Came across some stuff from Wolf Leslau at the “Educational Resources Information Center”. Six titles.

• Intermediate Amharic Cultural Reader. Final Report
• Basic Amharic Dictionary: Amharic-English, English Amharic
• An Amharic Reference Grammar
• An Annotated Bibliography of the Semitic Languages of Ethiopia
• An English-Amharic Dictionary of Everyday Usage, Part I (A-L)
• An English-Amharic Dictionary of Everyday Usage, Part II (L-Z)

The Reference Grammar is a PDF of a typewritten page with Ethiopic hand-written (with transliteration typed).

Leslau is a big name in Ge’ez studies; seeing this stuff freely downloadable seems (to me, anyway) like a big thing.

I’d never known about the ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center). It’s a .gov site … I’m still in shock that a .gov site had something of marginal interest to me.

No, I don’t have any insightful new conclusions on this, but I did run across a very interesting instance that warrants further study and research.

First, note that most grammars portray πλην as a strengthened form of αλλα, and portray αλλα as a “strong adversative” in comparison to δε, which they class as “adversative” (at least in one of the typically myriad senses). I’m not happy with that. I get the idea of a cline here, but it just seems sloppy. What, there’s an “adversative”, a “strong adversative” and a “stronger adversative”? How does that help? How does that not simply mistake contextual cues for lexical/grammatical function?

I think the insights from Stephen Levinsohn, Steve Runge and Discourse Grammar help a bit more. That is, δε indicates development; αλλα is a marker of contrast and indicates correction or replacement (again, see my αλλα paper).

But what does πλην do, then? Muddying up the works is the notion that πλην can function as a conjunction (most common) or as a preposition (Ac 15.28, cf. Robertson XIII.VIII(ai), p. 646), or as a simple adverb (Ac 20.23; Php 1.18, again cf. Robertson).

One approach is to see how the same author uses these two function words. Last night, while working through the text of Mt 26, I came upon the following that screams out to me for further examination/research:

αὶ προελθὼν μικρὸν ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ προσευχόμενος καὶ λέγων· πάτερ μου, εἰ δυνατόν ἐστιν, παρελθάτω ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο· πλὴν οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω ἀλλʼ ὡς σύ. (Mt 26.39, NA27)

and going forward a bit, he fell upon his face praying and saying, "My Father, if it is possible, remove from me this cup; πλην not as I desire αλλʼ as you [desire]." (Mt 26.39, my own)

The synoptic parallels are interesting (thanks for pointing them out, Steve), particularly depending on how you view their composition histories. Me? I think ‘Q’ is a load of hooey, and think considering Mark as the first written and also as a source for both Mt and Luke makes sense. So here’s what Mark and Luke (respectively) have:

καὶ ἔλεγεν· ἀββα ὁ πατήρ, πάντα δυνατά σοι· παρένεγκε τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ· ἀλλʼ οὐ τί ἐγὼ θέλω ἀλλὰ τί σύ. (Mk 14.36, NA27)

and he said: “Abba Father, all things are possible with you. Take this cup away from me, αλλʼ not what I desire, αλλα what you [desire].” (Mk 14.36, my own)

λέγων· πάτερ, εἰ βούλει παρένεγκε τοῦτο τὸ ποτήριον ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ· πλὴν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γινέσθω. (Lu 22.42 NA27)

saying, “Father, if you wish, take this cup away from me, πλην not my desire αλλα your [desire] be done.” (Lu 22.42, my own)

So Mark uses αλλα … αλλα while Luke (along with Matthew) use πλην … αλλα. That’s very interesting too; it means that examining the higher-level discourse of all three gospel writers in this instance could shed some light on why Matthew and Luke both prefer πλην … αλλα.

Might have to consider digging into this for the ETS NW Regional meeting. It’s in February, and it’s only in Tacoma.

Update: For those keeping score at home, note that Margaret Thrall addresses this very issue in her book Greek Particles in the New Testament. Whether proper or not, you can grab a copy of Thrall from archive.org (search "Texts" for "Margaret Thrall"). The gist, apparently, is that she sees Mark as the strongest formulation, with πλην in Mt & Luke functioning conditionally in this instance. Her discussion runs from pp. 67-70. Davies & Allison (ICC Matthew vol. 3) agree with Thrall; Luz (Hermeneia Matthew 3) disagrees saying in a note "Here the adversative sense dominates". I'm inclined to go against Thrall as well but will actually read the section first (of course).

I took a bit of an extended vacation over the holidays (four vacation days, three holiday days, and two weekends = 11 days total) and during that time wanted a project to focus on completing, so I whipped through the Greek text of Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (Lake’s text, since it is in the public domain), and ended up with a new translation and notes of Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians.

I’d translated chapter 1 earlier (late October? Early November? I don’t remember) so I finished out with the Greek portions over the week between Christmas and New Years Day. As some likely know, Polycarp’s letter has some portions only extant in Latin. I don’t know Latin, so I didn’t translate those; instead I made slight changes to Kirsopp Lake’s Latin text in consult with Holmes’ and Ehrman’s editions.

The style is the same as that of my earlier Didache translation, including notes on cross references and on some lexical and translation issues.

The result is Polycarp to the Philippians: A Translation. Feel free to download the PDF; I’d love to know what you think about it.

What’s next? Well, I have a larger project to do that will require going through the whole Greek NT (again) that takes priority. After that, I hope to perhaps dig into Ignatius’ letters.

One of the reasons why I like Robertson’s big grammar is stuff like this:

(f) THE QUESTION OF Αὑτοῦ.  This is somewhat knotty. It seems clear that as a rule αὐτοῦ and not αὑτοῦ is to be printed in the N. T. A number of reasons converge on this point. The older Greek often used αὑτοῦ rather than ἑαυτοῦ as shown by the aspiration of the prepositions like ἀφʼ αὑτοῦ, etc. In the N. T. there is not a single case of such aspiration after elision save in a few single MSS. Add to this the fact that the N. T. uses the reflexive pronoun much less than the earlier Greek, “with unusual parsimony” (Hort). Besides the personal pronouns of the first and second persons are frequently employed (Buttmann) where the reflexive might have been used. Buttmann urges also the point that in the N. T. we always have σεαυτοῦ, not σαυτοῦ. The earliest uncial MSS. of the N. T. and the LXX that use the diacritical marks belong to the eighth century, but they all have αὐτοῦ, not αὑτοῦ. Even in the early times it was largely a matter of individual taste as to whether the personal or the reflexive pronoun was used. Blass (p. 35) indeed decides absolutely against αὑτοῦ. But the matter is not quite so easy, for the κοινή inscriptions give examples of ὑφʼ αὑτοῦ in first century B.C. and A.D. Mayser also gives a number of papyri examples like καθʼ αὑτοῦ, μεθʼ αὑτοῦ, ὑφʼ αὑτῶν, where the matter is beyond dispute. Hort agrees with Winer in thinking that sometimes αὑτοῦ must be read unless one insists on undue harshness in the Greek idiom. He instances Jo. 2:24, αὐτὸς δὲ Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἐπίστευσεν αὑτὸν αὐτοῖς, and Lu. 23:12, προϋπῆρχον γὰρ ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ὄντες πρὸς αὑτούς. There are other examples where a different meaning will result from the smooth and the rough breathing as in 1 Jo. 5:10 (αὑτῷ), 18 (αὐτόν, αὐτοῦ), Eph. 1:5 (αὐτόν), 10 (αὐτῷ), Col. 1:20 (αὐτόν), 2:15 (αὐτῷ). W. H. print αὑτοῦ about twenty times. Winer leaves the matter “to the cautious judgment of the editors.”
A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research ( (Logos, 1919; 2006)), 226.

BDF was not clear at all when discussing this (§31(1), according to the index).

Have you ever stopped to notice how Cornelius was introduced in Acts 10?

First, Acts 10.1-2 (the translation is a draft from the Lexham English Bible, which is almost complete now):

Now there was a certain man in Caesarea named Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Cohort, devout and fearing God together with all his household, doing many charitable deeds for the people and praying to God continually. (Ac 10.1-2, LEB draft)

What do we know about Cornelius after these verses?

• Lives in Caesarea
• A centurion
• with the “Italian Cohort”
• Devout and God-fearing (was he a “God-fearer”?)
• His “household” feared God too (interpret that as you will)
• He did many “charitable deeds” for the people
• He prayed to God “continually”

That’s a lot to introduce someone into the discourse. He must be important to the story. For comparison, look at what we know about “Simon the tanner”, whose house Peter was staying at (cf. 9.42; 10.6) — not even enough to know if “tanner” described his trade, or if it was just a surname (e.g. “Simon Berseus”).

That’s not all. When does Cornie come into the story next? See Ac 10.22 for his next introduction/resumption:

And they said, “Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man—and well spoken of by the whole nation of the Jews—was directed by a holy angel to summon you to his house and to hear words from you.” (Ac 10.22 LEB draft)

Again, what is known/reiterated about Cornelius?

• A Centurion
• A “righteous and God-fearing man”
• Well spoken of by “the whole nation of the Jews”
• Received directions from an angel to summon Peter

Must be pretty important to have all this info about this dude. I don’t think it was an accident that the event where Peter was summoned by Cornelius (a non-Jew, a centurion, for that matter, but one who was a God-fearer and who was accepted by Jews) in this episode where Peter’s conclusion (Ac 10.34-35) is:

So Peter opened his mouth and said, “In truth I understand that God is not one who shows partiality, but in every nation the one who fears him and who does what is right is acceptable to him. (Ac 10.34-35 LEB draft)

This episode ends with the Holy Spirit being poured out on the Gentiles, Ac 10.44-48:

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell on all those who were listening to the message. And those believers from the circumcision who had accompanied Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and glorifying God. Then Peter said, “Surely no one can withhold the water for these people to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as we also did!” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay for several days. (Ac 10.44-48, LEB draft)

Who was Cornelius? Seems he was pretty important. I guess that’s why he was super-qualified in his introduction (vv. 1-2) and reintroduction (v. 22).

Stephen Levinsohn is a linguist with SIL, and it is well worth the effort (sometimes significant) to understand his cross-linguistic approach to discourse. I cannot say that I fully understand it, but I am lucky in that Steve Runge is a friend of mine and has an office right next to mine at Logos.

Anyway, Steve Runge blogs that Stephen H. Levinsohn’s self-instruction materials for narrative and non-narrative discourse are now online.

These materials include “a passage-by-passage and verse-by-verse exposition of discourse features” for 1 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 1 Corinthians 1-4 and Luke 22 and Luke 6:20-49. I’ve worked through portions of the First Timothy notes in the past and can commend it to you. You’ll need both the narrative and non-narrative self-instruction materials as he references them heavily.

Note that Levinsohn’s focus is in providing materials for translators to use to understand and translate the text; he isn’t necessarily providing exegesis for you to consume, he’s helping translators think about and understand the discourse structure of the text. I’ll end with Steve Runge’s caveat:

One note of caution. Stephen is a very precise scholar. Generally speaking, if he cannot account for 95-100% of the data of a given feature, then he does not feel that he has not properly described it. I am [Steve Runge is] aiming for the 80-90% range, since there seems to be a fairly high fatality rate in covering the last 10%. In other words, it becomes so technical in the final leg that many give up the ghost rather than pushing ahead. It’s not really a death march, it just feels like it. My introductions are intended to acclimatize folks before they move off to attempt the summit. When I was doing my doctoral studies there was no concise introduction to the field, most works assumed a horrific amount of background. Hopefully I am bridging that gap.

I commend Levinsohn’s work to you, particularly the self-teaching materials. By all means read and see how languages tend to operate, what principles they follow. It will greatly enhance your ability to think productively about English, Greek, or most any other thing.

It’s funny when you notice things that scribes noticed as well.

I was reading through Acts and came across Acts 9.23-25:

23 When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.  (Acts 9:23–25, ESV)

I thought, “huh. Didn’t realize Saul had disciples.” Here’s the Greek of v. 25:

25 λαβόντες δὲ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ νυκτὸς διὰ τοῦ τείχους καθῆκαν αὐτὸν χαλάσαντες ἐν σπυρίδι. (Ac 9.25, NA27)

Then I looked at the NA27 apparatus to see if there were variants here. Other people have thought the same thing I did, and figured they needed to fix it.

Some MSS simply remove αὐτοῦ thus removing the issue with “his” (“and the disciples took him by night”). Others change οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ to αυτον οἱ μαθηταὶ, thus making explicit the formerly implicit object “him” in “took him by night” and removing the “his” from “his disciples”). Note that the text behind the KJV follows this latter option: “Then the disciples took him by night”.

Ain’t this fun?

It’s up, and it is excellent. Check out Doug Chaplin’s blog Clayboy for the details. Thanks for putting it together, Doug, and thanks for the links (to some Logos4 posts [here and here] , a post on the NIV, and a link to my new Didache translation).

In other news, in “The Biblioblog Top 50” for November 2009, ricoblog zooms up the charts from 128 to squeak just inside the top 50 at 43. That’s 85 spots. I guess I got some traffic from that Logos4 post. I’m sure I’ll be out of the top 50 next month.