a cheap way to get decent modern English translations of several writings).

4. Kenneth J. Neumann, The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in the Light of Stylostatistical Analysis. The lit review/overview is actually pretty good, but it boggs down after that. Too much math for my brain. It made my head hurt and I still couldn’t quite get what was going on. I’m sure it’s brilliant, but it doesn’t communicate well.

5. Gail Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions. I almost hesistate to include this as a "Biblical studies" book, but I am dumber for having read it.

Who to tag? Jim West (post here), Steve Runge, John Hobbins, Kevin P. Edgecomb, and Mike Aubrey, of course (though I’ll understand completely if any of you would like to defer).

Update (2009-07-08): There’s been a bit of backlash (here and the update here, thanks to Nick for pointing these out otherwise I’d not have been aware of them) on the whole idea of books that “made me stupider”. Some context, people:

1. The meme is based on an offhand thought I had while responding to yet another “five book” meme (the “Five Influential Primary Sources” meme, see the second sentence). Too many serious memes were floating around, some levity was required.
2. I figured it was time for a sampling of not-so-great books. You know, equal time and all that.
3. In my mind, “books that make me stupider” are equivalent to those books you read and end up with the only response of “huh?”. Alternately, it could be, “no, he/she can’t seriously be arguing that!”
4. These responses occurred with virtually every page in my #1 and #5 listed books, and with some frequency in Ehrman’s book. I’ve blogged a lot about Ehrman’s stuff (good and bad), search the blog to find my comments. Also note I think his translations are great. But when he’s the center instead of the text, then I think his work suffers tremendously.
5. My #4 book by Neumann actually didn’t make me stupider, but I felt stupider because I didn’t quite track the math and selection (and omission) criteria even though I felt I should be able to. I’ll say again: his lit review is fairly good.
6. I fully expect that if I ever publish a book, there will be some proportion of readers who will claim that my book made them stupider.

If this post has made you stupider, please accept my apologies (and do be sure to include this post in your list).

Nick Norelli (Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth) tagged me for the latest flavor of the “five books” meme. I think someone should start a “five book” meme of “The Five Biblical Studies Books I’m Stupider for Having Read” meme. As a matter of fact, I’ll start that meme next. So watch out, you might get tagged.

Here are the rules of the Five Influential Primary Sources meme, as Nick lists them.

1. List the 5 primary sources that have most affected your scholarship, thoughts about antiquity, and/or understanding of the NT/OT.
2. Books from the Bible are off limits unless you really want to list one, I certainly will not chastise you for it.
3. Finally, choose individual works if you can. This will be more interesting than listing the entire corpus of Cicero as one of your choices.

I will be brief, mostly a-cuz I’m not very deep here.

1. Didache. All sorts of reasons for this, primarily because it is early and it gives us a peek at how early Christian communities applied scriptures to their situation.

2. 1 Clement. Very useful for understanding how the OT was handled.

3. Letters of Ignatius. I’ll hit up the whole corpus of Iggy’s letters here, though that’s likely in violation of guideline #3. It is interesting to see how the letter genre was used outside of the NT to get a better understanding of how they’re used in the NT.

4. 1 Enoch. Haven’t read it? Read it.

5. Josephus. I’ll cop out again and go for the whole corpus, mostly because it is less about content and more about language. Josephus is helpful for getting more examples of infrequently used words to get a better idea of how they were really used. More data is better, and in most instances Josephus will help you get more data.

I will not tag anyone else on this meme. But watch out, I hope to start a new meme with my next post, and you may get tagged there.