One problem with associating an English gloss or two with a Greek word and then proceeding to “read” a text by doing a decode-o-rama followed quickly by a de-yoda-ification (I speak as one with deep, intimate knowledge of this mystical practice) is that you end up throwing context to the wind if you’re not careful, and many times even if you think you are being careful.

After some brief examination of lexicons and dictionaries, one might think it is reasonable to generally associate the gloss “lust” with the Greek verb επιθυμεω. After all, that seems to be the sense one runs into in the NT. If not “lust”, then perhaps “strong desire” or something else of such ilk, with a nod to being general and non-specific, but really knowing that “desire” has to do with that of the sexual sort; and if not that then at least the desire of something sinful or wrong. Oh, there might be exceptions (1Ti 3.1 talks of “desiring a good work”) but the word (and cognate group, especially the noun form) really has to do with sexual lust … at least, that’s the approach that I’ve heard and have seen, and that’s the word-study trap that’s easy to fall into.

Here’s the problem: Look up επιθυμεω in BDAG, and check out the citations for sense 1 (“to have a strong desire to do or secure something, ‘desire’, ‘long for’”) and compare those to sense 2, the “lust” sense. Sense 1 has many more citations and a broader range of cited material. But even in sense 1, many examples seem to be negative (“desiring” unwholesome things). Then, assuming you’re being diligent and looking up citations because you really want to understand and you’re not just cherry-picking to bolster your pre-conceived notions, you run into Poly 1.3:

“Even without seeing him, you believe in him with an inexpressible and glorious joy that many long to experience. For you know that you have been saved by a gracious gift—not from works but by the will of God through Jesus Christ” (Ehrman).

The bold bit is translated as “which many desire to experience” by Holmes. Lake has “many desire to come”; Lightfoot has “many desire to enter in”. The word translated “desire” or “long to” is … yep, you guessed it … επιθυμεω. There is nothing about “lusting” in a sexual sense here. The context here has to do with “longing to” experience the joy one experiences as a result of belief and trust in Christ. The joy experienced by the Philippians is “strongly desired” to be experienced by others.

You don’t even need to go to the Apostolic Fathers for the non-lusty sort of επιθυμεω; some responsible reading of the BDAG definition gets you there only with NT citations. 1Ti 3.1 and Mt 13.17 are great examples, but the killer to the επιθυμεω-means-sexual-lust argument has got to be Lk 22.15, where Jesus “strongly desires” to eat the passover with his disciples.

Bottom line: It’s a chicken-and-egg proposition, just like reading in English. You only know what επιθυμεω means by reading lots of stuff and building up a concept of what επιθυμεω means. Lexicons like BDAG help, but it’s easy to be myopic in word-study land where even though a “word” is being studied, it is usually prompted by a particular instance in a particular context one wants to understand. It is this local context that is important; not the word. Context is how the author constrains the variables. If one says “lust after her” or “desire her”, it’s easy. In Poly 1.3, is essentially telling the Philippians that “there are many who really want to experience that joy you’re experiencing”. In Poly 1.3, Mt 13.17 and Lk 22.15, the formula is επιθυμεω + infinitive verb where the infinitive verb (and its associated items) help one determine the nature of the “desire”. In the same way the object of επιθυμεω when not used with an infinitive (thus typically a genitive or accusative, as we see in 1Ti 3.1; check BDAG) help dial in this constraint … not anything innate in the word itself. Be very careful what local context you import into the definition of a word to apply elsewhere (go back and re-read your Exegetical Fallacies), and be even more careful about how glosses perpetuate false conceptions of word meaning.

No matter what, when your understanding of επιθυμεω is limited to one or two-word English glosses (“lust, strong desire”) your understanding of the Greek text will be similarly limited. So make it a goal to read and work through lots and lots and lots of text. I can’t tell you how helpful this has been to me! Then when you hit επιθυμεω, you’ll think in your head “επιθυμεω” and not “lust, strong desire”. And that’s a step in the right direction.

In case you hadn’t heard (here, though I know you have), Zondervan is planning on releasing a revised NIV in 2011, and also planning on discontinuing the TNIV.

(now, the punchline)

Does that make the TNIV the “new coke” of Bible publishers?

These guidelines are nearly as old as the New Testament (some who date the Didache in the 40s/50s would say older than the NT) but the thoughts behind them still ring true today. Below is the most recent form of my translation of this chapter:

1. But everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, let [him] be welcomed. And then, having tested [him], you will know him. Then you will be able to distinguish [whether he is] true or false.
2. If the one coming is a traveler, help him as much as you are able. But he shall not remain among you more than two or three days, if he has need.
3. And if he desires to stay with you, being an artisan, let him work and let him earn his keep.
4. And if he has no craft, take [this] into consideration according to your understanding, how he shall live among you [as] a Christian without [being] idle.
5. And if he does not want to act in this way, he is a Christmonger. Beware of such as these.

Basically, welcome everyone who comes, but don’t let them take advantage of you simply because they say they are a prophet or a teacher. If he wants to stay longer than a day or two, he’s gotta work. And if he’s not willing to work, then be on your guard, he is using the name of Christ to his own material advantage.

The discourse structure is fairly interesting. Verse 2 uses a μεν with the first ει and the δε in the latter half (which I translated “But”); vv. 3-5 each use δε additively, building up all of these different qualifications (hence my translation using “and” in these instances).

I think it’s obvious, but “on the one hand” for μεν in v. 2 and “on the other hand” for the following δε just would’ve been hideous. (see my earlier post on Louw & Nida and the particle μεν). Besides, it’s not an either/or option. In either case, you help. The Didachist is just using the μεν/δε structure to note the important point: Only give these guys 2-3 days of help, then cut your losses if the dude is a couch potato.

This is perhaps one of the most glowing review/blurbs one could hope for.

Tyler Cowen, blogger extraordinaire at MarginalRevolution.com, reads scads of books every year and isn’t afraid to tell you if they’re junk or if they’re awesome. And he’s usually right. What he says is worth paying attention to.

Here’s what he says about Chris Wickham’s The Inheritance of Rome (amazon.com):

What can I say?  I have to count this tome as one of the best history books I have read, ever.  The author is Chris Wickham and the subtitle is A History of Europe from 400 to 1000.  The author states that this is a book written "without hindsight" so the focus is not on how early medieval times were a precursor of this, that, or the other.

Cowen lists eight more bullet points regarding strong points “in addition to its all-around stunningness”. Clearly, The Inheritance of Rome (amazon.com) is a book that we all should read. I’ve already added it to my Amazon Wishlist (I have a birthday coming up in October … hint, hint).

Here’s the Amazon.com blurb:

An ambitious and enlightening look at why the so-called Dark Ages were anything but that

Prizewinning historian Chris Wickham defies the conventional view of the Dark Ages in European history with a work of remarkable scope and rigorous yet accessible scholarship. Drawing on a wealth of new material and featuring a thoughtful synthesis of historical and archaeological approaches, Wickham argues that these centuries were critical in the formulation of European identity. Far from being a middle period between more significant epochs, this age has much to tell us in its own right about the progress of culture and the development of political thought.

Sweeping in its breadth, Wickham’s incisive history focuses on a world still profoundly shaped by Rome, which encompassed the remarkable Byzantine, Carolingian, and Ottonian empires, and peoples ranging from Goths, Franks, and Vandals to Arabs, Anglo- Saxons, and Vikings. Digging deep into each culture, Wickham constructs a vivid portrait of a vast and varied world stretching from Ireland to Constantinople, the Baltic to the Mediterranean. The Inheritance of Rome (amazon.com) brilliantly presents a fresh understanding of the crucible in which Europe would ultimately be created.

This is less than helpful. Screen capture taken from the Logos Bible Software version of Louw-Nida. This is the Greek index, Vol 2 p 159.

No, I don’t have anything better. I can still complain, though.

I will say that they at least acknowledge the μεν .. (other particle/conjunction) correlation in a way that is visible and obvious (which shouldn’t surprise anyone who has read much from either Louw or Nida or has any knowledge of the South African textlinguistics school/approach). And at least the referenced article focuses on the contrast that is marked in these situations.

But μεν .. αλλα, μεν .. δε, and μεν .. πλην are not identical in function and it is virtually impossible to narrow any of them down to a suitable gloss, let alone the always-horrible “on the one hand/on the other hand”. If you ever use that, you should think twice about it, and then change it anyway.

It’s less about translation into English (or any other language) and more about how the discourse/information is structured in Greek. This is one of the more prominent problems with trying to stick English glosses on everything to decode it and then “smooth it over” into a translation (hey, I’ll admit I do that frequently; it’s still wrong). I’m not saying that Louw and Nida are doing that, I am saying that doing that is one very easy (and very wrong) way to utilize the information they provide in their lexicon.

Check Denniston’s Particles, but before you do that do yourself a favor and check out the sample from Steve Runge’s forthcoming Discourse Grammar on his web site. (Look for the Sample PDF on his publications page) The section on conjunctions is your friend.

Another snippet from his short grammar:

As a rule German editors punctuate too freely according to German ideas rather than those of the Greeks.

Robertson, A. T. (2009). A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament, for Students Familiar with the Elements of Greek (16). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

Remember, Robertson wrote that in the 1908 (100 years ago!). This was interesting to me because of a note I made on a post on punctuation/accent almost two years ago now:

Pure speculation and likely irrelevant and misguided, but I'm wondering how the punctuation in NA27 compares with how one would punctuate a somewhat literal German translation — and how punctuation in UBS4 compares with how one would punctuate a somewhat literal English translation.

His Short Grammar,* Part II, Chapter III is on orthography. Section 2 of that chapter is on accent.

He starts the section: “This is a thorny subject.”

Hoo-boy.

* A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 13. I got my copy in Logos Bible Software's A.T. Robertson Collection (15 Vols.)

The Greek conjunction και is one of those words that seems easy to understand (it means “and”, right?) and then again not so easy (“Why is there a και here?”). From my reading and study,* και is essentially additive, and one forgets this at his peril when evaluating και in context.

Here’s a simple example from Didache 7.4 to reinforce the basic idea.

πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπτίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύνανται· κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.

I’ll leave other aspects of the information structure to Steve Runge (though there is some cool stuff, notably the prepositional phrase before the primary verb forming a temporal frame and also the function of δε linking to previous the previous clause indicating development). Here’s the same formatted a bit differently with translation below:

   πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος
   And before the baptism
προνηστευσάτω
he should fast beforehand
   ὁ βαπτίζων
   the one baptizing 
   καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος
   and the one being baptized
   καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύνανται·
   and any others who are able.

κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον
Call upon the one being baptized to fast
   πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.
   beforehand one or two days.

There is some interesting text-critical and form-critical stuff going on here, but my interest isn’t (immediately) there. Read Niederwimmer for those details. Regarding και, my interest is in simply seeing how a group is formed using και to add one group element to the existing, known group. While I translated “and” above, you could also do something like “along with” or even “and also”.** The important bit about καιʼs function here is that after the initial group element is introduced (“the one baptizing”), και is used to build that up.

If we just have και associated with the gloss “and” in our minds, we may pass the test and translate the above correctly. But has it been understood? Understanding what function words like και (and δε, and my favorite, αλλα) are up to allows us to better approach the Greek text as Greek instead of as a jumbled set of wooden, English, yoda-speak glosses that need to be decoded and smoothed over in order to be understood.

* Most helpful have been portions of Steve Runge's Discourse Grammar, Heckert's Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles (amazon.com), and Denniston's Particles (amazon.com).

** Ehrman really scrambles the word order to work a “both … and” into it: “But both the one baptizing and the one being baptized should fast before the baptism, along with some others if they can.”