[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
b-greek-digest V1 #550
b-greek-digest Friday, 20 January 1995 Volume 01 : Number 550
In this issue:
I need help with LXX
Re: eph. 2:8-9 + pistis X. in Fathers
Pastorals & Stylometry
Re: camel/rope
Pistis Ihsou Xristou
Re: I need help with LXX
Pistis Ihsou Xristou
Re: Pastoral epistles inquiry/lexical statistics
Re: eph. 2:8-9
Re: eph. 2:8-9
Re: eph. 2:8-9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Scott McKellar <smckella@cln.etc.bc.ca>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 22:38:19 PST
Subject: I need help with LXX
I do not have access to a critical text of the LXX. I would like to know
the earliest date of any extant mss of the apocrypha. Does Rahalf's
_Septuagintia_ have this type of info in its textual apparatus? Has the
Gottingen _Septuagintia_ published any apocryphal writings to date? Are
there any recent journal articles which touch on this issue? Any help
would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
Scott.
Veni, Sancte Spiritus
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Scott McKellar
Abbotsford, BC
smckella@cln.etc.bc.ca
+++++++++++++++++++++++
"Tradition is the living faith of the dead,
traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." Jaroslav Pelikan
------------------------------
From: Timothy Gaden <tjg@hermes.apana.org.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 17:24:39
Subject: Re: eph. 2:8-9 + pistis X. in Fathers
Ken,
you wrote:
> This is similar to the question of pistis ihsous Christou I think. For
>that, you should check out an article in Novum Testamentum (can't remember
>the exact title) on pistis I.Ch. in the CHurch Fathers, from 1994.
>If I ws at home, I'd have the exact reference. The point of that article
>is that faithfulness of CHrist, while technically possible, is wholly
>unsupported by early Church writers. If you read the article, perhaps the
>methodology of the author will help you if you want to do further analysis,
>such as with TLG.
The article reference is
Roy Harrisville, "Pistis Christou: The Witness of the Fathers",
*Novum Testamentum* 36 (1994) 233-241.
THe article concludes that "there is no clear evidence and
unambiguous indication of any subjective understanding...there is
clear evidence in both Greek and Latin authors of an understanding
of the phrase in an objective sense" (pp.240-241).
THe article is, however, serious flawed in its coverage. It covers
"only quotations of Paul's language" (p.234). i.e. that is , those
places where the fathers are commenting explicitly on Paul. This
means that a large number of occurances of the phrase are ignored.
Some interesting examples not covered by Harrisville include
*Shepherd of Hermas* Vis 4.1.8,
Justin Martyr, *Dial* 52.4, 53:6,
More important than these isolated examples is the need for a
thorough going examination of the semantics of faith in the
post-apostolic period, to examine whether or not the translation of
"faithfulness" or better yet "Christ-faith, that relationship to God
which Christ exemplified, tht life-stance he actualised and which,
because he lived and died, now characterises the personal existence
of everyone who lives in him" (Williams, *CBQ* 49 (1987) 446)
better construes the texts than translations which focus on the
cognitive ('belief') or affective ('trust') aspects of *pistis*.
My doctorate on this should be finished in January 1996 (d.v!), if
you can wait that long :)
Cheers,
Tim.
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Gaden - tjg@hermes.apana.org.au - Melbourne, Australia
- --------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: D Mealand <ewnt05@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 20 Jan 95 11:31:42 GMT
Subject: Pastorals & Stylometry
The following is an abstract of the article to appear in
JSNT later in 95. The abstract was prepared for the Paris
Conference of the Assoc. for Literary & Linguistic Computing 1994
The title in 1995 will be "The Extent of the Pauline Corpus"
the full text will include scatter plots & tables of data.
Title: Discriminating Paul.
Author: Mealand, David L. (Dr.)
University: University of Edinburgh
e-mail: D.Mealand@uk.ac.edinburgh
Fax: +44-31-650-6579
DISCRIMINATING PAUL
The authorship of the epistles attributed to Paul in the New
Testament has been much discussed, but I know of little use of
multivariate statistics in this regard and only one serious
previous use of discriminant analysis. This paper reports the
results of a series of studies using multivariate techniques
such as Factor Analysis, Cluster Analysis and especially
Discriminant Analysis. Previous studies have tended either to
consist of simple counts or of univariate tests using
chi-squared tests (e.g. Morton, Kenny for the latter). The most
important use of multivariate techniques so far on these
epistles was by Neumann. The present study differs in several
significant respects from the work of these predecessors while
building on positive aspects of their work.
1. The selection of the samples and the variables.
I selected samples of 1000 words from 12 epistles attributed to
Paul and 5 other New Testament writers (Hebrews, James, 1
Peter, 2 Peter and 1 John). In two cases (2 Thessalonians and
Titus) samples were shorter and were bulked to 1000 words by
multiplication. It is significant and reassuring that in the
subsequent tests 2 Thess. was almost always near 1 Thess. and
Titus near 1 Tim. This suggests that future studies might be
able to use smaller samples more consistently. The text used
was the Fribergs' tagged Greek text which has morphological
tagging and which marks quotations. All marked quotations
were removed from the samples before selecting samples.
Otherwise the samples normally run consecutively from 1.1 for
1000 words each, except that I omitted passages such as the
Philippian hymn and the Colossian hymn which are widely
thought to be similar to quotations. This provided samples as
follows: Romans 6, 1 Cor. 6, 2 Cor. 3, Gal. 2, Eph. 2, Phil. 1,
Col. 1, 1 Thess. 1, 2 Thess 1*, 1 Tim. 1, 2 Tim. 1, Titus 1* with
Hebrews 4, James 1, 1 Pet. 1, 2 Pet. 1, 1 John 2. (35 samples).
As criteria I selected 25 initial variables from the samples. The
first 9 were parts of speech: conjunctions, prepositions,
articles, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, verbs and
particles. These provided complete counts, so the row totals
could be cross-checked at 1000 words. The next variables were
some used in other recent studies: word length, initial tau,
relatives and indefinites, and the Greek for words such as
'and', but', 'in', 'is', 'you', 'into', 'not', 'for'. I also counted
words ending in 's' and 'i' and 'n'.
2. Preliminary Tests.
As well as the cross-check on the totals of some variables I
checked the totals of others for each epistle against
concordance totals (this involved counting the residual text). I
then plotted each variable for each samples of each text for
visual inspection. This gave some initial informal information
on polar values, and on which points differed most from the
major four Pauline Epistles (Rom, 1 & 2 Cor. and Gal). It also
seemed desirable to produce biplots of pairs of interesting
variables. These biplots can be very revealing. Next I needed
to test for normal distribution of the data. I used SAS
Univariate test for this. For the larger Pauline group almost
all variables registered acceptable p values for normality, but
in some of the smaller groups (Pastorals, Hebrews), where there
were only three or four samples, some p values were below
0.05. In the multivariate tests which followed I therefore
discarded the 6 variables which gave a low reading (I had
already been dubious about most of them after visual
inspection of the data). This may be over cautious with sample
sizes of 1000. I did make some use of correspondence analysis
to see how texts correlated with variables, but have made only
limited use of this technique at present. The main tests began
with Factor Analysis.
3. Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis.
The next logical step was to examine the data using
multivariate techniques more consistently. With 19 surviving
variables some dimension reduction is desirable. Principal
Component Analysis and Factor Analysis are obvious ways to do
this. In essence these produce a smaller number of new
variables which are combinations of the original 19. Both were
used and the output plotted. Factor Analysis is preferable as
it not only allows the reduction of 19 old variables to 9
factors, but also allows rotation of the factors for maximum
effectiveness. Factor selected 9 factors as capturing most of
the information from the original variables, and a promax
rotation duly aligned these. The SAS Scores procedure was
then invoked to save the results in a new permanent dataset
(scores1). The samples were also partitioned, and two further
runs were made on some of the samples from Romans to
Hebrews and on all of the samples from Romans to Hebrews.
These new datasets could then serve as input to Cluster.
Some initial runs of Cluster had already been made using all
the original variables, and selected sets of variables. These
had generally been quite successful in that the resulting
clusters showed samples from each epistle clustering together.
Hebrews and the Pastorals were usually distinct and so was
Colossians and EphA (the first Ephesians sample). The samples
from Romans, Corinthians and Galatians usually formed one
largish cluster. Interestingly each epistle tended to form a
sub-group within the cluster - here there was more precision
than I had expected. A few samples appeared in less expected
places. One or two samples of 1 Corinthians tended to be out
to one side of the main Pauline group (but not near any of the
other clusters). One sample of Romans (RomA) tended to end
up near Colossians and Ephesians. A selection from a large
number of plots would show this more specifically. Part of the
output showed tables of actual clusters as against expected
groups. The last part of the output used candisc on the
clusters (NOT on the expected groups) to plot the main 3
dimensions of the cluster analysis (can2*can1 and can3*can1).
Using all the samples, 9 factors produced two main groups of
clusters: the one large group of clusters consisted of 15
samples from Romans to Galatians. The other main group of
clusters contained Eph and Col (with RomA) as one cluster,
Phil, Thess. and James as another, John as a third, the
Pastorals with 1 & 2 Peter as a fourth, and Hebrews as a fifth.
At this point the five samples from James to John were
discarded. They had served their purpose. By appearing in
the 'right' places in the clusters they had helped to provide
empirical validation of the method. Further runs were then
made using only Romans to Titus with Hebrews in as a
remaining control. The partitioned sample set was now used
containing just 20 samples from Romans to Hebrews. This now
clustered showing 1) major Paulines 2) Col and Eph 3) Phil
and Thess 4) Pastorals and Hebrews. (The last cluster had had
two sub clusters one of the three Pastorals the other of the
two Hebrews samples in this dataset.) The final run used all
the 30 samples from Romans to Hebrews. At the three cluster
level there are 1. Col & Eph with Phil and Thess 2. Pastorals
and Hebrews 3. the major Paulines. Just before that three Cor
samples had joined the rest of the major Paulines. Just before
that Phil and Thess had been separate from Col & Eph, and
Pastorals had been separate from Hebrews.
4. Questions arising from the Cluster Analysis.
A number of points stand out. Firstly by and large clusters
do match known differences of authorship. Samples from each
epistle also tend to come close together. Suspected differences
of authorship also receive confirmation from the clustering.
The Pastorals are as distinct from Paul as Hebrews is. So to a
large extent are Col and Eph. EphA is more distinct, EphB less
so. RomA does come close to EphB on most of the runs. So
further work was needed here and is discussed below. In
passing it is worth noting that James often comes close to some
of the minor Paulines. It is also notable that 1 & 2 Peter
usually come close together despite the widely held view that
they are quite different. (Someone will need to explore this
one day.) The case of Phil and Thess is more problematic.
The fact that they sometimes cluster with the major Paulines,
and sometimes don't, reflects the fact that whereas Col, Eph
and the Pastorals differ from the major Paulines on a range of
criteria, these minor epistles differ on just one or two of the
variables (esp. on kai - and). Morton made very heavy use of
kai as a variable and this explains why he was so adamant that
Phil and Thess were not by Paul. But the remaining main
issue concerns 2 Timothy and Ephesians and for this question
discriminant analysis was used.
5. Discriminant Analysis on Paul
The ideal literary problem for which discriminant analysis is
appropriate is similar to that investigated by Horton. He had
large quantities of one author (Shakespeare) and large
quantities of text from another (Fletcher) and some samples of
dubia due to either one or the other. The Pauline problem is
not like this. We have 12 epistles long enough for testing and
an unknown tally of authors. This is the point of first using
Factor and Cluster analysis. The preceding analysis has
confirmed existing literary division of the corpus. The
Pastorals are distinct and so are some or all of the samples
from Col and Eph. We can now use the samples that are
clearly distinct to test the ones that fall on the edges of our
clusters. EphA is clearly distinct, and this also seems to be
the case for Col. But EphB and RomA fall on the edges of the
clusters, usually clustering with Col, sometimes with Paul.
Similarly 2 Timothy, long regarded as the most Pauline of the
Pastorals sometimes clustered with Paul rather than with 1 Tim
and Titus is the early cluster runs not using factors.
To test these samples more precisely discriminant analysis is
ideal. The samples were partitioned three ways. The three
doubtful cases EphB, ThessB and 2Tim were put in group three
(dubia). The remaining samples were divided into a training
set and a test set. Stepdisc was run on the training set and
it selected 6 of the original variables (wdl, tau, gar, rel&indef,
en and ou). SAS discrim was then run on the training set
using these variables. Not surprisingly (but at least
reassuringly) it put all of them in the expected groups. Now
discrim was repeated on the test set - it is important that this
time discrim was not told which groups were expected here. It
got all of the test samples into the correct groups. A third
run was now made on the dubia. EphB was put in with Col
and EphA and not with the major Paulines, ThessB was put in
with the Paulines, 2 Tim was put in with the Pastorals.
6. Conclusions
The main results are clear and unequivocal. A little further
testing remains to be done using some further runs of discrim
and rearranging the samples. The main results are however
clear enough. Cluster analysis as used above does largely
group sections of texts with the rest of those texts, and
groups of texts by the same author with each other. Further
it confirms previous less sophisticated analyses that point to
three main groups within the Pauline corpus: the major
Paulines, Col-Eph, and the Pastorals. Slight uncertainties
remaining as a result of the cluster analysis can then be
subjected to the much more precise technique of discriminant
analysis. The cluster analysis shows the main candidates for
the separate groupings; sharper discrimination defines the
boundaries of the separate groups more precisely and
definitely. In the period between completion of this outline
and delivery of the paper one or two of the residual minor
issues can be further explored. The multivariate tests reported
here reconcile the findings of traditional literary criticism with
the use of new methods. At each point careful corroboration is
recorded. The new methods also draw attention to more
precise new questions: for example the greater difference from
Paul of EphA as against EphB, and the fact that of all the
major Pauline samples it is RomA which is closest to Eph and
Col.
(c) D.L.Mealand 14.10.1993
References:
Horton T.B. (1987) The Effectiveness of the Stylometry of
Function Words in Discriminating between Shakespeare and
Fletcher (Ph.D., University of Edinburgh)
Greenwood H.H. (1992) in Literary and Linguistic Computing 7.1
Kenny A. (1986) A Stylometric Study of the New Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon)
Ledger G.R. (1989) Re-counting Plato, A Computer Analysis of
Plato's Style (Oxford: Clarendon)
Morton A.Q. (1978) Literary Detection
Neumann K.J. (1990) The Authenticity of the Pauline Epistles in
the light of Stylostatistical Analysis (Atlanta: Scholars Press
SBL Diss. 120)
**************************1/1995********************************************
David L. Mealand * E-mail: David.Mealand@ed.ac.uk
University of Edinburgh * Office Fax: (+44)-131-650-6579
Scotland, U.K. EH1 2LX * Office tel.:(+44)-131-650-8917 or 8921
------------------------------
From: Dennis Burke <dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 08:06:45 CST
Subject: Re: camel/rope
Carl W. Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu> writes:
>I did successfully locate the December 1992 thread on this topic. I think
>it is worth the "re-broadcast" as there is some nice wit and interesting
>reflection in it.
>
>Text of December 1992 thread:
>
>MUCH DELETED
>
>>Received: id 3300; Fri, 11 Dec 92 13:10:53 CST
>>Message-Id: <9212111839.AA04382@Calvin.EDU>
>>Subject: camels and needles
>>Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 13:39:12 EST
>>c: weve@ursa.calvin.edu
>>
>>On the matter of camels and the eyes of needles--I wrote an
>>article about this the similar passage in Mark (which has
>>the same difficulties, but some extra information Matthew
>>omitted) for a local educator's journal. It was a special
>>Christmas edition on the general topic of giving.
>>
>>I examine several Greek words, especially -dyskolon- (used
>>in all three gospel accounts, and nowhere else in the New
>>Testament) but also a few other words-- -stugnasas-,
>>-lupoumenoj-, -eukopwteron-. The character of camels also
>>enters into the picture, though my knowledge of camels is at
>>best 3rd or 4th hand.
>>
>>I do not have access to a scanner to distribute the article
>>on the netword, but I could xerox the two pages and send it
>>by surface mail to a few who may be interested.
>>
>>Richard F. Wevers (616) 957-6294
>>Dept. of Classics
>>Calvin College weve@ursa.calvin.edu
>
>MUCH MORE DELETED
>
I know this is a long shot since this is two years old, but I
would love to read this article. Does anyone out there have
a copy of it or could a reference be provided?
Dennis Burke
dennisb@test490.pac.sc.ti.com
------------------------------
From: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 08:08:41 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Pistis Ihsou Xristou
Carl:
Another place to look is Richard Hayes dissertation on Galatians dealing
with the same phrase. Sounds like he and Luke Johnson would agree! (I'm
sorry, but I can't recall the title right now, but I'll look it up tonight
when I get home!)
Regards,
Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
Date: 19-JAN-95 6:48p
From: IN%"cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu" "Carl W Conrad"
To: IN%"kenneth@sybase.com" "Kenneth Litwak"
CC: IN%"B-greek@virginia.edu", IN%"bkelley@teleport.com"
RE: RE: eph. 2:8-9
Return-path: <owner-b-greek@virginia.edu>
Received: from virginia.edu (uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU)
by baylor.edu (PMDF V4.3-10 #8312) id <01HM1HEZWV5SI6C843@baylor.edu>; Thu,
19 Jan 1995 18:48:42 -0600 (CST)
Received: from Virginia.EDU by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20337; 19 Jan 95 19:44
EST
Received: from coconut.wustl.edu by uvaarpa.virginia.edu id aa20333; 19 Jan 95
19:43 EST
Received: by coconut.wustl.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-3.0-SLT/GHC) id AA20244; Thu,
19 Jan 95 18:42:16 -0600
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 18:42:14 -0600 (GMT-0600)
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Subject: Re: eph. 2:8-9
In-reply-to: <9501200013.AA08673@arctic.sybgate.sybase.com>
X-Sender: cwconrad@coconut
To: Kenneth Litwak <kenneth@sybase.com>
Cc: B-greek@virginia.edu, bkelley@teleport.com
Message-id: <Pine.NXT.3.91.950119183853.19881D-100000@coconut>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
On Thu, 19 Jan 1995, Kenneth Litwak wrote:
> This is similar to the question of pistis ihsous Christou I think. For
> that, you should check out an article in Novum Testamentum (can't remember
> the exact title) on pistis I.Ch. in the CHurch Fathers, from 1994.
> If I ws at home, I'd have the exact reference. The point of that article
> is that faithfulness of CHrist, while technically possible, is wholly
> unsupported by early Church writers. If you read the article, perhaps the
> methodology of the author will help you if you want to do further analysis,
> such as with TLG.
I don't want to choose up sides here on the question of which is the
better way to take PISTIS IHSOU XRISTOU, but I would not that Luke
Johnson presents a fine argument on behalf of the "subjective genitive"
reading of the Pauline phrase ("Christ's faithfulness to God is what
saves us.") It's in his chapter on Paul in his NT Introduction textbook.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
From: Tim McLay <nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 10:24:18 -0400
Subject: Re: I need help with LXX
On Thu, 19 Jan 95 22:38:19 PST,
Scott McKellar <smckella@cln.etc.bc.ca> wrote:
>I do not have access to a critical text of the LXX. I would like to know
>the earliest date of any extant mss of the apocrypha. Does Rahalf's
>_Septuagintia_ have this type of info in its textual apparatus? Has the
>Gottingen _Septuagintia_ published any apocryphal writings to date? Are
>there any recent journal articles which touch on this issue? Any help
>would be appreciated.
Rahlfs' only discusses the 3 major uncials. The Gottingen volumes list
mss. and dates in each volume, otherwise they wouldn't be the standard.
Some critical editions of apocryphal books are published, but I
couldn't give you the date of the earliest ms. 3rd century CE I should
think. The papyri are the earliest in general. No recent journal articles
that I am aware of.Tim McLay
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Scott.
>
>
>Veni, Sancte Spiritus
>*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
>Scott McKellar
>Abbotsford, BC
>smckella@cln.etc.bc.ca
>+++++++++++++++++++++++
>"Tradition is the living faith of the dead,
>traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." Jaroslav Pelikan
--
Tim McLay
Halifax, NS
nstn1533@fox.nstn.ca
------------------------------
From: Leo Percer <PERCERL@baylor.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 08:26:43 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Pistis Ihsou Xristou
I just remembered the title of the book by Richard B. Hays (by the way, I
think I misspelled his last name in my first post). It is _The Faith of
Jesus Christ_. He also has an interesting book on intertextuality in
Paul's letters entitled something like _Echoes of Scripture in Paul's
Letters_. Both books are good reads! But back to the point, I believe
that Hays argues for a subjective reading of PISTIS IHSOU XRISTOU, although
I can't remember his argument well enough to reproduce it here. I do
remember, however, being skeptical of his approach to Galatians at first
until I applied his methodology from his book in a paper of my own on Gal
4. I soon began to think that Hays may have a good point in his
understanding of this phrase.
Regards,
Leo Percer
PERCERL@BAYLOR.EDU
------------------------------
From: Stephen Carlson <scc@reston.icl.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 95 10:56:12 EST
Subject: Re: Pastoral epistles inquiry/lexical statistics
Greg Doudna wrote:
> To Stephen Carlson:
> Many thanks for the very interesting data on third order
> [three-word string] lexical contacts!!
>
> A method question: how do you quantify a four-word string
> contact--as one or two third-order lexical contacts?
I quantify a fourth-order contact [four word string] as two
third-order contacts, provided each of those third-order
contacts means the criterion: viz., being exclusively found
in those two corpora.
For example, Ephesians and Mark share a 16th-order contact
(i.e. Gn2:24), but not all of the 3d-order contacts within
that phrase are exclusive to Eph and Mk. In fact, out of the
14 possible 3d-order contacts, only 3 (all of which include the
word PROSKOLLA/W) qualify as a contact with Mark (2 more qualify
for the larger set of the Synoptics). I think the result of
this policy properly gives more weight to longer contacts, but
not too much.
In addition, shared source material probably should be separated
out, but that takes more time. At any rate, each Biblical quote
only contributes at most a small part to the overall numbers
(Eph has a total of 337 3d-order contacts, and Mk 2613).
> On the
> Johannine issue, are you able to provide a count for Rev 2-3
> only (compared with the Johannine letters)?
Taking your suggestion, I ran through the numbers last night. The
conclusion seems to be that Rev 2-3 (called R7) is most like the
rest of Revelation (Rv). Here's the chart:
******************************************************************************
Lexical Contacts -- Order 3
Bk Tot Mt La(lk ac) Qq Mk(mk) Jn(Je jn) Pp(Pc Pe Pa) hb jm Pt(p1 p2) jd R7 Rv
jn 1602 12 29(16 11) 3 25( 9) 8( 8 .) 12( 8 2 1) 2 . 1( . .) . 1 4
j1 266 5 12( 5 5) 2 5( 3) 50( 4 46) 16( 9 4 2) 1 1 2( 1 .) 1 1 5
j2 55 2 9( 7 2) 9( 7) 55(27 27) 24(13 7 2) 2( 2)
j3 29 3 14( 7 7) 3 7( 3) 45(24 21) 24(14 7 3) 3( 3)
R7 142 5 11( 7 3) 2 7( 4) 13( 2 11) 8( 4 2 1) 2 3 ( ) 49
Rv 683 14 25(12 11) 4 16( 7) 13( 2 12) 11( 6 3 1) 4 1 1( 1 .) . 10
******************************************************************************
R7, that the seven letters in chapters 2 & 3, had a marked
preference for the rest of Revelation (49% of them). Since
there does seem a connection between length and number of
contacts, it is best to compare the smaller text against the
larger.
Also, interesting is the data from the first-order lexical
contacts (i.e., uniquely shared vocabulary). This was the
start of my investigation--actually in response to a claim
that the reason for the stylistic difference of the Pastorals
from the rest of Paul's letters is a Lukan amanuensis.
******************************************************************************
Lexical Contacts -- Order 1
Bk Tot Mt La(lk ac) Qq Mk(mk) Jn(Je jn) Pp(Pc Pe Pa) hb jm Pt(p1 p2) jd R7 Rv
jn 135 7 26( 8 10) 4 40(11) 2( 2 ) 11( 7 1 2) 4 1 1( 1) 4
j1 8 13 ( ) ( ) 50(13 38) 13(13 ) 13 ( ) 13
j2 1 ( ) ( ) **(** ) ( ) ( )
j3 6 17 33( 17) ( ) ( ) 50(17 33 ) ( )
R7 9 22(11 11) 11( ) ( ) 11(11 ) ( ) 56
Rv 122 10 22(10 10) 8 16( 4) 6( 1 5) 25(12 11 1) 2 4 2( 1 1) 1 4
******************************************************************************
R7 only has nine lexical contacts, which are helpful to
enumerate:
1. PROFHTIS "prophetess" (Lk2:36 Rv2:20)
2. YHFOS "pebble" Ac26:10, "(white) pebble = amulet?" [BAGD] Rv2:17
(Given a possible difference in meaning, this might not be a lexical
contact after all.)
3. KLINH "bed" Mk4:21 7:30 Lk8:16 17:34 Mt9:2 Lk5:18 Rv2:22 (This
really should be discarded from Mk, which is intented to capture contacts
only with Mark's vocabulary even if used by Mt and Lk);
4. *FILADELFEIA, 5. *PERGAMOS, 6. *SARDEIS (These proper names
found only in R7 and Rv probably should be ignored as well. I haven't
investigated the methodological implications.)
7. PRWINOS "morning (star)" Rv2:28 22:16
8. XALKOLIBANON "gold ore, fine brass ???" Rv1:15 2:18
9. PTWXEIA "destitution" Rv2:9 2Co8:2 9
Draw what conclusions you may...
> I would be most
> curious on that (though if only a few contacts were found
> in all of Rev I suppose no greater number would be found in
> a subset of Rev, so my question answers itself...?)
Those number are percentages, so it is still a useful project
to see how those numbers would shift to prefer any particular
corpus. Other interesting conclusions can be drawn from what
happened to the absolute numbers 3d-order lexical contacts. The
full text of Revelation (rv) has 736 exclusive 3-d order
contacts. Breaking rv up into R7 and Rv gave a total of 142 +
683 = 825. However, 69 of each (R7 & Rv) are contacts internal
to rv (i.e. between R7 & Rv), so the true total is (142-69) +
(683-69) = 73 + 614 = 687. Thus splitting rv loses contacts,
(due to other works matching both R7 and Rv) implying that its
author is the same.
> Has this method been comparatively checked on other known
> (i.e. recent and independently verified authorship) corpuses?
> Intuitively, it seems very strong and fruitful as a method.
No, I've only being looking into it for about three weeks. I
suppose, if I could get a hold of electronic versions of the
Federalist Papers, we can see what kind of results are generated
in revisting that (successfully resolved) question.
For comparison checks, I've been looking at the books of the
Bible whose authorship is uncontested (Rom, Gal), or known to be
different (Philemon and Jude). I also did some work in
splitting up Romans (in half) and joining up the Pastorals and
the Johannine Epistles. My gut response is that it seems to
track well with authorship.
> Would you be able to provide data on 2 Thessalonians (and
> 1 Thessalonians) compared to the rest of the Pauline
> (particularly your pc 7 core Paulines) corpus? [Greedy,
> aren't I? :-) ] And Philippians?
Because I have everything computerized, I do have that data (see
next post). Since my work is quite different from David
Mealand's, preemption won't be a problem. Furthermore, many of
his conclusions are corroborated. I would also be interested in
hearing comments and ideas from all of you.
Stephen Carlson
- --
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
------------------------------
From: Leroy Huizenga 1996 <huizenga@acc.jc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:17:07 -36000
Subject: Re: eph. 2:8-9
> >Assuming the distinctions between the terms made so far, I'd like to
> >propose that faithfulness is not an appropriate translation because of
> >the phrase immediately following, "that no one may boast." If I am
> >faithful, that is, have generated my own reliability, I would have a
> >reason to boast.
> >
> >
> > Travis Bauer
> > Jamestown College
> >
> I tend to agree with your defintions, Travis. My question is whether or not
> this phrase could be speaking of the faithfulness/reliability of God
to us ( or Christ,
> to God; see Ken Litwak post of 19 Jan 1995). This would then make sense of
> the following phrase "so that no one may boast", since the faithfulness is
> not ours, but God's.
>
> Bill Kelley
> Salem Bible College
>
>
This is fascinating. I did a paper on the Vicarious Suffering of Christ
in the Theology of Thomas Torrance and my professor (Dr. Gary Watts)
brought something similar to my attention, which I as a novice Greek
student cannot really make heads or tails of: The Subjective and
Objective uses of the genitive case. I'll try to make a long story short:
Torrance claims that when Scripture speaks of us being saved by faith, it
is not our faith that saves us but rather the vicarious faith of Jesus
Christ. Example: Galatians 2:20: "...The life I live in the body I live
by faith in the Son of God." (en pistei zo tH tou huiou theou). But can
this not be rendered "...I live in the faith *of* the Son of God."? There
are other passages that can be considered in this light - Phil. 1:27,
3:9; and for non-paulines Acts 3:16, Heb. 11:23-4, and II Pet. 1:5. I
fanyone has any insight into this, I'd appreciate hearing from you.
Leroy Huizenga
Jamestown College
------------------------------
From: Timothy Gaden <tjg@hermes.apana.org.au>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 1995 07:23:04
Subject: Re: eph. 2:8-9
Ken,
you wrote:
> (Not quoting for UNIX reasons :-) ) I am aware of arguments for the
>subjective genitive. Thanks for the reference. The point of the article
>is that the early Fathers, native Greek readers and writers, _never_
>understtod the phrase or similar phrases as subjective genitives but
>always as objective, in the cases where we can tell what they thought it
>was, as opposed to when they quoted it and said nothing to give us an
>indication of their thought. That's not absolute proff, but I think it is
>significant and any serious case for the subjective genitive needs
>to adeuately explain it I think.
This can't be right. As proponents of the subjectie reading are
quick to point out, the closest analogies to *pistis Christou* are the
references (in NT and patrsitic sources) to *pistis Abraam* (Rom
4:12), "the seed of David" (Rm 1:3-4), "the power of God" and the
"righteousness of God" in Rm 1:16-18, etc.
Clearly, the native speakers *often* understand the phrase or similar
phrases as subjective genitives.
Again, Williams' argument here is instructive (*CBQ* 49 (1987)
431-447, as is D.A. Campbell, *THe Rhetoric of Righteousness in
Romans 3:21-26* JSNT Supp 65 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1992) esp. pp. 214-218 - an extended refutation of Hultgren's
arguments.
Cheers,
Tim.
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Gaden - tjg@hermes.apana.org.au - Melbourne, Australia
- --------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Carl W Conrad <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 1995 16:09:39 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: eph. 2:8-9
On Fri, 20 Jan 1995, Leroy Huizenga 1996 wrote:
> This is fascinating. I did a paper on the Vicarious Suffering of Christ
> in the Theology of Thomas Torrance and my professor (Dr. Gary Watts)
> brought something similar to my attention, which I as a novice Greek
> student cannot really make heads or tails of: The Subjective and
> Objective uses of the genitive case. I'll try to make a long story short:
> Torrance claims that when Scripture speaks of us being saved by faith, it
> is not our faith that saves us but rather the vicarious faith of Jesus
> Christ. Example: Galatians 2:20: "...The life I live in the body I live
> by faith in the Son of God." (en pistei zo tH tou huiou theou). But can
> this not be rendered "...I live in the faith *of* the Son of God."? There
> are other passages that can be considered in this light - Phil. 1:27,
> 3:9; and for non-paulines Acts 3:16, Heb. 11:23-4, and II Pet. 1:5. I
> fanyone has any insight into this, I'd appreciate hearing from you.
Every one of these passages CAN be translated "FAITH OF ..." Subjective
and Objective Genitives in both Greek and Latin can be very ambiguous.
There's no problem with a phrase like AMOR LUCRI, "passion for profit";
but AMOR DEI can mean either "God's love (for someone, something)" or
just as legitimately, "Love of God = love for God."
I'm speculating now, but it strikes me as within the realm of possibility
that an original Pauline conception of Christ's saving faithfulness,
because of the grammatical ambivalence, came to be understood by Greek
and Roman thinkers more inclined to think of religious belief in
cognitive terms as cognitive acknowledgement of Christ as the behavior of
the believer that saves. Of course it is true that this makes faith a
"work" of a sort, although interpreters of Paul are usually very careful
to warn against understanding it that way.
On the other hand, there is the phrasing that is, I think more
characteristic of Johannine usage, PISTEUEIN EIS IHSOUN XRISTON or even
PISTEUEIN EIS TO ONOMA IHSOU XRISTOU, where cognitive acknowledgement
definitely does come into play.
A quick check of the Handkonkordanz seems to show only one instance of
PISTEUEIN EIS--namely Mt 18.6; there are three instances in Acts, and in
the Pauline letters it appears only 1x in Rom (10.14), 1x in Gal (2.16)
and 1x in Phil (1.23). PISTEUIN EN/EPI + Dative has a different sense,
"believe on the basis of."
curiouser and curiouser!
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
------------------------------
End of b-greek-digest V1 #550
*****************************
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
To unsubscribe from this list write
majordomo@virginia.edu
with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
automated services write to the above address with the message content
"help".
For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
b-greek@virginia.edu