Using New Testament Greek (David A. Black)-Part VIII

After discussing lexical analysis (the study of words), Black emphasizes the importance of syntactical analysis. By syntax, I mean sentence architecture or the way that sentences and phrases are formed: syntax is word order or the relationship that words bear to other words (signifier to signifier). Those who practice discourse analysis contend that grasping the macrostructure of a text is indispensable for gaining textual understanding; the exegete must not only look at individual phonemes, lexemes or morphemes. Nor is it sufficient to analyze Greek at the sentence level, but the student of Greek or the exegete must progress to discourse (the macrostructure), paragraphs, constituent structures, and the overall context of a work in order to better understand the biblical text.

Another vital point which Black makes is that translations can hide syntactical difficulties or ambiguities. Therefore, in order to know what's occurring on the syntactical level, one must be able to read biblical texts in the original languages. Now I stress that most students of Scripture will not want to do this kind of study or they may not have the time or resources needed for this activity, and I'm not saying that such individuals cannot get at truth if they do not study Hebrew or Greek. But in order to grasp the underlying issues that involve syntactical or morphosyntactic features, it takes a certain proficiency with Greek: the same principle applies to Hebrew or Aramaic.

There are many examples that could be adduced to illustrate why syntax matters for purposes of exegesis, but instead of using Black's examples, I will present my own.

Galatians 2:16 reads (WH): εἰδότες δὲ ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ.

The basic issue in this verse is whether ἐὰν μὴ is adversative ("but") or exceptive ("except" or "but only"). The NWT 2013 opts for the exceptive sense: "We who are Jews by birth, and not sinners from the nations, recognize that a man is declared righteous, not by works of law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ. So we have put our faith in Christ Jesus, so that we may be declared righteous by faith in Christ and not by works of law, for no one will be declared righteous by works of law."

Ernest De Witt Burton (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 120-121) writes that ἐὰν μὴ in Gal. 2:16 "is properly exceptive, not adversative." But what part of the text does the construction except? Burton explains that it might be the "preceding statement taken as a whole" or "the principal part of it," but in the final analysis, he opts for ἐὰν μὴ excepting οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος only. He thus understands Paul to mean that we cannot be justified (declared righteous) by works of Law at all. In order to make the English translation intelligible though, Burton suggests the reading "but only."

James D.G. Dunn apparently read ἐὰν μὴ as strictly exceptive, preferring the translation, "that a person is not justified by law except (when also) through faith in Christ." This view seems to posit something in addition to faith in Christ, namely, works of law and placing faith in the Messiah. Dunn's approach is critiqued here: https://www.proquest.com/docview/213738491?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true

A second examples is Revelation 1:1:

Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἣν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ ὁ θεὸς δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει, καὶ ἐσήμανεν ἀποστείλας διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ, (UBS5)

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John" (ESV).

We have three occurrences of αὐτοῦ, the singular genitive form of αὐτός, in Rev. 1:1. How can we tell from the syntax whether the referent of αὐτοῦ is God or Jesus Christ?

I have personally grappled with the syntax of this passage for years and can say that it is hard to determine the pronominal referents on the basis of syntax alone. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that the referent of τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ and τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ Ἰωάννῃ and διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου αὐτοῦ is God. Yet Christ could be viewed as the intermediate agent of the revelation, that is, God is possibly the specific referent in Rev. 1:1, but he could be acting through Christ; conversely, God (Jehovah) could have given the revelation to Christ, who in turn sent "his" angel to God's servant John.

Rev. 22:6 explicitly states: Καὶ εἶπέν μοι, Οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι πιστοὶ καὶ ἀληθινοί, καὶ ὁ κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πνευμάτων τῶν προφητῶν ἀπέστειλεν τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει (UBS5).

In Rev. 22:16, the Risen Christ himself makes this expression: Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ἔπεμψα τὸν ἄγγελόν μου μαρτυρῆσαι ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ῥίζα καὶ τὸ γένος Δαυίδ, ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς ὁ πρωϊνός.

As I mentioned earlier, I think it is hard to be dogmatic about Rev. 1:1 especially when it comes to basing one's decision on syntax alone. For example, David Aune writes that "the subject of the verb ἐσήμανεν, 'he made known,' is ambiguous: it could be either God or Jesus Christ, though the latter is logically more probable since the revelation was transmitted by God to Jesus Christ, and it must be Jesus Christ who then further communicates the revelation" (Aune, Revelation 1-5, 15).

Aune observes that it could be either God or Christ who sent the angel. John later writes that both parties did in fact send the angel (Rev. 22:6, 16). On the other hand, I think the seeming confusion can be resolved if we appeal to the notion of divine agency and note what other NT texts say about the relationship between Jesus Christ and the other angels.

This exercise is not intended to determine who is right or wrong about these verses, but rather how syntactical analysis might work in practice and the difference it could make.

The next entry deals with structural analysis.

Sunday and Monday (No Blogging for Me This Week on Those Days)

Dear readers of this blog,

I greatly appreciate you all. Due to some business I have to care for, I will not be posting blog entries this Sunday or Monday. I've submitted a lot here lately, especially for a blog that was originally intended to be "sporadic." However, I feel strongly about D.A. Black's little work and other things I've read lately and want to verbalize my thoughts about them. I guess blogging is also an outlet and somewhat relaxing for me--though not always :)

At any rate, I might post something tonight, then you won't hear from me until next Tuesday. All the best!

Edgar

Using New Testament Greek (David A. Black)-Part VII

After David Black offers tips for textual criticism, he explains the basics of lexical analysis (word study). The suggestions he offers are helpful; for instance, it's tempting to believe that word studies are what it takes to unlock Bible meaning. I first thought this way when I started studying Greek and dabbling in Hebrew: I felt that it would be possible to settle Trinitarian disputes and that the scriptures would become like an open book to me, if I only knew Greek. I now realize that one cannot expect too much from lexical analysis even though it is beneficial and important when done properly.

The ten-volume Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) is a cautionary tale to remind us that word studies can be misleading: James Barr criticized TDNT for confusing Vort und Begriff. Black says TDNT illustrates that word studies must examine how writers employ words within particular contexts--not in the abstract.  D.A. Carson likewise warns against committing exegetical fallacies when one does word studies; these observations show that lexical analysis can be fraught with danger if done improperly.

Black gives two examples of how to do word studies in preparation for a sermon, but I want to offer two of my own. The first term is the Greek word μορφή. Just what does it mean per its lexicality? Honestly, the word is surrounded with controversy and theological biases don't help much. I favor the meaning, "outward appearance, external shape, form" for Philippians 2:6-7, but others think differently. Whatever one decides, we cannot understand the term's denotation apart from the context in Philippians. The exegete may learn what the LXX, Plato, Aristotle, and other GNT verses have to say about the term, but at the end of the day, one cannot ignore the word's immediate context when trying to find its denotation. In my opinion, Carl Conrad exemplified what a word study for μορφή should look like at the bare minimum. You can find his thoughts here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=lexical

A second example I would proffer is the Greek term καταβολή, another contentious word. See how Bill Mounce defines the word: https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/katabole

Thinking about καταβολή leads me to other suggestions I would like to make, namely, that good word studies require sharp tools. For lexical studies in the GNT, there can be no finer/sharper tool than BDAG Greek-English Lexicon; Louw-Nida's lexicon is highly recommended and so is the more recent work by Brill. The Cambridge Greek lexicon will no doubt prove to be useful although there are mixed reviews of this work. Nonetheless, the important thing is having a good, updated lexicon like the ones I mentioned and a dependable GNT dictionary would not hurt such as NIDNTT, which supersedes TDNT.

Reflecting on καταβολή , BDAG states:

(1) "the act of laying someth[ing] down, with implication of providing a base for someth[ing], foundation" and

(2) "a [technical term] for the sowing of seed, used of begetting" (page 515).

Hence, I would say that καταβολή potentially means "foundation" or in certain contexts may have that sense: it may denote the casting of seed in other settings.

Nonetheless, a friend once said:

"I know from experience that if we consult a lexicon, it is simply asking the writer of that lexicon his/her opinion of a word meaning. This is why a concordance is always safer than a lexicon."

My reply:

I'm not sure that I agree with this assessment. BDAG, Louw-Nida, Abbott-Smith [another lexicon] or LSJ [a classical Greek lexicon], IMO, do more than give opinions on word meanings. BDAG is the product of rigorous lexicography; Danker (and others before him) has examined a number of texts and contexts. Ergo, though BDAG is far from being infallible, I would not just want to chalk up Danker's lexical judgments to personal opinion. On the other hand, I'm not too trusting of concordances when it comes to lexical semantics.

Although I wrote that reply some years ago, my feelings have largely remained the same on this issue. Greek lexicons are not infallible but they are indispensable for doing serious lexical work and they're not just opinions about the potential denotation of words; on the other hand, never blindly read a Hebrew or Greek lexicon and please realize that LSJ is excellent but it's older and focuses on classical Greek sources and the LXX sometimes, not the GNT.

As Black closes this section dealing with lexical analysis (word studies), he offers two other lessons. Firstly, while one should not place too much emphasis on word studies, this does not mean that words are unimportant. There are times when a book or letter in the GNT revolves around a term or central concept (motif). For instance, doxa or dunamis: the occurrence of these words are not accidental: the writer likely has a reason for emphasizing them. Pay attention to how certain words support a book's theme or focus; note what they mean within the wider context of a literary work (e.g., pistis or elpis).

Secondly, the exegete or Bible student must never become stuck on words such that his exegesis or understanding of the Bible becomes word-bound rather than context-bound. Black quotes James Barr at this juncture: “It is the sentence (and of course the still larger literary complex such as the complete speech or poem) which is the linguistic bearer of the usual theological statement, and not the word (the lexical unit).”

So if we want to know what Paul meant by μορφή or καταβολή or what the GNT means by parousia, then we must study sentences, paragraphs, yes, whole books and letters. Word study alone will not suffice. Hence the need to study both microstructural and macrostructural components of a book. Doing so will enlighten our word studies. As one commentator once wrote, one can learn more about the Greek word ecclesia within its GNT setting by studying the book of Ephesians: we could get more from studying the book than we would from consulting lexical entries.

Thirdly, contexts help to disambiguate a word's potential signification. Translators often render the Greek word κόσμος as "world" but that English translation results in a degree of ambiguity. What do we mean by "world"? Is the world a section of humanity, the entire human race, the framework in which humans move and breathe? The apostle John wrote that the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one (1 John 5:19). Which world is that?

κόσμος may also denote the universe—the whole of all that exists: both Pythagoras and Heraclitus use it to convey this idea. When writers talk about cosmological dualism, the Greek term refers to the universe in these discussions. So the expression "world" is not an invalid handling of κόσμος, but it does produce a rather confused state of affairs once we start to use biblical texts or reflect on their meaning. In any event, cosmological dualism is the philosophical view that asserts the world (universe) is fundamentally two things. It claims that there are two absolute metaphysical principles representative of this particular species of dualism, yet the point here is that words must be understood in their broader contexts.

In conclusion, word studies are important; however, for them to truly benefit the exegete and others, they must be kept in their proper place. I will discuss syntactical analysis next time.

Sources for Further Reading:

https://guides.library.wheaton.edu/c.php?g=451045&p=3079661

E. Nida and Johannes P. Louw. Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament. SBL Resources for Biblical Study, vol. 25. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992.

https://oru.libguides.com/biblicalresearch/lexicons

https://libguides.eastern.edu/c.php?g=116096&p=756984

Moises Silva: https://books.google.com/books?id=lulsBdkfoLUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Mois%C3%A9s+Silva%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjxvpqZkOTyAhUYVTABHZsxAyoQ6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&q&f=false

Using New Testament Greek (David A. Black)-Part VI

In continuing to discuss Black's work, I'll now turn to what he writes about textual analysis. He insists that the most logical starting point for exegesis is making sure what the text originally said, which is the work of textual criticism. As Black points out, the extant GNT manuscripts diverge from one another, but I would contend that textual criticism has made it possible for us to have a high degree of confidence in the GNT: Stanley Porter makes this argument and so did Frederic G. Kenyon.

Black gives his own examples of texts that Bible versions bracket or leave out altogether. I will now supply examples that I've encountered when reading the GNT, but the main point here is not to decide which reading is correct, but to illustrate why textual analysis is important; analyzing texts helps to establish the most probable reading, and it assists the exegete to ascertain which parts of a verse might be original.

Examples of Textual Concerns:

1) Longer Ending of Mark (16:9-20)

Not that this tells us a whole lot about the original text, but NA28 contains Mark 16:1-20. However, to get an overall feel of the issues surrounding the Gospel's ending, one might consult Bruce Metzger's textual commentary and other works that discuss the textual questions about Mark. I will include sources to consult at the end of this blog post. However, Robert H. Stein (Mark, BECNT) takes some time to lay out a number of points regarding the ending of Mark. There is a so-called shorter and longer. Concerning these Stein writes: "If, as scholars generally agree, the 'shorter' and 'longer endings' of Mark are not authentic, the question still remains as to how Mark originally ended. Is Mark 16:8 the intended ending of the Gospel or has the original ending been lost? Here there is far less agreement. This question will be discussed at the end of the comment section."

Stein then offers commentary on Mark 16:1-8 before picking up questions about the Gospel of Mark' ending. What does he conclude?

"I agree with 'the conjecture that the [present] text is incomplete' because I feel 'compelled to do so by the document itself' (Knox 1942: 13). Since the 1990s, a number of major commentaries and works have appeared in support of the view that 16:8 was not the evangelist’s intended ending (Gundry 1993; Evans 2001; Witherington 2001; J. Edwards 2002; France 2002; N. Wright 2003).

So Stein concludes that Mark was never able to finish his Gospel: he reasons that we thus have an incomplete account. To be fair, his view is one of many. One finds those who think the KJV got things right by including the longer ending, which comes through the Erasmian GNT, whereas others argue that Mark 16:1-8 is the correct ending. For instance, William Lane (The Gospel of Mark, NICNT) gives the following view:

"Mark concluded his Gospel at this point. That verse 8 marks the ending to the Gospel in its present form is scarcely debated. The contention that this is the original and intended ending, however, continues to be resisted."

Lane subsequently includes this assessment: "Although the longer ending is found in the vast number of witnesses (A C D K L W X Δ Θ Π Ψ φ 28 33 274 565 700 892 1009 latt syc p h pal coppt), the form, language and style of these verses militate against Marcan authorship."

He ultimately professes that the longer ending of Mark was probably composed in the early second century.

2) 1 John 2:20

A less notable variant might be this verse from John's first letter. One encounters this interesting variant for 1 John 2:20 while reading the KJV: "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things."

Concerning this epistolary verse, Ralph Earle (Word Meanings in the NT) states:

"If the reading of the bulk of later manuscripts is correct, 'all things' would have to be taken as meaning all things necessary to salvation (v. 27). But it is probably better to accept pantes [rather than the neuter plural accusative panta] as original--'you all know.'"

NA28 reads: καὶ ὑμεῖς χρῖσμα ἔχετε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου καὶ οἴδατε πάντες.

W. Harris Hall III is informative too: "There is a textual problem in the phrase: should καὶ οἴδατε πάντες ('you all know') or καὶ οἴδατε πάντα ('you know all things') be read here? The nominative plural πάντες (pantes, 'you all know') is read by Í B P Y 398 1838 1852 cop^sa Jerome Hesychius. On the other hand A C K 049 33 614 1739 Byz latt and several other versional witnesses (mostly secondary) have the accusative πάντα (panta, 'you know all things'). The manuscript evidence favors the nominative reading, but it is not overwhelming. At the same time, the internal evidence supports the nominative, suggesting that it arose as a result of scribal confusion with the accusative used in John 14:26 and 16:30."

See https://bible.org/seriespage/9-exegetical-commentary-1-john-218-27

3) One more variant to examine for now is from Philippians 3:21.

NA28: ὃς μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ὑποτάξαι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα.

Byzantine Majority Text 2005: ὃς μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν, εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸ σύμμορφον τῷ σώματι τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ δύνασθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ὑποτάξαι ἑαυτῷ τὰ πάντα.

But εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι αὐτὸ σύμμορφον does not appear earlier than the seventh century CE (Silva). Haley Goranson Jacob explains that the textual variant of the MT is "clearly an attempt to smooth the difficult syntax caused by σύμμορφον." Jacob gives references and notes that eight "late manuscripts" preserve the lectio; see Conformed to the Image of His Son, page 141.

4) Other examples include: 1 Timothy 3:16 and 1 John 5:7; John 1:3-4, Hebrews 2:9.

Whichever text is in play, I hope the examples above illustrate the work that an exegete has to do before he or she can explicate the biblical text. Keep in mind that all this work known as textual criticism only yields probability, and recall that Bruce Metzger and UBS grade variants from A-D to indicate how likely they are to be original.

While I would not encourage anyone to read NA28, UBS5 or Metzger slavishly or uncritically, the research contained in these works signify many years of arduous textual work. Nevertheless, it's always good to compare numerous variants and editions before deciding which text is the most probable reading (variant or lectio).

The next entry will turn toward the subject of lexical analysis.

Sources for Further Reading on New Testament Textual Criticism:

https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/textual-criticism

https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2012/09/top-ten-essential-works-in-new.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=tjgzlfewUxgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=new+testament+textual+criticism&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHnOHJ_OHyAhUFVd8KHUxrCboQ6AF6BAgGEAI#v=onepage&q=new%20testament%20textual%20criticism&f=false

Using New Testament Greek (David A. Black)-Part V

We have now focused on historical analysis, one step in Black's suggestions for approaching the biblical text. Now I want to talk about literary analysis by using Philippians as an example. I emphasize that I'm not reviewing his book, but simply discussing and expositing parts of it. Black writes:

"Usually three levels of literary analysis are recognized: the canonical, the remote, and the immediate. The canonical context is the text’s place in the Bible itself. The remote context embraces paragraphs, a chapter, or even an entire book of Scripture. The immediate context consists of those verses or paragraphs that immediately precede or follow the text."  

In the foregoing paragraphs, I will illustrate what Black mentions above.

Would you read one paragraph of War and Peace but then forget the rest? That would hardly shed illumination on the famed text by Leo Tolstoy, and the same could be said for the Bible. Just knowing a verse that's isolated from its setting is somewhat beneficial, but far from sufficient. We often quote 1 Corinthians 15:33; however, what about its context or setting? Why did Paul write that counsel? Are there verses in the Hebrew Bible that shed light on Paul's words? We won't know the answer without consulting the remote or immediate context. Black invokes Hebrews 13:5b as another example which is fruitless without considering 13:5a, and I would say, 13:6.

Why is prooftexting so common? Why do many people rip a Bible passage from its original context and treat it as an isolated text? Black places the blame on Robert Estienne, who divided scripture into chapters and verses with his 1551 GNT as other versions followed suit; nevertheless, I'm thankful for what Estienne did, but it does not give us license to take a verse out of context or fail to learn from its context. Yet how can we practically implement Black's suggestions in order to shed light on what we're reading?

1) As we think about the text's place within the Bible itself, using Philippians as an example, we must acknowledge that it's difficult to understand Philippians 3:1-6 without knowing the Jewish history of circumcision (e.g., Genesis 17:9-14; Leviticus 12:1-3) from Abraham onward. The same thing could be said for comprehending Philippians 3:10-11: studying what the Bible teaches about resurrection and knowing the Sadduceean and Pharisaic beliefs concerning resurrection from the dead could illuminate 3:10-11. Not that I advocate the way that Mark D. Nanos reads Paul, but his work is an example of what it means to study Philippians within the context of ancient Judaism: https://www.kobo.com/us/es/ebook/reading-corinthians-and-philippians-within-judaism

2) What about reading the Bible with the so-called remote context in mind? One example might be Philippians 4:4. Why did Paul pen this verse? This is where a look at the macrostructure of Philippians can assist us (studying the big-picture view). In 1:3-11, the apostle commends the Philippian ecclesia: he lets them know the content of his prayers for them; moreover, Paul tries inciting them to further activity. The apostle's prayer is that his brothers and sisters will make sure of the things that matter: that their love will abound and their knowledge will increase.

He mentions causes for rejoicing in 1:12-26, then turns to exhortation (1:27-30); joy again is repeated in 2:2 with tautological earnestness (Lightfoot). The Philippians should "Do everything without grumbling or arguing" (2:14 NIV); See also Philippians 2:17-19 and compare 2:28-29. Notice how Philippians 3:18-19 contributes to the overall message, and especially for our purposes, Philippians 4:4.

3) The final part of literary analysis as described by Black is the immediate context. Continuing with Philippians 4:4 as our example, what do we find when probing the immediate context? Philippians 4:1 mentions Paul's potential joy, then he requests that assistance be given to Euodia and Syntyche: why that might have been the case will be considered at a future time, but it likely accounts for his words in 4:4.

Rejoicing is mentioned again in Philippians 4:10. In fact, the apostle shares how the congregation can experience joy by praying to God, fully trusting in him, and practicing generosity (Philippians 4:14-18); if they do these things, then Jehovah would supply their need in its entirety (Philippians 4:19) and they would have cause for rejoicing.

I've attempted to employ Philippians as a test case for how literary analysis might be conducted. There are many ways to analyze a Bible text or its structure. Sources to follow up on my blog entry will be posted below.

Sources for Further Reading:

David A. Black. "Paul And Christian Unity: A Formal Analysis Of Philippians 2:1-4."
JETS 28:3 (September 1985): p. 299.

Jeffrey T. Reed. A Discourse Analysis of Philippians. Method and. Rhetoric in the Debate over Literary Integrity. JSNTSS 136. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1996.

Richard Weymouth Thesis. https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/6389

See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270024482_A_Rhetorical_analysis_of_Philippians_127-218

Using New Testament Greek (David A. Black)-Part IV

As we continue to discuss the book Using New Testament Greek, I will now concentrate on Black's observations about historical analysis; the next post will deal with literary analysis.
This paragraph serves as our guide for now:

"Typical concerns of historical analysis include author, audience, date, occasion, purpose, cultural and sociological influences, and all other related background matters. Sensitivity to these matters does not call for yawn-producing lectures on ancient history; a brief explanation of the most important details will suffice."  

In this entry, I want to illustrate what Black is referencing by using 1 Corinthians as a case example. Historical analysis involves the following:

Author: 1 Corinthians is one of the well-known letters written by the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1:1) and he mentions Sosthenes in the opening verse. While some might question Paul's having written the letter, scholarship exists that gives abundant testimony for the claim of Pauline authorship. I will not dwell on this point since I'm merely trying to illustrate how historical analysis works; nevertheless, I will provide sources within this entry for those who want to read further on the subject.

Audience: The letter is addressed to Christians living in ancient Corinth (Greece): Paul identifies the recipients as ones God has sanctified and called to be holy ones ("saints"). The ESV introduction claims that 1 Corinthians is one of four missives that Paul wrote to the Corinthian ecclesia. Regardless of how many letters he wrote, the evidence from his epistles themselves testify that Paul wrote more than two letters to the Corinthians. Not only have 1 and 2 Corinthians survived unlike some of his other correspondences, but they are canonical letters unlike the other proposed writings that ESV mentions.

Date: The ESV gives three potential dates for the writing of 1 Corinthians--possibly the spring of 53, 54 or 55 A.D. (CE). Most sources I've checked are similar: the NABRE reckons that Paul wrote the letter circa 56 CE.

Occasion: What caused Paul to write this epistle? What was taking place in the congregation? The Corinthians evidently had a number of spiritual problems that needed to be resolved. With the help of the NABRE, I will name some of the issues that occasioned this letter: factionalism or schisms (1 Corinthians 1:10-13); contentiousness and envying (1 Corinthians 3:1-3); spiritual immaturity; fornication and incest (1 Corinthians 5:1-13); bringing legal cases against one another (1 Corinthians 6:1-7); reviling and idolatry (1 Corinthians 6:9-11); possible religious prostitution (1 Corinthians 6:12-20); disrespect shown for the Lord's evening meal (1 Corinthians 11:17-22); marital problems (1 Corinthians 7:1-16); doubts about the resurrection and more (1 Corinthians 15:1-58). Besides these problems, a number of members had questions that needed to be addressed forthwith (e.g., 1 Corinthians 7:1).

Purpose: The apostle wrote in order to encourage obedience, resolve moral/spiritual problems, and answer the sincere questions raised by the Corinthians. The NABRE has some helpful information pertaining to Paul's reason for writing this letter:

"He always treats the questions at issue on the level of the purity of Christian teaching and conduct. Certain passages of the letter are of the greatest importance for the understanding of early Christian teaching on the Eucharist (1 Cor 10:14–22; 11:17–34) and on the resurrection of the body (1 Cor 15:1–58)."

Cultural and Sociological Setting: The Romans commandeered Corinth in 146 BCE: it became a Roman colony about one hundred years later in 44 CE. While the Romans "Latinized" much of the city, evidence now exists for not viewing the city as strictly Roman, but a mix of Latin and Hellenic elements. Archaeologists have made finds that show Greek continued to be employed even when the Romans took over the city. See https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/places/main-articles/corinth

David Horrell plays down Corinth's supposed lasciviousness and blatant iniquities; he seems to think Corinth was no more idolatrous than any other city of its kind. Nevertheless, Paul suggests that fornication was prevalent and he indicates that other forms of iniquity existed within Corinth (1 Corinthians 7:1-2; 2 Corinthians 12:21).

This entry served as an example of historical analysis, whereas the next piece will address literary facets of Philippians.

Sources for Further Reading:

Jeremy Corley. "The Pauline Authorship of 1 Corinthians 13." The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 2004.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.

Anthony C. Thiselton. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2000.

Interesting Variants for Revelation 4:8 (STEP Bible)

ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος] A Byz ς WH
ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος] (‭א) al

See https://us.stepbible.org/?q=version=VarApp|reference=Rev.4

Using New Testament Greek (David A Black)-Part III

On page 70 of the version I'm using, Black now explains what he means by the "view from under." Up to this point, he's been discussing various ways to approach the biblical text through the use of Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek. Now he explains that the view from under the text means applying the biblical text to contemporary life. How can I apply the text? How does the Bible affect my life? For example, how can I apply Ephesians 5:33?

Secondly, to view the text from under encompasses "theological analysis" and homiletical analysis": the former asks what type of truth resides in the text under consideration? The latter approach queries how to best proclaim this truth. While Black has pastors or church ministers chiefly in mind, these forms of analysis could easily be modified for other types of ministering.

If we go back and reflect on the task set for the minister or exegete, just what is involved? The exegete must try to establish the original reading of the text: this work yields probable results, but is essential for drawing meaning from Scripture. For example, does 1 John 5:7 belong in the biblical text? If it does, what reasons are there for including the famed Comma? If the verse does not belong, why not? That is a question for the exegete. Other examples of texts that can be examined are 1 Timothy 3:16 and John 7:53-8:11.

Another job incumbent upon the exegete is the reconstruction of historical settings. I mentioned the Hebrews letter earlier, but another example of working out the historical setting is Paul's letter to Philemon. This epistle raises all sorts of questions pertaining to historical setting, the ancient institution of slavery, and other questions revolving around the ancient world. We could even pose questions about the nature of ancient houses and apartments, but the point is that the exegete has these responsibilities as he seeks to draw meaning from the text.

From this point onward in his book, Black will clarify to an even greater extent what each type of analysis entails. I will continue to explicate these forms of analysis in posts that follow this one.

Using New Testament Greek in Ministry (David A. Black) Part II

Exegesis is bringing meaning out of the text, not reading meaning into it; to exegete involves asking what the biblical text meant to the writer and his audience. What can help a student of Hebrew or Greek to exegete rather than eisegete? Black suggests that one needs to stand (figuratively speaking) above, within, and under the text (page 68). What are some ways this process can be accomplished?

To ascertain the meaning of biblical passages, the exegete must seek textual, lexical, syntactical, structural, rhetorical, and tradition-critical meaning. Black offers a more expansive view of what these steps entail.

The view "from above" entails historical and literary analysis: a historical question would be what situation faced the writer and readers of a book or letter. For instance, what were conditions like for the Hebrews? Or what about the writer of 1 Corinthians? What was his historical setting like?

Literary analysis asks how a given text contributes to a book. For example, how does 1 Corinthians 15:33 contribute to the first letter written to the Corinthians? I think such questions are beneficial and help to elucidate the text. The view "from within" equally asks what a text meant to ancient readers. What significance did Hebrews 6:1 have for the ancient Hebrews? Other questions that belong to the "from within" category (type of analysis) include, what did the original text say? What are the key words in the text? See Proverbs 13:20 as a case example or Proverbs 14:15.

Syntactical analysis asks how words relate to one another. See 1 John 4:8, which raises more than one syntactical question: other examples could be adduced including the first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:1. Structural analysis seeks to understand how a writer arranged a text: numerous studies have been done on the structure of Hebrews and Revelation.

Two other "view within" questions are: what rhetorical forms/devices did the writer employ to communicate meaning? See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-are-some-utterances-of-paul-hard-to.html

Something else to consider is, how did the writer use previous traditions in the text? These are the "from within" questions.  In my next entry, I will discuss what Black calls the view "from under" the text.

Galatians 1:1, 3 and Greek Prepositions

I posted this information on B-Greek back in 1998 and wanted to edit it, then post to this blog:

Galatians 1:1, 3 reads in part:

ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς  . . . χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

In both verses of this Pauline epistle, there is one preposition (διὰ and ἀπὸ) governing two substantives. Is this structure very common in the NT? If so, is this syntactical arrangement important?

Normally, I would make a marked distinction between διὰ and  ἀπὸ: Paul seems to employ the prepositions carefully throughout his writings.

According to Dana-Mantey, ἀπὸ apparently places more emphasis on the idea of separation (ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος). They write that ἀπὸ is only used in the ablative case (in the eight-case system); while ἀπὸ seems to approach ἐκ in meaning, ἐκ evidently focuses more on "from within" as opposed to "from the edge of." An example of this usage is τὰ δὲ πάντα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ καταλλάξαντος ἡμᾶς ἑαυτῷ διὰ Χριστοῦ (2 Cor. 5:18). Conversely, διὰ is utilized to describe through-hood or agency. It does not appear to stress the idea of separation like ἀπὸ does: καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι' αὐτοῦ. (1 Cor. 8:6).

I wonder if Paul uses διὰ in Galatians 1:1 to describe the agency of his apostolic office; in 1:1, there is less of a need to emphasize the idea of separation. As he continues writing in 1:3, however, it is necessary to accentuate separation: "may you have unmerited favor and peace from (ἀπὸ) God the Father and Christ Jesus." That could be the reason why Paul utilizes ἀπὸ instead of διὰ in the verse.

Some writers believe that one preposition governing two substantives in Galatians 1:1, 3 suggests that Paul is placing God and Jesus Christ on the same level. Bob Utley reckons that Paul employs διὰ to affirm the deity of Jesus Christ:

" 'Jesus Christ' and 'God the Father' are linked by one preposition which was the NT author's way of asserting the full deity of Christ; this occurs both in v. 1 and v. 3 (cf. 1 Thess. 1:1; 3:11; 2 Thess. 1:2,12; 2:16)."

Frank Matera (Galatians in the Sacra Pagina series, page 38): "but through Jesus Christ and God the Father: The preposition dia ('through') governs both Jesus Christ and God. Thus Jesus is accorded the honor of being associated with God. It also stands in contrast with the same preposition in the phrase above and emphasizes that Paul's apostleship comes directly from God and Jesus."

Gerald Borchert (Tyndale Cornerstone BC for Romans, Galatians): "The linking of  'God' with 'Jesus' (as in 1:1) is a Christian affirmation of their oneness of purpose, which is further explained in 1:4."

Borchert's observations appear to be less emphatic than the previous commentators, but one of the best commentaries to learn about the many issues that arise for Galatians 1:1-3, see Bruce Longenecker, Galatians in the WBC series.

Using New Testament Greek in Ministry (David A. Black)--A Discussion, Part I

Many moons ago, I benefited from reading David Black's work, Using New Testament Greek in Ministry. It has many wonderful features, but rather than officially review it, I'm going to discuss certain parts of the book.

Black gives some helpful warnings in the first portion of his work although he seems to have an axe to grind in at times. The book cites 1 Corinthians 8:1--a verse that blog readers likely know well. Then Black urges those who study Greek or ones who preach not to use Greek in front of a lay audience: he later takes some time to lambaste "cultists":

"Here we might learn a lesson from the cultists, who love to flaunt their 'superior' knowledge of the Scriptures by appealing to the original languages to 'prove' orthodox interpretations of the Bible wrong. The fact is that most cultists have only a superficial knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, if any at all (page 25)."

The "cultists" remain unnamed, at least here, but we can imagine ones that he might have in mind. Again, I like most of the book but find his criticism to be somewhat odd. I won't belabor the point; however, I wonder why it's such an act of pride to question "orthodox" beliefs; secondly, just how many cultists does Black know and what does he know about their background in Hebrew or Greek?

Black argues that "truth" will never be settled merely by appealing to grammatical rules or the meaning of words. I agree with him although I think both grammar and lexical semantics are important and it seems that he would concur. Yet Black assures us that people listening to a preacher or biblical expositor don't want to know about words or grammar. As another point of agreement with him, I try to avoid discussions with people who know little to nothing about aorist verbs or passive participles: we discuss such things on the blog or I talk with some of my students and friends about grammar and semantics, but not at someone's door while engaged in the public ministry like we did back in the pre-Covid days.

So Black again sounds the warning--I will quote him, then discuss other parts of his book in subsequent posts:

"Preachers are regrettably prone to try and impress people with their profound exegetical abilities. The greater the education, the greater the danger. But the truth is that people aren’t impressed with participles and prepositions. They are not even faintly interested in the aorist passive imperative. People want preaching anchored in their world, preaching that says: 'Here is what the text says, and this is what it is calling us to do.' Exegetes should never forget that the Greek New Testament was written in the common language of the day. Its appeal was to the people in the street, for it spoke clearly a language they understood."

See Proverbs 16:18; 1 Corinthians 14:9.

 

God's Knowledge (Scientia) and Divine Simplicity

Is it scriptural to claim that God lacks knowledge concerning some matters? Are there times when God is nescient? Maybe it is better to say that God knows indeterminate states, facts and properties indeterminately, and he possibly knows future contingents in a contingent way (William of Ockham). At least two factors indicate that Jehovah might know indeterminate data indeterminately.

1) Quantum mechanics may provide an example of something that God knows indeterminately: he possibly knows the position or the momentum of a subatomic particle indeterminately, but not with infallible certainty. One source explains Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that there is inherent uncertainty in the act of measuring a variable of a particle. Commonly applied to the position and momentum of a particle, the principle states that the more precisely the position is known the more uncertain the momentum is and vice versa. This is contrary to classical Newtonian physics which holds all variables of particles to be measurable to an arbitrary uncertainty given good enough equipment.

2) I would submit that human actions are potentially indeterminate; it would seem that God knows such actions indeterminately or possibly with a degree of certainty before they happen, but not exhaustively. The Insight book and other WT publications have advanced the view that God could have selective foreknowledge. If true, there would be things that God could choose to know or not know. This view might very well be true even if the scriptures don't give a full-blown account of how God knows what he knows.

At the end of the day, I must admit that my knowledge of how God knows future actions or what state the universe will be in 2028 is beyond me. His thoughts and ways are certainly higher than mine, and we don't know if quantum physics indicates that the universe is contingent, or does it only tell us that our knowledge is limited (ontology versus epistemology). However, I would like to make two closing observations.

Someone once asked me, "Isn't 'knowing indeterminately' the same as 'not knowing,' then?"

I don't see matters this way. It appears that some things by their very nature are indeterminate like quantum states and human actions. Take Schrodinger's hypothetical cat, for instance. How could anyone know whether the cat is alive or dead before the superposition of quantum states collapsed to a single state? Now it is possible that an omniscient being who knows all true propositions or facts could know what the single state of the cat will be, but if the state is indeterminate, there is also the possibility that God knows the quantum state as possible. Worded another way, knowing indeterminately could mean that a subject (S) knows the possibilities but does not know exactly how matters will transpire, that is, whether the cat will be alive or dead.

Finally, these reflections impinge on God's simplicity. If God is simple (having no temporal or spatial parts nor having any composition whatsoever, and no potency/potential), then God's knowledge would not change as the world changes (simplicity implies immutability); nor would God know anything discursively or gradually--he would just know simpliciter and intuitively. If God knows things discursively or progressively, then God has some kind of potency or potential and possibly some accidental properties. Yet a simple God is not supposed to have any of these things. On the other hand, do these ideas regarding divine simplicity accurately depict Jehovah?

Source:

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/02._Fundamental_Concepts_of_Quantum_Mechanics/Heisenberg%27s_Uncertainty_Principle

Acts 18:24-28 (Some Key Terms and Apollos)

This is my last entry for Acts 18: vss. 24-28 cover Paul's third missionary journey and his encounter with Apollos, a Jew who arrives at Ephesus (Asia Minor then, but now Turkey). Paul worked hard in Ephesus as he spent two years in the city. Furthermore, we read about Timothy being in Ephesus to shepherd the flock there (1 Timothy 1:3). Nevertheless, I now turn my attention to Apollos.

Greek (SBLGNT):  Ἰουδαῖος δέ τις Ἀπολλῶς ὀνόματι, Ἀλεξανδρεὺς τῷ γένει, ἀνὴρ λόγιος, κατήντησεν εἰς Ἔφεσον, δυνατὸς ὢν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς. οὗτος ἦν κατηχημένος τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ζέων τῷ πνεύματι ἐλάλει καὶ ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐπιστάμενος μόνον τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου. οὗτός τε ἤρξατο παρρησιάζεσθαι ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ· ἀκούσαντες δὲ αὐτοῦ Πρίσκιλλα καὶ Ἀκύλας προσελάβοντο αὐτὸν καὶ ἀκριβέστερον αὐτῷ ἐξέθεντο τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ. βουλομένου δὲ αὐτοῦ διελθεῖν εἰς τὴν Ἀχαΐαν προτρεψάμενοι οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ἔγραψαν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἀποδέξασθαι αὐτόν· ὃς παραγενόμενος συνεβάλετο πολὺ τοῖς πεπιστευκόσιν διὰ τῆς χάριτος· εὐτόνως γὰρ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις διακατηλέγχετο δημοσίᾳ ἐπιδεικνὺς διὰ τῶν γραφῶν εἶναι τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν.

Translation (HCSB): A Jew named Apollos, a native Alexandrian, an eloquent man who was powerful in the use of the Scriptures, arrived in Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught the things about Jesus accurately, although he knew only John’s baptism. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. After Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him home and explained the way of God to him more accurately. When he wanted to cross over to Achaia, the brothers wrote to the disciples urging them to welcome him. After he arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace. For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating through the Scriptures that Jesus is the Messiah.

David Bentley Hart:  And a certain Judaean by the name of Apollos, Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man with a great command of the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man had been instructed in the Way of the Lord and, fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately about things regarding Jesus, while knowing of only the baptism of John; And this man began boldly speaking out in the synagogue. And, on hearing him, Priscilla and Aquila took him to their place and explained the Way of God to him more accurately. And, when he wished to proceed onward into Achaia, the brethren, feeling encouraged, wrote to the disciples to welcome him—who, when he got there, made a great contribution to those who by grace had come to have faith; For he confounded the Judaeans in public debate with great rhetorical power, demonstrating through the scriptures that Jesus is the Anointed.

I cannot make comments on each part of these verses; instead, I'm going to highlight some key terms or ideas:

1) ἀνὴρ λόγιος-Louw-Nida Greek and English Lexicon supplies this definition for λόγιος (semantic domain 27.20): "pertaining to one who has learned a great deal of the intellectual heritage of a culture - ‘learned, cultured.’" However, the lexicon observes the word could be taken to mean "eloquent" in Acts 18:24 (Compare semantic domain 33.32 in Louw-Nida). Ralph Earle quips that Apollos possibly was learned and eloquent. I've also seen significance in Luke's mention of Apollos being a native Alexandrian. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/03/apollos-of-alexandria.html

2) δυνατὸς ὢν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς-"powerful in the scriptures"; Abbott-Smith Greek Lexicon:

δυνατός, -ή, -όν (< δύναμαι), [in LXX for גִּבּוֹר, חַיִל, etc. ;]

1. strong, mighty, powerful: absol., Lk 1:49, 1 Col 1:26; οἱ δ., the chief men, Ac 25:5 ; of spiritual strength, Ro 15:1, II Co 12:10 13:9; seq. ἐν, Lk 24:19, Ac 7:22 18:24; πρός, II Co 10:4.

2. C. inf., able to do; Lk 14:31, Ac 11:17, Ro 4:21 11:23, II Ti 1:12, Tit 1:9, He 11:19, Ja 3:2.

3. Neut., δυνατόν, possible: Mt 19:26, Mk 9:23 10:27 14:36, Lk 18:27, Ac 2:24 20:16; εἰ δ. (ἐστι), Mt 24:24 26:39, Mk 13:22 14:35, Ro 12:18, Ga 4:15; τὸ δ. (= ἡ δύναμις) αὐτοῦ, Ro 9:22.†

With the help of BDAG, we find that δυνατὸς can mean "well-versed" in Acts 18:24.

3) ζέων τῷ πνεύματι ἐλάλει καὶ ἐδίδασκεν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ- According to Darrell Bock, "Τῷ πνεύματι is syntactically a dative of reference or respect: Apollos is fervent with respect to the Spirit/spirit (Moulton and Turner 1963: 220). The description of someone as fervent means that the person is enthusiastic, excited, or 'on fire' (BAGD 337; BDAG 426; 'talked … with great enthusiasm,' NLT). The term literally means 'boiling' or 'seething' (Josephus, Ant. 13.12.6 §345). It is often used in a positive context about emotions, as here. The only two NT uses are here and in Rom. 12:11."

There is some question about what exactly ζέων τῷ πνεύματι means in Acts 18:24. Does it signify that Apollos had "great enthusiasm" (NET Bible) or that he was guided by God's holy spirit when preaching to others? After weighing the options, Bock concludes that Apollos was a Christian believer who was "fervent in spirit," that is, guided by the spirit of God.

4) ἀκούσαντες-aorist active participle nominative plural masculine of ἀκούω ("hear, obey, listen, give heed to").

5) ἀκριβέστερον αὐτῷ ἐξέθεντο τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ θεοῦ-"they explained the way of God to him more accurately"; it's interesting that Luke switches from "Lord" (possibly Jesus) earlier or "Jehovah" (NWT) to "God" here.

ἀκριβέστερον is a comparative adverbial form of ἀκριβής; see Plato, Philebus 57e: ταύτας οὖν λέγομεν ἐπιστήμας ἀκριβεῖς μάλιστ᾽ εἶναι. In the words of Bock, "ἀκριβέστερον (akribesteron, v. 26) is a comparative used as an elative with an adverbial force (Moulton and Turner 1963: 30; Culy and Parsons 2003: 357)."

6) προτρεψάμενοι οἱ ἀδελφοὶ ἔγραψαν τοῖς μαθηταῖς ἀποδέξασθαι αὐτόν-The participle in this construction (προτρεψάμενοι) is aorist middle nominative plural masculine of προτρέπω ("to impel, excite, exhort"). Culy and Parsons identify it as a participle of attendant circumstance (page 357). ἔγραψαν is aorist active indicative third person plural of γράφω. ἀποδέξασθαι is an aorist middle-passive infinitive of αποδέχομαι: it possibly communicates the idea of purpose (Culy and Parsons).

7) εὐτόνως γὰρ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις διακατηλέγχετο δημοσίᾳ ἐπιδεικνὺς διὰ τῶν γραφῶν εἶναι τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν-Apollos robustly confuted (διακατηλέγχετο) his Jewish opponents in Achaia. See Robertson's Word Pictures: he renders the adverbial εὐτόνως as "powerfully." Other translations include "vigorously" and "vehemently." NWT 2013 chose "with great intensity."

διακατηλέγχετο is an imperfect middle indicative third person singular of διακατελέγχομαι; it occurs once in the GNT. "For he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah" (William Mounce). The Alexandrian "confounded" the Jews openly, and he ἐπιδεικνὺς  διὰ τῶν γραφῶν; however, the main point of his activity was to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah.

8) NET Note on Acts 18:27: sn To cross over to Achaia. Achaia was organized by the Romans as a separate province of Greece in 27 b.c. and was located across the Aegean Sea from Ephesus. The city of Corinth was in Achaia.

See the NET Bible note for Acts 18:12.

A Brief Note Pertaining to Histories 1.13.6-7 by Polybius

The Greek historian Polybius lived from circa 200 BCE-120 BCE. Most of his works are no longer extant, but his large collection known as Histories survived: it covers the classical period from 246 BCE-146 BCE. Polybius set the agenda for modern-day historiography.

While researching some things for my Epaphroditus post, I came across Histories 1.13.6-7 which reads: τὸ μὲν οὖν ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι τὰ κατὰ μέρος ὑπὲρ τῶν προειρημένων πράξεων οὐδὲν οὔθ᾽ ἡμῖν ἀναγκαῖον οὔτε τοῖς ἀκούουσι χρήσιμον. οὐ γὰρ ἱστορεῖν ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν προτιθέμεθα, μνησθῆναι δὲ κεφαλαιωδῶς προαιρούμεθα χάριν τῆς προκατασκευῆς τῶν μελλουσῶν ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἱστορεῖσθαι πράξεων.

Notice that ἀναγκαῖον occurs in this passage, the same term that Paul uses in Philippians 2:25.

The Loeb edition for Polybius by W.R. Paton gives this translation: "Now to recount all these events in detail is neither incumbent on me nor would it be useful to my readers ; for it is not my purpose to write their history but to mention them summarily as introductory to the events which are my real theme."

Another similarity noted is that Hebrews 9:5 uses οὐκ ἔστιν νῦν λέγειν κατὰ μέρος. See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2013/07/paraleipsis-paralipsis-in-scripture-by.html

Acts 18:5 (Inceptive Use?)

I am drawing my Acts 18 discussions to a close; after this post, I will conclude with vss. 24-28, which narrate details about Apollos, a devout Jew from Alexandria. But this entry will concentrate on Acts 18:5 now.

Greek (WH): Ὡς δὲ κατῆλθον ἀπὸ τῆς Μακεδονίας ὅ τε Σίλας καὶ ὁ Τιμόθεος, συνείχετο τῷ λόγῳ ὁ Παῦλος, διαμαρτυρόμενος τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις εἶναι τὸν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν.

Translation (NASB): "But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ."

Issues: How should we understand the verb συνείχετο (from συνέχω), which NASB renders "began devoting himself"? J.B. Phillips translates the entire verse thus: "By the time Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia Paul was completely absorbed in preaching the message, showing the Jews as clearly as he could that Jesus is Christ."

Darrell Bock (Acts, BENTC): offers this explanation: "The verb συνείχετο (syneicheto) is imperfect and has an ingressive force (became 'absorbed in' or 'devoted to'). The verb can have the meaning of being 'constrained' or 'compelled' to do something (BDAG 971 §§6–7). The dative τῷ λόγῳ (tō logō) has the syntactical force of reference or respect: Paul devoted himself 'with respect to' the word (Moulton and Turner 1963: 220)."

NET Bible appeals to BDAG and likewise translates the verb inceptively: "Paul became wholly absorbed with proclaiming the word"

NWT 2013: "When, now, both Silas and Timothy came down from Mac·e·doʹni·a, Paul began to be intensely occupied with the word, witnessing to the Jews to prove that Jesus is the Christ."

F.F. Bruce: "he was able therefore to concentrate on the preaching of the gospel, and he sought to convince his Jewish hearers that the promised Messiah had come, and had come in the person of Jesus."

See The Book of Acts (New International Commentary on the New Testament) (Kindle Locations 12149-12151). Eerdmans Publishing Co - A. Kindle Edition.

The verb διαμαρτυρόμενος refers to the witnessing, preaching or testifying that Paul did in Corinth: it is a present middle participle. See Deuteronomy 30:19; Acts 20:21; 28:23; 2 Timothy 2:14; 4:1.

Just who were these Jews? In view of previous conversations here, I wonder if we can limit these individuals to Judeans.

Acts 18:4 (Paul Was Discussing and Persuading)

Greek (THGNT): διελέγετο δὲ ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ κατὰ πᾶν σάββατον, ἔπειθέν τε Ἰουδαίους καὶ Ἕλληνας.

NABRE: "Every sabbath, he entered into discussions in the synagogue, attempting to convince both Jews and Greeks."

NET: "He addressed both Jews and Greeks in the synagogue every Sabbath, attempting to persuade them."

NWT 2013: "He would give a talk in the synagogue every sabbath and would persuade Jews and Greeks."

Greek Verbs, Denotation, and Aktionsart: Two important words in this passage are the verbs, διελέγετο (imperfect middle indicative 3rd person singular of διαλέγομαι) and ἔπειθέν (imperfect active indicative 3rd person singular of πείθω).

The NET Bible prefers to render διελέγετο with "addressed" since the classical meaning of the word does not seem to fit the context in Acts 18:4. Eckhard J. Schanabel indicates that Paul "led discussions" in the synagogue: he refers us to Acts 17:2. Compare Acts 20:7.

NET treats ἔπειθέν as a conative imperfect (attempting to X); NABRE does the same, but Schnabel acknowledges that while translators customarily treat ἔπειθέν like a conative imperfect, he sees no reason why the verb cannot have an "ongoing sense" in view of the fact that Paul's discussions produced results among the Jews and Greeks in Corinth. 

Robertson's Word Pictures in the NT makes this comment on ἔπειθέν: "Imperfect active, conative, he tried to persuade both Jews and Greeks (God-fearers who alone would come)."

Susan Wendel concedes that we possibly have a conative imperfect in Acts 18:4, but she points toward Acts 18:8, which might suggest that Paul had a measure of success when he talked to the Jews in Corinth. See Scriptural Interpretation and Community Self-Definition in Luke-Acts, pages 185-186.

The LEB translates Acts 18:4: "And he argued in the synagogue every Sabbath, attempting to persuade both Jews and Greeks"

The Footnote reads: "Here the imperfect verb has been translated as conative ('attempting to persuade')"

However, a warning about conatives is given here: https://brill.com/view/journals/nt/62/3/article-p302_4.xml

Six Excellent Church History Sources

 1. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Five Volumes (The University of Chigago Press).

See https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/series/CT.html

2. Everett Ferguson, Church History, Two Volumes (Zondervan)

See https://zondervanacademic.com/products/church-history-volume-one-from-christ-to-the-pre-reformation

3. W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Fortress Press)

SEe https://www.augsburgfortress.org/store/product/9780800619312/The-Rise-of-Christianity

4. R.P.C. Hanson,The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (T & T Clark)

See https://www.amazon.com/Search-Christian-Doctrine-God-Controversy/dp/080103146X

5. Edmund Fortman, The Triune God (Wipf and Stock)

See https://www.amazon.com/Triune-God-Historical-Doctrine-Trinity/dp/1579102239/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=edmund+fortman+trinity&qid=1629060655&s=books&sr=1-1

6. Harold O. J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church (Hendrickson)

See https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565633652/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=ligoniminist-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399369&creativeASIN=1565633652

Too many great works to mention: these six are just the tip of the iceberg.

Blass Debrunner, and Funk (The Epistolary Aorist)

 

Moises Silva professes that Philippians 2:25 is an instance of the epistolary aorist and rightly categorized this way by most commentators. He adds this valuable observation:

"the action is viewed as past, according to the perspective of the recipients when they read the letter (cf. Col. 4:8; Philem. 12; BDF §334 has some inaccuracies; cf. the fuller discussion in Robertson 1934: 845). If so, Epaphroditus should be viewed as the bear- er of the letter. NASB and NIV attempt to convey the force of δέ with the phrase “who is also.”

So BDF is not fully accurate in section 334: Silva advises his readers to confer the fuller treatment in Robertson. Blass, Debrunner, and Funk is a fine work but inaccuracies can plague just about any book.