Thanks again to Hendrickson Academic for sending along:

Thomas A. Robinson, Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish-Christian Relations (amazon.com). Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody, MA. 285p. 2009.

Here’s the publisher blurb:

How did the early Christian movement, which began among Jewish people and in close association with the Jewish temple and synagogues of the first century, develop into a predominantly Gentile movement by the end of the first century? Was this “parting of the ways” spurred by internal tensions within the Christian church, socio-political factors in the Roman city of Antioch, or growing hostility from the larger Jewish community?

In Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways (amazon.com), Thomas A. Robinson addresses this intriguing historical question by taking a careful look at the writings of one of the few Christian writers who wrote about this parting firsthand—Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, who was martyred in the early years of the second century. Through a careful examination of the historical and sociological setting of first-century Antioch, Robinson sifts the testimony of this church father on issues such as the nature of Christian conversion at Antioch, the sources of Jewish-Christian tensions in that city and in the broader Roman world, and the development of the terms “Christian” and “Christianity.” Assessing a number of current theories about the nature of the Jewish-Christian parting, Robinson stresses the importance of hearing the voice of Ignatius himself on these questions. This is an excellent resource for anyone interested in the early days of Christianity and in Jewish-Christian relations.

The book’s page at Hendrickson.com has a TOC, Introduction and a sample chapter available.

I received the book on Thursday morning and read it straight through from Thursday afternoon, finishing it Friday afternoon. The book is well-written and has thorough interaction with available studies of relevant topics (all duly footnoted … thanks, Hendrickson, for having footnotes in this one!). I will post on it some time over the next few days, hopefully. But it is well written, thought provoking, and — if you have an interest in the writings of Ignatius, it is well worth reading.

Thanks to Hendrickson Academic for sending along:

Moyer V. Hubbard, Christianity in the Greco Roman World: A Narrative Introduction (amazon.com). Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody, MA. 320p. 2010.

Here’s the publisher blurb:

A creative introduction to the world of the New Testament

Background becomes foreground in Moyer Hubbard’s creative introduction to the social and historical setting for the letters of the Apostle Paul to churches in Asia Minor and Europe.

Hubbard begins each major section with a brief narrative featuring a fictional character in one of the great cities of that era. Then he elaborates on various aspects of the cultural setting related to each particular vignette, discussing the implications of those venues for understanding Paul’s letters and applying their message to our lives today. Addressing a wide array of cultural and traditional issues, Hubbard discusses:

• Religion and superstition
• Education, philosophy, and oratory
• Urban society
• Households and family life in the Greco-Roman world

This work is based on the premise that the better one understands the historical and social context in which the New Testament (and Paul’s letters) was written, the better one will understand the writings of the New Testament themselves. Passages become clearer, metaphors deciphered, and images sharpened. Teachers, students, and laypeople alike will appreciate Hubbard’s unique, illuminating, and well-researched approach to the world of the early church.

Go to the book’s page at Hendrickson.com for the TOC, Introduction and a sample chapter. I hope to read this sometime over the next few weeks; when I do I’ll report back.

I’ve been reading through the 4th century (probably) “Life of Polycarp”. This work includes several supernatural/fantastic stories supposedly from the life of Polycarp. Lightfoot’s big edition has the Greek text with notes and an English translation.

§27 has the story of Polycarp and one of his deacons, Camerius. They’re traveling one day, and a widow gives them a tiny birdie as an offering. So after the long day of travel, Polycarp and Camerius stop at an inn and crash for the night.

In the middle of the night, the angel of the Lord appears to Polycarp telling him that the inn is going to crash down. Here’s Lightfoot’s translation:

And when night was nearly half past, an angel of the Lord stood by him and smote his side and said, ‘Polycarp.’ and he said ‘what is it?’ The angel replied, ‘Rise and go out of the inn: for it is on the point of falling.’

So Polycarp tries to wake up Camerius. Polycarp is unsuccessful, Camerius is in some seriously deep sleep. Polycarp tries again:

And when the angel stood by him a second time and said the same thing, again he told Camerius to get up. And on his [Camerius’] saying in reply ‘I have trust in God that, while thou art here, the wall will never fall.’ Polycarp said, ‘I too have trust in God, but I have no trust in the wall.’

At that point, I laughed. Seems reasonable to me.

The majority of times one runs into αλλα in the NT (and the Apostolic Fathers, for that matter) it occurs with a negator of some sort. The default case is to negate something in order to highlight that which follows. That is, when we say “not that, but this” we’re typically wanting “this” to be the important bit in the context. There is typically some sort of implicit contrast between “that” and “this” (e.g., dark vs. light, big vs. small, etc.) as well. We bring “that” on the table, then negate it, then say, “no, not really that, but this other thing”. In the vast majority of these instances, the “not that” portion can be completely removed and the clause has no inherent change in meaning. It’s just dull.

Enter Rom 3.31, which ends a section that most are very familiar with:

νόμον οὖν καταργοῦμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως; μὴ γένοιτο· ἀλλὰ νόμον ἱστάνομεν. (Rom 3.31 NA27)
So do we nullify the law through faith? Certainly not! Instead we uphold the law. (Rom 3.31)

Here αλλα is the hinge between nullifying the law and upholding it. So the contrast is between getting rid of something, and having that something remain in force.

Interesting here is how the negation happens. It isn’t a simple negative. We get the Pauline emphatic negation of μὴ γένοιτο or “Certainly not!”. This amps up the rhetoric even more. Talking about abolishing or nullifying the law was serious stuff, but it fit the context where Paul was talking about how the gentiles were justified by faith, not by works of the law. The logical conclusion is that the law is no longer necessary. But Paul anticipates this conclusion, baits his reader/hearer, and then smashes him back down with “Certainly not!” and then, using αλλα makes his contrasting conclusion, that the law is actually being upheld in all of this.

Note that the same exact facts could’ve been communicated with “Therefore we uphold the law.” But that would’ve been boring. Instead Paul not only used a point/counterpoint (cf. Runge’s DGGNT) he also amped up the negation. On top of an already rhetorically heated section.

I just started re-reading Paul after working through the Gospels and Acts. Paul, how I’ve missed you!

I just read an interview Dan Wallace gave over on the Broadcast Depth blog.

Wallace has his fingers in everything, but what I didn’t expect were his multiple mentions of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

[Disclaimer: Yes, I hope to publish an interlinear of the Apostolic Fathers (pre-order here, more info here), but I think I would’ve linked and excerpted this stuff anyway, though perhaps not as quickly or as pointedly. RWB]

Here are some excerpts from the interview. “BD” means “Broadcast Depth”, “DW” means “Dan Wallace”. Emphasis is mine. Again, note these are excerpts; there is much more at the interview proper, so do check it out!

BD: Can you divulge any information on any new publication or project on which you are working?

DW: I’m under contract for half a dozen books right now. ... But I can tell you that they involve textual criticism, canonicity, Apostolic Fathers, and the historical Jesus. …

…

BD: What about your Exegetical Syntax? I’ve heard rumors of a new edition. Is there any credibility to that? If so, what should we expect in the new edition?

DW: It’s still a ways off. But the new edition will have a comprehensive syntax of the Apostolic Fathers with hundreds of references to the AF, and will bring up to speed what has happened in Greek grammatical studies in the last fifteen years. …

…

BD: What areas do you think New Testament Greek scholars will have to focus on in the next ten years?

DW: … There are also key areas in NT study that are heating up, issues that need to be honestly examined in the next couple of decades by all sides. Among these are the relation of the Apostolic Fathers to the NT (in terms of quotations from the NT, emerging canon consciousness, ecclesiological developments, the Fathers’ view of grace, and whether the AF and the NT reflect the earliest form of Christianity or just that form that became the dominant one). …

Excellent stuff, and great to see the emphasis on the importance of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. All the more reason for more resources to help folks as they read and familiarize themselves with these writings!

Yes, it’s true. I hope to produce The Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear, which will be an interlinear edition of the Greek portions of the Apostolic Fathers. Given enough interest, it will be published electronically by Logos Bible Software.

I pitched this idea internally at Logos awhile back, and it was decided to “pre-pub” the work to see if it would gain enough interest. If you’re not familiar, in Logos-speak, a “pre-pub” is a way to announce a potential project and let people indicate their willingness to purchase it. If there is enough interest, then we produce it, and folks get a great introductory price on a resource they want. (more info on “The Making of a Pre-Pub”, if you’re interested)

The pre-pub for my Apostolic Fathers Interlinear hit today. This is real, and I’ve already started the work (wonder why I did translations of the Didache and Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians recently?)

There are a few distinctives to this project. In addition to including a generic short gloss of the dictionary form and a context-sensitive grammatically-informed gloss (along with sequence numbering where necessary), I will also be classifying each word according to its Louw-Nida Semantic Domain and article. (I did something similiar with Louw-Nida references for the Pastoral Epistles a few years ago) Where words in the Apostolic Fathers do not exist in Louw-Nida’s lexicon (which really doesn’t happen that often) these will be noted. Louw-Nida really isn’t extensible—articles within domains proceed from generic to specific, as the domains themselves do, so adding to the taxonomy really isn’t supported. So I am not planning on shoe-horning things into their classification but simply noting when items are not accounted for. I also have a bunch of information I’ve compiled regarding cross-references, both with the New Testament, the LXX and also within the writings of the Apostolic Fathers themselves. These references will also be included.

Yes, I know there are interlinear haters out there (and that you’re reading my blog). And I know I’m not going to change your mind on the issue of interlinears. Frankly, I’m not looking to change your mind. I’m looking to get folks into the text of the Apostolic Fathers because I think the writings are important for all sorts of reasons, like: seeing how they deal with Scripture and what they consider “Scripture” to be; seeing how they handle delicate issues; seeing how they interact with the world around them; seeing how they teach; seeing how they live. I also think the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are a goldmine for comparative studies at the word and phrase level. They get our head out of the text we’re conditioned to understand in a context we’re conditioned to understand (the New Testament) and allow us to see other native usages in contexts we’re not familiar with.

It is this particular aspect that I think an interlinear Apostolic Fathers can help with, particularly for those who are not strong in their Greek. If it can help someone stretch their Greek muscles, I’m for it. Yes, I’m aware of the atrophy argument, and that folks won’t go further (blah blah blah) but if people move from wiggling or crawling to walking with a crutch, and that’s all the further they ever get … well, I think it’s a good thing. They’re not crawling anymore.

Finally, here’s an endorsement from a friend of mine, Johnny Cisneros, who is an all-around smart guy, a new Daddy (yay!) and who is also working on a video series on “Using Biblical Greek” for Logos:

Rick Brannan's work with Greek resources over the past fifteen years at Logos Bible Software has given him a rare internalization of the Greek language. We're fortunate that he's applying this knowledge to a careful analysis of the Apostolic Fathers in the production of The Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear. His pioneering contribution will leave many students and scholars of Koine Greek in his debt.

So please check out the prepub. If you’re interested, then sign up for it and get it at its cheapest price. And let me know if you have further questions.

First, if you’re into Twitter, you can find me there now. Just search for “Rick Brannan” or go here: http://twitter.com/RickBrannan. If you know of anyone I should be “following” (sounds so Jim-Jones-cultish that way, doesn’t it?) let me know here in the comments. Tell your friends.

Why did I take the Twitter plunge? It is primarily because I’d like to experiment with Twitter while I’m at BibleTech:2010 and see what others are doing in that area. Seems like I should try to have some sort of audience before the conference.

Speaking of BibleTech, did you know there is now a BibleTech blog? check it out: http://www.bibletechconference.com/blog/

On my recent relative blog silence, it is mostly due to working on project that requires me to go through the Greek NT at a relatively quick pace. That means less time for blogging. But know that lots of good stuff is cooking; hope to have some announcements here over the next few months.

Last question/note: Should I submit a proposal to SBL’s Greek Language and Linguistics section? I’m thinking a revised and cleaned version of the αλλα paper I did for ETS in 2008 would be suitable; it would also be the impetus necessary to prepare a version for submission for publication. Let me know what you think in the comments if you have an opinion on this.

The title is more far-reaching than I can really support. It’s just a notion I have for now as a result of working through the Greek text of Matthew and now the first three chapters of Mark in comparison with the NIV and other translations.

I get the sense that there are three ‘registers’ to the NIV translation. Yes, I know ‘register’ isn’t exactly the right word to use here, but it conveys what I mean. I guess that I want to say I think the ‘dynamicity’ (is that a word) of the NIV appears to be correlated in the following manner in Matthew and at least the first three chapters of Mark:

• OT Quotes in NT: Fairly literal in translation
• “Normal” text: Dynamic
• Words of Jesus (text in red): Fairly dynamic

I can see the OT quotations as being in a sort of higher register, a “thus saith the Lord” style of register. Appealing to older wisdom, quoting an esteemed source authoritatively. Sorta like we appeal to KJV-ish speech sometimes (e.g., “we all could do that kind of thing; remember, ‘but for the grace of God, there go I.’ ”).

The words of Jesus caught me off guard though. Yes, they’re not always translated “fairly dynamically”. But check out Mark 3:28:

NA27: Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πάντα ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὰ ἁμαρτήματα καὶ αἱ βλασφημίαι ὅσα ἐὰν βλασφημήσωσιν·

NIV: I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.

LEB:* Truly I say to you that all the sins and the blasphemies will be forgiven the sons of men, however much they blaspheme.

ESV: Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter,

(* LEB = “Lexham English Bible”, a new translation under way by Logos Bible Software. The NT is complete).

The differences aren’t picked up in surrounding contexts either. For whatever reason — and I must stress that my report here is anecdotal in what I’ve seen and noticed and not comprehensive — this sort of smooshing the text seems to happen more frequently (not exclusively) in words attributed to Jesus in the NIV. No, I have not checked the TNIV — one can only check so many translations.

Anyone else notice similar sorts of things? Am I on to something? Any theories as to why?