Art and a message

How does this picture make one feel
about listening to the gospel and letters of John in Greek?

The Irony of Samaria: Σαμαρεια / Σαμαρειτης in the Greek NT

The following is a little long for a note, but hopefully fun.
There are several ironies in the spelling of Σαμαρεια/Σαμαρια in our Greek texts.

Readers of United Bible Societies Greek text and the Nestle Aland text will be familiar with the following spellings:

Σαμάρεια (the place), and
Σαμαρίτης (a person of the place, male)
Σαμαρῖτις (a person of the place, female)

The spelling of the two forms is inconsistent, though the root will sound identical when read with a first century pronunciation.
[[ ει is correctly pronounced like the ι [i] vowel sound rather than the [e] sound (close to ey in 'they') that is often heard in academic circles.]]
But this inconsistency is only the first in a series.

The world turns upside down when Westcott and Hort are brought in. Westcott-Hort have:

Σαμαρία (the place) and
Σαμαρείτης (the person, male)
Σαμαρεῖτις (the person, female)

Not only are both WH and UBS/NA internally inconsistent, but they are the opposite of each other. That is a rather unexpected result.

Do the manuscript traditions support either of these inversions or provide a solution? On the surface one would not expect that WH and UBS/NA would come to such doubly inverted results without some good manuscript support. These can be checked rather quickly and fairly comprehensively today because of the books of Swanson, who records manuscript deviances on points like these.

The Data from Swanson on –EI- versus –I- for Samaria.

Here are the data from Swanson on –EI- versus –I- for Samaria. Brief discussions will follow the data. The patterns are surprising.

Luke 17:11
Σαμαρεια Βc, p75, D, H, Y, K, M, N, S, U, Γ, Λ, Π, Ω, 33, 124, 157, 579, 700, 788, 1071, 1024, f1, f13,
Σαμαρια B*, א, A, E, F, G, L, W, Δ, Θ, Ψ, 2, 28, 69, 565

John 4:4
Σαμαρεια Β, p75, A, byz (FGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Λ, Π, Ψ, 28, 33, 124, 157, 579, 700, 1071, 1424, f1, f13,
Σαμαρια p66, א, C, D, E?, L, Wsup, Δ, Θ, 2, 565,

John 4:5
Σαμαρεια Β, p75mg, A, byz (FGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Δ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 2, 28, 33, 69, 124, 157, 565, 579, 700, 788, 1071, 1424, f1, f13,
Σαμαρια p66, אc, C, D, E, L, W, Θ, 565,

John 4:7
Σαμαρεια Β, p75, A, C, byz (EGvizHSYΩ), Κ, Lc, M, N, U, Δ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 28, 33, 69, 124, 157, 565, 700, 788, 1071, 1424, f1, f13,
Σαμαρια p66, א, D, F, L*, Wsup, Θ, 2, 579.

Acts 1:8
Σαμαρεια B, C, H2, Ψ, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 614, 618, 927, 945, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2147, 2344, 2412, 2492, 2495
Σαμαρια א, A, D, E, 049, 1175, 1646,

Acts 8:1
Σαμαρεια B, p74, A, C, H, P, Ψ, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 614, 618, 927, 945, 1241, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2344, 2412, 2492, 2495
Σαμαρια א, D, E, 049, 1175, 1243, 1646, 2147.

Acts 8:5
Σαμαρεια B, A, H, P, Ψ, 049c, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 618, 927, 945, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1646, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2147, 2344, 2412, 2492, 2495
Σαμαρια אc, p74, C, D, E, 049*, 614, 1175.

Acts 8:9
Σαμαρεια B, A, H, Ψ, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 614, 618, 927, 945, 1175, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2147, 2344, 2412, 2492, 2495.
Σαμαρια א, p74, C, D, E, P, 049, 1646.

Acts 8:14
Σαμαρεια B, A, H, L, P, Ψ, 049c, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 618, 927, 945, 1175, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2147, 2344, 2412, 2492, 2495.
Σαμαρια א, p74, C, D, E, 049*, 614, 1646.

Acts 9:31
Σαμαρεια B, p74, A, C, H, L, P, Ψ, 049, 056, 1, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 614, 618, 927, 945, 1175, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1646, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2412, 2492c, 2495.
Σαμαρια א, E, 2147, 2344.

Acts 15:3
Σαμαρεια B, p45, p74, A, L, P, Ψ, 049, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 614, 618, 927, 945, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 16ll, 1646, 1739, 1828, 1837, 1854, 1891, 2147, 2412, 2492, 2495.
Σαμαρια א, C, D, E, H, 1175.

The Results for Spelling the Place Name Samaria:

B is consistently -EI-, 10/11, corrected 11/11.
א is consistently -I-, 11/11.
p75 is consistently -EI-, 4/4
p45 is -EI-, 1/1
p66 is consistently -I-, 3/3
A is predominantly -EI-, 9/11 (Lk 17 and Ac 1.8 exceptional)
D is predominantly -I-, 9/10 (Lk 17 EI)
C is mixed, -EI- 4/10, -I- 6/10
E is predominantly -I-, 10/11 (Jn 4.7 -EI?-)
H is predominantly, -EI- 10/11 (A15 -I-)
W is consistently -I- 4/4.
Θ is consistently -I- 4/4.
Miniscules are predominantly -EI-,
though a few show a mixture
like 565 = -EI- 2/4 , -I- 2/4;
614 = -EI- 5/7 , -I- 2/7 ;
1175 = -EI-3/7 , -I- 4/7 .

The place name was spelled -ει- in the old Alexandrian (p75, B, A in Acts)
and in the Byzantine traditions.
Another Alexandrian spelling was -ι-, which is also the Western reading.

It appears that Westcott and Hort abandoned the spelling of B because it lined up with the Byzantine reading and because significant Alexandrian witnesses and the Western witness agreed. However, this looks different today, since p75 and p45 have joined B's spelling. WH should have paid more attention to Σαμαρεια in the six examples where the old Alexandrian manuscripts B and A agree in Acts.

This becomes more telling when the gentilic noun 'Samaritan' is investigated.

The Data for the Gentilic Noun 'Samaritan'
John 4:9, first (feminine gentilic):

Σαμαρειτις Β, p66c, p75, A, byz (EFGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Δ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 2*, 28, 33, 157, 565, 700, 788, 1071, 1424, f1, f13,
Σαμαριτις p63, p66*, א, C, D, L, N, Wsup, Θ, 2c, 579.

John 4:9, second (feminine gentilic):
Σαμαρειτιδος Β, p75, A, C, byz (EFGHSYΩ), Κ, L, M, U, Λ, Π, Ψ, 2*, 28, 33, 157, 565, 700, 1071, 1424, f1, f13,
Σαμαριτιδος p63, p66, א, D, N, Wsup, Δ, Θ, 2, 579.

The consistent -ι- witnesses are the same manuscripts that supported WH's choice of Σαμαρία: p66, א, D, W, Θ. One must wonder: if these were strong enough in the gospels to lead Westcott and Hort to Σαμαρια, then why not with the gentilic Σαμαριτις? Before we answer definitively we need to complete the picture and add one more set of data for the masculine gentilic 'Samaritan'.

Matt. 10:5
Σαμαρειτων Β, byz (EFSYΩ), Κ, L, M, U, Δ, Λ, Πc,Ψ, 157, 700, 788, 1071, 1346, f1, f13.
Σαμαριτων א, C, G, L, N, W, Θ, Π*, 2, 28, 33, 565, 579.
Σαμαριτανων D.

Luke 9:52
Σαμαρειτων Β, p45, p75, D, byz (EFGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Δ, Θ, Ψ, 28, 33, 69, 118, 124, 157, 565, 1071, 1346, 1424, f1.
Σαμαριτων א, A, C, Hc, L, W, Y, Γ, Λ, 2, 579.
Σαμαρητων H*.

Luke 10:33
Σαμαρειτης Β, p75, A, byz (EGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Γ, Δ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 28, 33, 124, 157, 565, 700, 1071, 1424, f1, f13.
Σαμαριτης א, C, D, L, N, W, 2, 69, 579.
Σαμαρητης Θ.

Luke 17:16
Σαμαρειτης Β, A, byz (EGHSYΩ), Κ, Lc, M, U, Γ, Δ, Θ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 28, 157, 565, 700, 788, 1071, 1346, 1424, f1.
Σαμαριτης א, D, L*, N, W, Δ, Θ, 2, 579, f13.

John 4:9
Σαμαρειταις Β, p63, p75, אc, A, C, byz (EFGHSYΩ), Κ, M, N, U, Θ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 1, 28, 69, 118, 124, 565, 700, 1071, 1424, 1582, f13.
Σαμαριταις p66, L, Wsup, Δ, 2, 33, 579.

John 4:39
Σαμαρειτων Β, p75, A, C, byz (EFGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Λ, Π, Ψ, 2*, 28, 33, 69, 157, 565, 700, 1071, 1424, f1, f13.
Σαμαριτων p66, א, D, L, Wsup, Δ, Θ, 579.

John 4:40
Σαμαρειται Β, p75, A, C, byz (EFGHSYΩ), Κ, M, U, Δ, Λ, Π, Ψ, 2, 28, 33, 157, 565, 579, 700, 1424, f1, f13.
Σαμαριται p66, א, A, D, L, Wsup.
Σαμαριτε 1071.

John 8:48
Σαμαρειτης Β, p75, C, D, byz (EFHSYΩ), Κ, L, M, U, Λ, Π, Ψ, 33, 69, 118, 124, 565, 700, 788, 1071, f1, f13.
Σαμαριτης p66, א, G, N, W, Δ, Θ, 2, 1582c.
Σαμαριτις 579.
Σαμαρειτις 28, 157, 1424.

Acts 8:25.
Σαμαρειτων Β, p74, A, C, D, H, L, P, 049c, 056, 1, 33, 69, 81, 88, 104, 226, 323, 330, 440, 547, 614, 618, 927, 1241, 1243, 1245, 1270, 1505, 1611, 1645, 1828, 1837, 1854, 2147, 2412, 2492, 2495.
Σαμαριτων א, Ε, 049*, 1245, 1646, 2344.
Σαμαρητων 1175.

Results and Conclusions

The spelling for Σαμαρειτης is a little more inconsistent than for the place name Σαμαρεια, but the same manuscripts are basically lining up with the same relationships.

B is consistently -EI- 9/9.
א is consistently -I- 8/8 (plus one correction of a lacuna with -EI-)
p45 is consistently -EI- 1/1
p75 is consistently -EI- 6/6
D is mixed -EI- 3/8, -I- 5/8. But still in the same direction of its 9/10 preference of Σαμαρια over Σαμαρεια.
W is consistently -I- 8/8.
A is predominantly -EI- 6/7 (Lk 9:52 -I-.) In Acts [Alexandrian] it is -EI- 1/1.
C is mixed -EI- 5/8, -I- 3/8. The three -I- are in Matt and Luke.
The Byzantine manuscripts are predominantly -EI-

How does one distill this?

There is no consistent evidence that would support either UBS/NA or WH ! Differentiating the vowel EI/I in the place name 'Samaria' from the gentilic name 'Samaritan', whichever flip-flop one chooses, appears to be an artificial introduction into the spelling tradition by both published critical texts. UBS/NA may be faulted for following the -I- traditions in the gentilic names Σαμαριτης and Σαμαριτις. The manuscripts that they were following for this tradition would have led them to choose the place name Σαμαρια as well. Likewise, Westcott and Hort should have stuck with their acknowledged preference of B and old Alexandrian witnesses. The papyri p75 and p45 have reinforced the spelling Σαμαρεια. But again, there is no consistent support for maintaining a distinction between Σαμαρια and Σαμαρειτης. The only old witness that moves a bit in that direction is D, Codex Bezae. But Bezae is hardly a reliable tradition, and it only scores 3/8 with Σαμαρειτης. One might also point to the mixed attestation of C, but it, too, is hardly a sterling example of a tight manuscript. It means that there are no manuscripts that consistently support either UBS/NA or Westcott-Hort.

But the manuscripts do support consistency. B, p75, A, and K are on one side (-ει-), and א, p66, and D (-ι-) on the other. Whatever the original authors may have written, the various ancient publishing houses seem to have passed on one tradition or another, though with occasional inconsistencies and some evidence of cross-contamination.

A final irony for this situation is the resulting spelling. The old Alexandrian and the Byzantine manuscripts share a bed here. Together, they both point to Σαμαρεια and Σαμαρειτης as the preferred forms for the Greek NT. The Byzantine text (Robinson-Pierpont) has this spelling right. Fortunately, a person can read both the WH and UBS/NA texts correctly when one is trained to hear the old language.

And of course, we (BLC, www.biblicalulpan.org) do believe in listening to the old language.

(for a textcritical blog discussion on "Why spelling matters" see
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-spelling-matters.html)
(for more information on Living Koine Greek pronunciation see
www.biblicalulpan.org
and http://www.biblicalulpan.org/pages/Common/Greek%20Pronunciation%20(2008).pdf)

Randall Buth

When do corrections need to be made with language learners? When does Erasmian pronunciation cross the line and need to be corrected?

When do corrections need to be made with language learners? When does Erasmian pronunciation cross the line and need to be corrected?

Children need a stress-free environment for play and learning. Parents correct their children's speech, but not everything all at once and most of the time most any understandable utterance is accepted and praised. The child eventually cleans up the language, one piece at a time, but only when they are ready to do it. Pushing too much too early just creates stress. It will still take a natural amount of development time before the child can control all of the pieces.

Language teachers are like parents. They need to correct students, but what is helpful?

One rule of thumb is that corrections need to be made when communication breaks down. Here are two amusing examples. One of an English learner, the other of Greek.

A girl from our neighborhood in Israel once met my son in Los Angeles. She commented "I've just been to the bitch." My son thought she had just been through some disturbing experience. But she was smiling. After several rounds of questions it dawned on our son that the girl had just visited the beach. Israeli Hebrew does not have an open 'i' sound like in the English word 'pit'. This girl had learned that, but was over-correcting and putting the open-[i] sound into the word 'beach' by mistake. She probably knew that people smile at Israelis when they say the English word "sheet" for a common profanity. So our son corrected her "beach". She had just come from the beach. Yes, she was at a stage where she needed that correction. Communication had broken down.

Yesterday I landed on a Greek website where the doxology was being sung. I had heard it before. I don't know who was singing, but I was startled, something like my son in the situation above. Clearly and melodically someone was singing "be praising the female goddess here!" in Greek. They were waxing lyrical in Dorian dialect, often used for choruses. I had visions of Astarte, with prostitutes inviting one into a pagan temple, yet the song continued with a (mispronounced) Christian conclusion. Rather strange, to say the least. I recognized the tune and realized what had happened. The singer had substituted an 'a' sound [alpha] for an 'o' sound. "Erasmians" (especially from the USA) need to be careful when using a pronunciation system that does not fit the Koine Greek language. Yes, that definitely needs correcting. Communication is breaking down. Humorous errors like that have happened to me and most anyone who has learned a second language. But there are some things that teachers just can't let slide. ταν θεαν the female goddess has got to go. Maybe it wouldn't hurt if that Erasmian pronunciation joined her, but first things first.

For a Koine pronunciation that fit the times, see www.biblicalulpan.org

and http://www.biblicalulpan.org/pages/Common/Greek%20Pronunciation%20(2008).pdf

Textual Criticism and Synoptics, the Case of ευθυς

On the importance of textual criticism in synoptic studies: the case of ευθυς.

I have always viewed ευθυς as a nice marker of Matthew's use of Mark. [For the record, I am confident that both were composed in Greek. What of the Hebrew tradition in Papias? I see the Hebrew Matthew of Papias as refering to a pre-synoptic narrative source דברי ישוע, coming from the Jerusalem church and later translated into Greek and used in Greek sources for our synoptic gospels.]

But then again, I have always been, and am currently, a textual Alexandrian, though with room for doubt. [I am sympathetic to the view that it is hard for an Alexandrian position to posit a massive Byzantine redaction in the 4th century, purging Alexandrianisms from the new Byzantine text. Things aren't normally so neat in history or the manuscript world.]

Back to ευθυς.

In the Westcott-Hort text and the Moulton-Geden concordance:

Matthew uses ευθεως 10 [11] times 4.20, 22, 8.3, 13.5, [14.22], 31, 20.34, 24.29, 25.15, 26.49, 27.48.

Matthew also uses ευθυς 7 times 3.16, 13.20, 21, 14.27, 21.2, 3, 26.74.

Mark never uses ευθεως.

Mark uses ευθυς 40 [41] times 1.10, 12, 18, 20, 21, 23, 28, 29, 30, 42, 43, 2.8, 12, 3.6, 4.5, 15, 16, 17, 29, [5.2], 29, 30, 42, 42, 6.25, 27, 45, 50, 54, 7.25, 8.10, 9.15, 20, 24, 10.52, 11.2, 3, 14.43, 45, 72, 15.1.

Obviously, ευθυς is a Marcanism.

More provacatively diagnostic, all seven of the ευθυς examples in Matthew are parallel to verses in Mark. Not only that, they are very tightly congruent in the rest of the Greek wording in their respective verses and they occur in both the narrative framework and in the words of Jesus. There is a literary connection. (Logically, either Matthew used Mark, Mark used Matthew, or both used a shared source.)

Since ευθυς is a Marcanism, the probable conclusion is that Matthew has borrowed seven examples of ευθυς from Mark, but himself prefers ευθεως. [NB: of the 11 ευθεως in Matthew, only 7 out of 11 Matthean ευθεως have an 'immediately' parallel in Mark. [[Mt 4.20, 4.22, 8.3, 13.5, 14.22, 20.34, 26.49]] If Mark were converting all 'immediately's in Matthew to ευθυς, it would be surprising that he only gets less than 2/3 of the ευθεως but 100% of the ευθυς.]

This becomes a clear trace-element. Just what forensics want on a CSI investigation. Since I started my scholarly days in the Moulton-Geden paper-hardcopy world, I have been able to carry around a datum like this as a 'quick' example of why it is clear that Matthew used Mark.

However, in the electronic age, I can now update the above comparison against NA27. In NA27 Matthew only has 5 ευθυς. Matthew 3.16, 13.20, 21, 14.27, 21.3. Two of the WH examples jump over to ευθεως, 21.2 [only א and L have ευθυς in Swanson], 26.74 [only B, L, θ have ευθυς in Swanson].

The result is the same, with 5 out of 5 borrowed from Mark instead of 7 out of 7. Ευθυς still appears to be a non-Mattheanism, perhaps even more so, since fewer of them occur. The new statistics would now say that 9 out of 13 ευθεως, 70%, in Matthew have an 'immediately' in Mark against 100% of Matthean ευθυς. Still suggestive that Mark is not copying Matthew.

So what's the point of all the above?

Let's look at the Byzantine text.

In 46 variation units of ευθεως/ευθυς in Mark (Alex. has unique examples at 1.23, 5.42b, 7.25, 14.72, Byz at 1.31, 5.36, 7.35 [NA bracketed]):

the Byzantine text has ευθεως 40 times and ευθυς 2 [1.12, and 1.28].

The Byzantine-Alexandrian text agree to have either ευθεως or ευθυς 39 [40] times.

Neither of the examples of ευθυς in Byz Mark have an ευθυς in Matthew! Byz Mark 1.12 is parallel to a Matthean τοτε, a distinctive Mattheanism that is not picked up in Mark anywhere. Byz Mark 1.28 is 'Marcan material' that has no equivalent in Matthew [Byz or Alex].

In the Byzantine text, Mark could have a source that has ευθυς since ευθυς is not a Marcan stylistic feature and Mark cannot borrow from Matthew's τοτε at Mark 1.12. Mark could be the copier of an unknown source. He would only have ευθυς where his source would have ευθυς, otherwise he continues with his personal ευθεως. The source, of course, could have many more ευθυς, three of which turn up in Byzantine Matthew [3.16 // ByzMark 1.9 ευθεως, 13.20//Byz Mark ευθεως, 13.21//Byz Mark ευθεως]. Byzantine Matthew, however, is not copying Mark but a shared source. Or else both Byzantine Matthew and Byzantine Mark infrequently and randomly add ευθυς. [Mt 3xx out of 18, Mk 2xx out of 42, never parallel.]

Or, in the Byzantine text one could argue that two ευθυς from an Alexandrian redaction/spelling of Mark have entered the Byzantine tradition at an early stage. This would leave unexplained the manner in which the ευθυς examples entered the Byzantine Matthean tradition on the assumption that the Byzantine text was original. There would not have been many Matthean ευθυς in an early Alexandrian redaction for penetrating Byz Matthew. Even though Byz Mark could be penetrated by Alex Mark in two places, it would be less likely that Byz Matthew would pick up three ευθυς from an Alex Matthew that only had 5 anyway. So Byz Matthew would become an infrequent and random user of ευθυς. One could say the same for Mark and have either Matthew or Mark ignore the others, as dicted by one's synoptic theory. Only one would need to be an 'ignorer' in order to explain the data and neither is a strong friend of ευθυς.

What is remarkable, is that regarding ευθυς/ευθεως in the Byzantine text the literary flow Mark to Matthew does not exist. Yet the Alexandrian text has a clear literary flow from Mark to Matthew on this point. Alexandrians can point to ευθυς as evidence that Matthew used Mark. But that datum is only as strong as the textual theory.

Intensive Koine Greek, spoken immersion summer session

The Biblical Language Center, at Qibbutz Tzuba, just west of Jerusalem is offering its second annual, immersion Greek SXOLH this summer 2008.

Two teachers in class teach in Koiné Greek, 90%+ of the time. Outside languages (e.g. English, Hebrew) are restricted to 10% within the classroom. From the beginning students start to play in the language with understanding, like being thrown into a learner-friendly kindergarten. While the class starts at a 'zero' level, officially assuming nothing as the first words and situations are communicated, about half of the students come with one to four years of Greek. Everyone is surprised to be learning together, and those with background discover what Greek can be like when used for communication and as the medium for thought and expression. A sense of humor and ability to laugh at oneself makes for more rapid language learning.

Texts studied include selections from NT gospel parables, Aesop's fables, Acts, NT epistles, Apostolic Fathers, Josephus, LXX, Epictetus, Plutarch, some papyri and inscriptions. Grammar is discussed within the fun and games, of course, though terminology and description is mainly done in ancient Greek (some of the 10% non-Greek time is occasionally used at this point for clarification). Five field trips include 1^st to 6^th century sites at Caesaria, Jerusalem, Bet Shean, Hippos, Paneion, Tsippori, Bet Shearim, et al., where the place is described in ancient Greek, appropriate texts are read, as well as the inscriptions in situ. It turns out that ancient Provincia Ioudaia and Syria are excellent places for studying Greek. Most of the remains from the 1^st century up thru the 6^th century are accompanied by Greek inscriptions. What kinds of texts do students read at these sites? To begin with there are gospel parables and stories at appropriate sites, e.g. Nazareth village synagogue and Luke 4, and NT texts, e.g., Acts 26 overlooking the road to Damascus. At Bet Shean the class can stand in a restored bathhouse and read Epictetus on how to stoically prepare for a visit to a BALANEION, or at the Paneion, Plutarch on "PAN O MEGAS TEQNHKE". Students read and acted out LXX Genesis 22 at Tsippori, where we also read the Greek inscriptions in the synagogue floor and discussed the artwork about the 'binding of Isaac'. There is also a wonderful symposion room at Tsippori with mosaics relating to Dionysios, Heracles, and harvest, (though the setting is too dark for reading an 'extra-credit' 1^st century symposion song).

While students may come with no Greek background, everyone is asked to begin listening to the 1000 pictures in Living Koiné Greek (pictures are described in Koiné Greek without written text [including both sentences and occasional story lines], afterwards transcriptions of the pictures are read). This "opens one's ears" and begins to record the language in a different part of the brain than when discussed in another language. The alphabet is also expected to be learned before arrival and is drilled in Living Koiné Greek, Part One.

A biblical Hebrew immersion learning experience is also available, with two levels. Naturally only one class, Hebrew or Greek, is possible to do at one time because of the intensive nature of the programs. Written tests and examinations are given and a transcript can be issued for 8 Continuing Education Units (1 CEU represents 15 classroom hours and equals 1 semester credit of study). 22 June – 1 August 2008. $3650 for six weeks, room, board,tuition, and field trips.

Dr. Randall Buth, developer of the programs

www.biblicalulpan.org

Arabic and Aspect and Tense

In a discussion on another blog, www.AncientHebrewPoetry.typepad.com , John Hobbins asked me about tense and aspect in Arabic, with an implicit question on its relevance to biblical Hebrew tense-aspect,

"Does [Östen] Dahl represent a consensus point of view when he interprets the classical Arabic verbal system as at root aspectual? Or is there a continuing debate in that field that mirrors the one in ours?"

Well, it depends on what one asks, and whom one asks.

If you are asking "at root", then that is a historical, etymological question.

[[As an aside:

(on the web see Larisa Avram , Generative Linguistics and Child Language Acquistion, an open-access e-book, http://ebooks.unibuc.ro/filologie/avram/ Her chapter on tense-aspect is short and may be very helpful for European Semitists to get beyond their 'either tense or aspect' mentality)

Child development and creole studies would both point to the probability that a verb form in Semitic was 'aspectual' at some proto-language stage, because aspect is theoretically the first paramater to be morphologized within a language. But if that morphology fixes itself at a binary stage, then that morphology will be used for a whole 'TAM' within the theoretical language. [So Bickerton, see below, and to some degree Avram.] By the time we reach Akkadian we already have a ikattab//iktub dichotomy where the [ktub] root looks fairly time oriented to some, or at least is considered the predecessor for the Hebrew vayyiqtol that is considered by most to be fairly time oriented. If ktub had become a temporal root with perfectivity, then we may not know what the proto-Semitic imperfective aspectual root looked like, or in any case it is irrelevant to West Semitic. The ktub root was reinterpreted (or was proto-Semitic following Moscati and evidence of imperatives) as an imperfective aspectual root within binary West Semitic systems, as evidenced in Arabic. We also have a problem of limited data for the the second-fourth millenia BCE, and we have the iconoclastic material of 1m BCE Hebrew where ktub is both temporal past a.k.a. perfective in vayyiqtol and future-imperfective aspectual in yiqtol. But I don't think you wanted to ask "root" questions of this nature. And I'm not sure I want to make final pronouncements on Proto-Semitic.]]

If you are simply asking about tense and aspect, then again, it depends whom you ask.

If you ask the first native Arabists, the answer is that Arabic includes time within itself, as is evidenced by their naming kataba "al-maaDi" and yaktubu "al-mustaqbal."

al maaDi is past, al mustqbal is future.

In the 19^th century this was turned on its head by Europeanean Arabists, as evidenced by Wright, §77a (p. 51)

"A Semitic Perfect or Imperfect has, in and of itself, no reference to the temporal relations of the speaker (thinker or writer). … The Arab grammarians themselves have not, however, succeeded in keeping this important point distinctly in view, but have given an undue importance to the idea of time, in connection with the verbal forms, by their division of it into the past (al-maaDi), the present (al-Haal or al-HaaDir), and the future (al-mustaqbal), the first of which they assign to the Perfect and the other two to the Imperfect."

However, the famous Indoeuropeanist, Jerzy Kurylowicz, Studies in Semitic Grammar and Metrics, 1972, was unimpressed with the basic claim to 'aspectuality' in Semitic. He had a good grasp about what aspect was about, controlling more than one Slavic language. (book is currently in boxes, I don't have access. http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/803958)

Why the discrepancy between mother-tongue speakers and among linguists? The Arabic yaktubu can be used very much like the biblical Hebrew participle. For marking imperfectivity in the past one finds kana yaktubu in parallel to First Temple biblical Hebrew haya kotev. The prefix form in Arabic was used to mark imperfectivity. But it was also sensitive to time and expressive of time.

As mentioned above, Arabic was a binary verbal system, basically dividing a past//non-past on the time axis, a perfective//imperfective on the aspect axis, and having a fairly complex modal axis including a subjunctive prefix verb with 'a', a short prefix perfective jussive/pasts, and a suffix verb for many conditionals, and prefix verbs with a rhetorical -n-.

Now binary verb systems are notorious for being multi-dimensional. In fact Derek Bickerton, a linguist famous for creole studies, claimed that most linguists working in the field of verbal syntax were too often irresponsible and arbitrary in their definitions of tense, aspect and mood. The 'meaning' of a verb depended more on how many slices of the pie were involved and on internal oppositions, rather than on specific 'time', 'aspect', and 'mood' features. A binary verb system is thus inherently prone to produce 'tense-aspects', something that is neither a pure aspect nor a pure tense. See the chapter cited above on the web book, for an overview of how tense-aspect fusion can be handled in a neutral manner.

This proto-typical binary tense-aspect-mood dichotomy is what we see in Arabic and explains why mother-tongue Arabs used time in their definitions over a millenium ago, and why some linguists like Dahl might want to put Arabic in their 'aspect' category. So yes, Arabic is problematic and boils down to definitions and whether or not 'tense' and 'aspect' are kept semantically clear, whether 'tense-aspect' is allowed in the definitions, or whether 'aspects' are redefined in order to mark time, too.

While noting the similarity to the biblical Hebrew tense-aspect-mood dichotomy in yiqtol~qatal, it is also helpful to note the differences. Hebrew marked "imperfectivity and past" by using haya + participle. Imperfectivity alone could be signalled by both yiqtol and veqatal, as the classic passage in Gen 29:1-3 shows. Arabic was using yaktubu for the participle uses and did not have a sequential system.

Especially important for your other question about Hebrew participles is to note that Arabic can use yaktubu for actual present tenses while biblical Hebrew already incorporated the participle.

Finally, I wouldn't want to imply that native nomenclature is always correct. Arabic explanations of the "lam yaktub" structure he did not write wander all over the board, because it is an isolated historical relic from the same system that produced the bH vayyiqtol. But to throw out their perception that time is included in their basic verb would be equivalent to throwing out English complaints when some says, "Look, the English future is really a volitional, since it uses 'will'." That mistakes etymology for semantics. English has a future, and it marks it with the volitional lexeme 'will', not the strangest thing in the world. For that matter, someone could claim that the modern Greek is "really" a volitional in drag, since it uses a remnant from θελειν 'wish, want' in order to mark the modern future perfective θα γραψω 'I will write' and the modern Greek future imperfective θα γραφω 'I will be writing'.

All of this goes to suggest that Arabic includes time inside of its binary TenseAspectMood, and that etymology is not always a good indicator of semantics. I would say the same of biblical Hebrew.

Teaching a "dead" vs a "live" language

[Excerpts from an email exchange between Randall Buth and others on whether a "dead" language, Greek in the discussion below, can ever be taught as a "live" language.]

> I think that what is happening is that there is a clear distinction between
> learning, reading and speaking a language that is NOT DEAD and learning, reading
> and speaking a language that IS DEAD.

This is a commonly heard idea that is used to justify an ancient language program that does not produce an ability to fluently think in a language. Things are so far out of sync with reality that many practioners do not even recognize the situation. (Solution for recognizing the problem: take a NEW text of reasonable clarity or difficulty, have it recorded in any pronunciation you like at a reasonable conversational speed, and listen to it. If you can follow the text at that speed, then you can think in that language, at least at some minimal level. If not, then you are still on a major, uphill, learning track, and will have the delightful experience of many a surprise catching up on you.)

Somewhat over a decade ago I made an observation that changed the way in which I thought about this "dead language" question. Inside of a language classroom, all languages are equally 'dead', in the sense that the audience does not speak the target language. In too many cases, even the teachers do not speak the target language, and I'm talking about modern languages here. (You will find that not every high school or elementary school language teacher can speak the language, and in most cases the teachers are not mother-tongue speakers of the language.)

> Let's think about Spanish, French, English, etc., all living languages.
> Ancient Hebrew, Koine Greek, Classical Greek, Latin, etc., are all dead
> languages. It is much easier to learn, read and speak a LIVING language. That is
> what "immersion" is all about. That is NOT to say that the attempt to
> "immersion" cannot be done, but classes in Greek, Hebrew and Latin
> can only approximate the process.

Yes, let's think about Spanish, French, and English.

1. The first question to ask, is "Can they be learned in a classroom?"
This is not a trivial question and the question has been raised in second language acquisition literature on more than one occasion. "Can a language be learned in a classroom?" The answer is not a resounding 'yes', but more of a whimpering 'yes'.
It is possible, IF..., IF..., IF....

2. A second question to ask is "Can a language be learned from second-language users, non-mother-tongue speakers?" Again, while everyone agrees that exposure to mother-tongue speakers is a definite plus, the answer is that second-language users can teach effective language acquisition programs.

3. A third question then becomes, "Can an ancient language be learned in a classroom?"
Again the answer becomes, Yes, IF ..., IF ...., lF ... .

4. A fourth question then becomes, "Why don't programs promote or do this very thing?" Here the answers are too painful to put in words. At the end of the day the result is that the 'dead language issue' is simply an excuse to perpetrate the status quo. For languages with less than an attested 10,000 -- 15,000 word vocabulary a person might make a legitimate case that the task is not practically possible. But Greek is not such a language. (Nor is Hebrew such a language if Qumran and the Mishnah are included. But Hebrew raises special considerations tangential to this discussion.)

5. A fifth question, unrelated to the 'dead language issue', is the appropriate training for persons with limited goals of one or two years of study. I might argue that the training should be the most efficient possible, one that allows the student to meet their limited goals, and preferably, one that would allow unhindered progress to more complete goals for those who want to go on.

6. My thesis, then, is that the 'dead language issue' is a dead question, a non-issue in terms of theory. Stated as a positive: All languages may become ALIVE in a properly run classroom.

7. PS - an aside: non-mother-tongue speakers WILL make mistakes in production, even mother-tongue speakers make mistakes, (though fewer and often corrected correctly). Somehow, the human race survives. There are occasionally people who claim that not learning a language to a fluent level is preferable in order to never hear a mistake made. Such an attitude will probably hinder any language learning and invariably leads to 'unreal' language imaginings. I see this a lot in the field of biblical Hebrew where professors 'generate' what they claim is 'pure' biblical Hebrew, untainted by fluent use of any Hebrew dialect, and they are chagrined to find out that their 'tower of Pisa' is leaning. They produce "grammatically correct" utterances of common material but their production doesn't occur in the Hebrew Bible or match what is there. They are happily operating within a system that no ancient speaker followed. Poor Samuel and Isaiah, who hadn't had the benefit of Gesenius (a famous 19th century grammarian).

[As a postscript to this email exchange, note the discussion on this very issue in John Hobbins' blog, especially the comments he quotes from Paula Saffire's paper.]