A bit of data for the pistis Christou debate

The relevant genitival phrases in Galatians are all accompanied by verbs that unambiguously speak of human “believing” (2:16; 3:6, 22), while nowhere in this letter is the verb πιστεύειν or the adjective πιστός used of Christ.—J. M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 381

A summary of a few Greek particles

I append here a brief summary of my suggestions for these particles:

Ἵνα introduces a potential state of affairs;
Ὅτι by contrast introduces an actual state of affairs, from the perspective of the speaker;
Ὡς alerts the reader to expect a representation that may not in fact be a true state of affairs;
Καίπερ constrains the logical relations possible with participles;
Γάρ supports previous material
While οὖν asserts the relevance of new material.—Margaret Sim, A Relevant Way to Read, 98

More on οὖν

The procedural instruction that the particle οὖν gives is: ‘this is still relevant’! In other words it encourages the reader to proceed with the text in the belief that the new information is pertinent and directly related to what has gone before. This is particularly necessary if there has been a small digression, as frequently (but not always) happens before the introduction of οὖν.—Margaret Sim, A Relevant Way to Read, 96

Context, context, context

[Concerning οὖν] As with the other particles, we do not interpret utterances by deciphering a code, but by a process of inferencing which may use semantic concepts but which then draws out implications from contextual and encyclopaedic information. Putting it simply, it is not the ‘meaning’ of individual words that give understanding of utterances, but the whole background of shared knowledge between speaker and hearer as well as the surrounding narrative.—Margaret Sim, A Relevant Way to Read, 96

But is it true?

When something is presented as a ‘state of affairs’ it does not necessarily mean that it is true, but that the speaker is presenting it as true. The speaker may himself believe that the statement is true but be mistaken in that belief. ὅτι was dealt with earlier when considering the way in which humans represent the words of others, but it is worth mentioning again here. It is clearly related to the use of ἵνα, but in this context it guides a hearer in interpreting what follows as an actual, rather than a potential, state of affairs.—Margaret Sim, A Relevant Way to Read, 81 (emphasis original)

Actual vs. potential state of affairs (Greek)

The particle ὅτι may be usefully regarded as operating in a manner parallel to that of ἵνα but giving procedural instructions to a reader or hearer to read the following text as describing an actual state of affairs, rather than the potential one ἵνα introduces. In simple terms, ὅτι introduces a description of a situation, Whereas ἵνα introduces a potential situation: what the speaker or subject wants to see happening or thinks should be happening. Here the mood of the verbs in the corresponding clauses supports this analysis with the indicative indicating ‘fact’ — as presented by the speaker or subject — and the subjunctive indicating potentiality.—Margaret Sim, A Relevant Way to Read, 80 (emphasis original)

Those Greek particles

There are some small words in Greek that are very helpful guides in interpreting the phrases or clauses that they introduce. Traditionally, they have been read as if they have a fixed lexical meaning, and this has led to some difficult translations both logically and theologically, in which a theological agenda has been pinned on a fixed lexical meaning that the language cannot sustain. Relevance theory deals with such words as giving procedural instructions to a reader or hearer to process the following phrase, clause or sentence in a certain way. In other words, it constrains the range of possible meanings and gives clues to the reader about the communicative intention of the author. The assumption is that these are present in the text to make something ostensive.—Margaret Sim, A Relevant Way to Read, 71

Don't you just love the passive voice?

Ran across this quotation in a book I'm editing:

In [Rev 13] vv 5–7, the singular aorist passive verb ἐδόθη, ‘was given,’ occurs five times in the identical phrase καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ, ‘and it was given’; in each instance the passive voice of the verb can be construed as a passive of divine activity, i.e., as a circumlocution for the direct mention of God as subject of the action of the verb. This makes it clear that John does not see the conflict between God and Satan (historically manifested in the conflict between Christians and the state) in terms of a cosmic dualism; rather he emphasizes the ultimate sovereignty and control of God over events that occur in the world.—David Aune, Revelation 6–16, WBC 52B (Dallas: Word, 1998) 743

Gotta love that!

What I'm reading

Right now I'm reading two books. One of which I should excerpt from but probably won't because I want you to buy it and read it : )

As my seminary theology professor used to say, "You owe it to yourself to read this book," and invariably, if I did read it, I would have to agree with him. So, you owe it to yourself, and your family, to read this book: How Not to Diet. It's a sequel to his earlier book, How Not to Die, which I read some years back but apparently didn't blog about, as a search on this blog shows nothing. You should read that one too.

The other book, which I read in June/July of this year and then immediately started rereading because I wasn't sure I "got" what they were arguing, will probably, Deo volente, start showing up on this blog pretty soon, is John Walton and Harvey Walton, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest. I'm not sure I buy everything they are selling and in some cases, I think they "give away" too much, if you follow. We'll see if I still think that as I reread it.

In addition, I'm rereading the Greek New Testament. I just finished Luke and will be starting John. I read about five chapters a week, some weeks more, some less. I'm also reading the LXX, using the Hendrickson/Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2 volume Reader's Edition. The Greek is relatively simple, but the vocabulary is rather expansive, so the reader's edition is nice. I'm in the middle of 1 Samuel right now, but because of the garden, I'm only reading about a chapter or two a week. I grabbed that at an AAR/SBL meeting right after it was published, and have been off again on again with it ever since. I tend to read it more regularly in the winter when less is happening.

I'm also reading through the Hebrew Bible, front to back. I've never done that before; I've read probably half to two-thirds of it piecemeal, some areas, like Isaiah, Psalms, and the Minor Prophets, I've read multiple times, but others, like the Torah, I've only barely touched on, so this is fun and interesting. I'm in Numbers right now. In order to keep up a decent pace (about 3–5 chs./week), I've been using the Hendrickson/Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft Reader's Edition. I received a complimentary copy because I was involved in proofreading the thing. I proofread Isaiah, Psalms, and most, if not all, of the Minor Prophets, maybe more, but I can't remember anymore—that was about ten years ago now! (I linked to the Christian Book page because I can't find the Hendrickson one anymore; they recently were sold to Tyndale, so I wonder if that's why?)

But the grammar doesn't allow it!

I suggest that a better solution to the πίστις Χριστοῦ debate lies somewhere in the middle between “faith in Christ” and the “faithfulness of Christ.” I find the traditional “faith in Christ” position, though rich in heritage and safeguarding the call for a human response to the gospel, ultimately dissatisfying because it does not capture the participationist themes that Paul weaves into his theological discourse. However, the “faithfulness of Christ” option, overflowing with a vat of theological new wine, doesn’t work for those of us damned with too much knowledge of Greek grammar, and it seems like a theological overread.—Michael Bird, An Anomalous Jew: Paul among Jews, Greeks, and Romans, 143

Who's leading the show?

Rom 8:30 should first (not only) be read through a disciplined lens of biblical theology, in which we strive to let the text inform our system rather than (in an unhealthy way) our system inform the text. To be sure, it is not only impossible but undesirable to read any given text without a systematic framework. Yet our mindset must be one of self-consciously letting the text tinker with the framework rather than the framework with the text.—Dane Ortlund, Inaugurated Glorification: Revisiting Romans 8:30 JETS 57 (2014): 128 (emphasis original); cited in Conformed to the Image of His Son, 225

<idle musing>
But how often is it the other way around? Far too often we go to scripture seeking a proof text for our chosen position, rather than going there with an open mind. Yes, we all have frameworks (presuppositions), but they must be open to modification if we intend to grow spiritually (as well as intellectually and emotionally).

Back in the day, we used to call that inductive versus deductive reading. Not sure what they call it now, but the principle remains the same: Let the text dictate what you find, not the other way around.

To share a story: Many years ago, another person and I used to get together to sight-read in the Greek New Testament. One day, the person I was reading with said something to the effect that they were truly amazed because I let the text dictate how I translated and interpreted it. I asked them what they meant. They replied that they had been taught to go to the text with a firm idea and then find it there—and this person was seminary-trained! Yikes!

As the title of the post asked, "Who's leading the show?" I hope and pray you let God, through the Holy Spirit, direct what you find in any given text, not what your presuppositions/framework/theology dictates has to be there or can't be there.
</idle musing>

How does the LXX use δοξάζω?

Two points of significance are notable here. First, in each of the examples for δοξάζω above [Daniel, Esther, 1 maccabees, Isaiah, and Sirach], the aorist active idicative third-person singular form is used—the same form used 1n Romans 8:30 for God's glorification of humanity. Second, in nearly every instance of humanity's glorification in the LXX (the exceptions being Ex 34:29-30, 35; Sir 50:15), δοξάζω refers primarily to a status or position of honor, authority, being radiant or brought into the presence of God.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 50

<idle musing>
Remember that! It will be important later in the book.
</idle musing>

James 1:5

The word order in the Greek of James 1:5 has always fascinated me. It just doesn't come across very well in any English translation. But, today I was reading it in the Common English Bible and it jumped out at me. I've read it in the CEB multiple times, but for some reason today I realized it did the best job of any of catching the nuance of the Greek word order. Enjoy!

But anyone who needs wisdom should ask God, whose very nature is to give to everyone without a second thought, without keeping score. Wisdom will certainly be given to those who ask.

New book coming out on Greek Prepositions

William Ross has the great news. The book from his and Steve Runge's Tyndale Workshop on Greek prepositions is going to be out in November:

Postclassical Greek Prepositions and Conceptual Metaphor: Cognitive Semantic Analysis and Biblical Interpretation.
Edited by: William A. Ross and Steven E. Runge
Volume 12 in the series Fontes et Subsidia ad Bibliam pertinentes

Heres the description:

Traditional semantic description of Ancient Greek prepositions has struggled to synthesize the varied and seemingly arbitrary uses into something other than a disparate, sometimes overlapping list of senses. The Cognitive Linguistic approach of prototype theory holds that the meanings of a preposition are better explained as a semantic network of related senses that radially extend from a primary, spatial sense. These radial extensions arise from contextual factors that affect the metaphorical representation of the spatial scene that is profiled. Building upon the Cognitive Linguistic descriptions of Bortone (2009) and Luraghi (2009), linguists, biblical scholars, and Greek lexicographers apply these developments to offer more in-depth descriptions of select postclassical Greek prepositions and consider the exegetical and lexicographical implications of these findings. This volume will be of interest to those studying or researching the Greek of the New Testament seeking more linguistically-informed description of prepositional semantics, particularly with a focus on the exegetical implications of choice among seemingly similar prepositions in Greek and the challenges of potentially mismatched translation into English.

Uses latest Cognitive Linguistic theory for lexical semantic analysis

Builds upon well-accepted but still underdeveloped language scholarship in Classical Greek Gives attention to practical implications for textual interpretation of the Bible

I admit to being highly biased (I copyedited the volume), but this is a great book! I look forward to getting my copy (hopefully I won't find any errors in it!).

Transactional faith? Not rich enough!

But here we run into an obstacle. Not only is pistis capable of a richer definition, but the transactional idea of the Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us so that it covers our unclean sins is nowhere to be found in Scripture. There are passages that urge the Christian to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 13:14) or that affirm that “as many of you as were baptized into the Messiah have put on the Messiah” (Gal. 3:27) and so forth. Meanwhile, there are texts that speak of God counting or reckoning righteousness on the basis of pistis (e.g., Rom. 4:5, 9-11). One passage speaks of the Messiah as having become “wisdom for us from God, and also our righteousness, holiness, and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30), but the context does not pertain to legal declaration. Finally, several of the passages reviewed above speak of our genuine sharing in the righteousness of God as that righteousness has been manifested or made available through and in the Christ (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:8—9). But these various images are not combined.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 182–83 (emphasis original)

About that "elect" category…I don't think it means what you think it means

Although undeniably systematizing the true order of salvation is a worthy goal, biblical scholars, myself included, generally remain wary of such systems. For even when such systems employ biblical terms as conceptual categories or organizational rubrics, they tend to foist alien concerns onto the biblical text rather than allowing the biblical narrative to supply the framework, and this leads to skewed emphases. For instance, a common category in the order is “election.” This is a biblical term (eklektos and cognates), and it is indeed sometimes used in the Greek Old Testament and the New Testament to emphasize God’s sovereignty in choosing specific individuals and groups for various purposes. But as it is mobilized by systematicians, the tendency is to treat it as a special “salvation” category pertaining to God’s eternal (or slightly later) decree to save or damn certain individuals, when in fact the word means merely “choosing” and frequently doesn’t have eternal salvation or condemnation in view at all, especially not with regard to the individual. My intention is not to suggest that systematics is unnecessary or unhelpful in clarifying Scripture through philosophical inquiry; my point is rather that the biblical story has not always been correctly aimed for systematic inquiry.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 169

Preexistence

[I]n both Romans 1:3 and Philippians 2:9 the normal verb for birth, gennaō, is passed over in favor of ginomai, a term that can mean ordinary birth but much more often stresses change in status or existence. In Romans 1:3 Paul speaks of the Son who, as it pertains to the flesh, “came into existence by means of the seed of David.” Similarly in Philippians 2:9 the Christ Jesus is the preexistent one who nonetheless “came into existence in the likeness of humans.” In other words, in both passages Paul (and whatever sources he used) neglected the ordinary word for birth and selected instead ginomai, the best word to describe the coming into fleshly human existence of a preexistent divine being through birth (cf. also Gal. 4:4).—Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 37

What does the word mean, anyway?

Although the Greek word pistis, the word that most often stands behind our English translations of “faith” or “belief” in the New Testament, can and does frequently involve regarding something as true or real, akin to how we might say “I have faith that God exists” or “my beliefs are different from yours,” the word pistis (and related terms) has a much broader range of meaning. This range includes ideas that aren’t usually associated in our contemporary culture with belief or faith, such as reliability, confidence, assurance, fidelity, faithfulness, commitment, and pledged loyalty. The question is, then, when a person today says, “I am saved by my faith in Jesus,” what portion of the range of meaning of “faith” is understood to effect salvation? Are certain portions of the legitimate meaning of “faith” being unwittingly shaded out? In what capacity is Jesus being regarded as the object of “faith”? And what mental images surround the process of salvation?—Matthew W. Bates, Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 3 (emphasis original)

You will make a fool of yourself

The study of any language—Greek, Latin, Hebrew, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Taino—opens the mind, gives you a window onto another culture, and reminds you that there is a larger world out there and different ways of saying things, hearing things, seeing things. It always distresses me to hear someone say, “I’m no good at foreign languages,” or demand “English for me, dear.” In learning a foreign language, you have to humble yourself, admit your ignorance, be willing to look stupid. We learn a language by making mistakes. Or anyway I do.—Mary Norris, Greek to Me Adventures of the Comma Queen, 68

<idle musing>
I always told my students that I was going to make mistakes, just as they would. In some ways is was a game to see if they could catch my mistakes. More than once, they did. Learning in general, and languages especially, means you are going to make mistakes. Admit them, learn from them, and move on.
</idle musing>

Does anybody who knows Greek proofread the covers?

I was checking a bibliographic reference yesterday and ran across this:

The accent in σὖν is impossible, and, besides, the word σύν makes no sense in the context. It should be οὖν. The worst of it is that it has ended up in OCLC, the database that drives interlibrary loan, as sun instead of oun—and that's how it ended up that way in the bibliography I was checking.