Our Blog Has Moved!

Our blog has moved!

The new location is http://www.biblicallanguagecenter.com/category/blog/. Please update your bookmarks and RSS feed, and come visit at the new location.

Why am I speaking to you in Greek?

At SBL in the Applied Linguistics section I will be giving a lecture on the advantages of speaking Greek, for those who spend a significant part of their time working with ancient Greek literature of the post Alexander period. The lecture will be twenty minutes and primarily in English. Five and one-half minutes will be in Greek itself, both discussing the issue and demonstrating what it is like. The Greek part of the lecture is previewed below. It should be in a handout at the lecture, too.

Part of the purpose of such a lecture is to explore possible frameworks and formulae for future bilingual lectures in the Applied Linguistics Consultation.

(GREEK text follows below and covers items in this English outline)

outline of Greek lecture (English lecture has addition points):
1 a. We are human.
b. we are teachers of Greek.
c. Humans are creatures of speech.
d. Greek is a human lanugage.

2. Language needs practice. SBL is a great opportunity for practice when like-minded people are together.

3. Speaking and listening is done at the speed of natural speech. Using a language at natural speeds forces internalization.

4. Speaking leads to discovery.
One example: you can't speak without making aspectual choices in every sentence.

5. Speaking leads to all-around improvement in language skills.

6. Improved language skills lead to better reading skills.

7. Using Greek demonstrates that it is possible to communicate in an ancient language.

(We may surprise ourselves positively with our capabilities. To listen to the language being used in a training setting, see the April 2010 blog
http://alefandomega.blogspot.com/2010/04/cana-in-greek.html ).


χαίρετε
ἀρέσκει μοι τὸ ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς καθιζομένους ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ αὐλῇ
εἰς τὸ ἀκοῦσαί τι ἐν τῇ ἑλληνικῇ γλώσσῃ.

ἐν χαρᾷ ἀσπαζόμενος ὑμᾶς
ἐρωτῶ ἡμῖν πᾶσι τὸ ἐρώτημα
τὸ Διὰ τί δημηγορῶ
λαλῶν ὑμῖν ἑλληνιστί;

ἡ πρώτη αἰτία ἐστὶν ὅτι
ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν ἄνθρωποι
καὶ διδάσκαλοι τῆς ἑλληνικῆς γλώσσης.
Κατὰ τὰς γραφάς,
κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ θεοῦ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς,
καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν αὐτοῦ.

εἰ οὖν κατ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰκόνα ἐσμέν,
τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ λαλεῖν ἔχομεν
δυνάμενοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους γνωρίζειν
τὰς ἡμῶν διανοίας ἐν ἀνθρωπίναις γλώσσαις.
ἡ δὲ ἑλληνικὴ ἀνθρωπίνη γλῶσσά ἐστιν.
διὸ δημηγορῶ ἑλληνιστί.

ἡ δευτέρα αἰτία ἐστιν ὅτι
ἡ τέχνη ἐν ταῖς γλώσσαις ὀφείλει χρῆσιν.
δεῖ ἡμᾶς χρῆσθαι γλώσσῃ,
τὸ πράσσειν ἐστιν καλόν τε καὶ ἀναγκαῖον.
Τίς οὖν τόπος κρείσσων ἐστιν ἢ εΣ. μΒι. εΛ [ΣΒΛ] ;
Καὶ παραγινόμενοι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ὁμοθυμαδὸν
δυνάμεθα συλλαλεῖν ὅσα ἄν βουλώμεθα.
διὸ δημηγορῶ ἑλληνιστί.

ἡ τρίτη αἰτία ἐστὶν ὅτι
τὸ τάχος οἰκοδομεῖ γνῶσιν βαθεῖαν.
ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη λαλιά ἐστιν ταχεῖα.
τουτ᾽ ἔστιν
οὐ δίδωσιν ἡ λαλιὰ χρόνον ἱκανὸν
εἰς τὸ φρονεῖν ἐν ἑτέρᾳ γλώσσῃ
ἢ εἰς τὸ μεθερμηνεύειν ἐν ἑτέρᾳ διαλέκτῳ. [μεταφράζειν]
οἱ ἀκούοντες δημηγορίαν ἀναγκάζονται φρονεῖν
ἐν τῇ διαλέκτῳ τῆς δημηγορίας ἐκείνης.
εἰ μὲν δημηγορῶ ἑλληνιστί
δεῖ δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀκούειν ταχέως
καὶ συνιέναι ἑλληνιστί.
ἄλλως γὰρ οὐ συνήσετε οὐδὲ καταλήμψεσθε,
μὴ ἔχοντες χρόνον τοῦ φρονεῖν ἐν ἑτέρᾳ γλώσσῃ.
ἄρα οὖν τὸ τάχος τῆς λαλιᾶς ἀναγκάζει
τὸ φρονεῖν ἐν τῇ ἑλληνικῇ,
τὸ δὲ φρονεῖν ἐν τῇ ἑλληνικῇ
οἰκοδομεῖ γνῶσιν βαθεῖαν καὶ τελειοτέραν.
διὸ καὶ δημηγορῶ ἑλληνιστί.

ἡ τετάρτη αἰτία ἐστὶν ἡ εὕρησις.
εὑρίσκομεν εὑρήματα
παραδείγματος χάριν --
λαλοῦντες ἑλληνιστί
ὀφείλομεν ἐκλέξασθαι ἢ ἀόριστον ῥῆμα ἢ παρατατικὸν ῥῆμα.
δεῖ ἡμᾶς ἑλέσθαι μεταξὺ τοῦ ποιῆσαι καὶ τοῦ ποιεῖν.
διά γε χρήσεως καὶ ἕξεως μανθάνομεν αἰσθάνεσθαι
πῶς διαφέρει τὸ <ἵνα ποιήσῃ> καὶ τὸ <ἵνα ποιῇ>.
διὸ δημηγορῶ ἑλληνιστί.

ἡ πέμπτη αἰτία ἐστὶν ὅτι
διὰ χρήσεως προκόπτομεν.
πᾶς ὁ κόσμος ὁμολογεῖ ὅτι
ἡ τῆς γλώσσῃς τέχνη αὐξήσει διὰ χρήσεως.
ἐὰν χρώμεθα τῇ γλῶσσῃ
προκόψομεν.
ἄρα γε χρώμενοι τῇ γλώσσῃ
ποιήσομεν κρείσσονα καὶ μᾶλλον κρείσσονα.
διὸ δημηγορῶ ἑλληνιστί.

ἡ ἕκτη αἰτία ἐστὶν ὅτι ὁ καρπὸς τῆς ἐργασίας ἡμῶν
ἐστιν ἀνάγνωσις βαθεῖα καὶ διακρίνουσα.
ἐὰν ἡ τέχνη ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ γλώσσῃ αὐξάνῃ
ἡ τέχνη τῆς ἀναγνώσεως αὐξάνει.
διὸ δημηγορῶ ἑλληνιστί.

ἡ ἑβδόμη αἰτία ἐστὶν ὅτι
δείκνυμεν τί ἐστιν τὸ δύνατον ἐν τῇ ἑλληνικῇ.
ἐάν τις ἐρωτᾷ περὶ τῆς ἀρχαίας κοινῆς διαλέκτου
λέγων
ἆρά γε δυνάμεθα συλλαλεῖν ἀλλήλοις ἐν γλώσσῃ θνητῇ;
τότε ἀποκριθησόμεθα
Ναί. καὶ πάλιν Ναί.

διὸ δημηγορῶ ἑλληνιστί.

On the history of Hebrew YIQTOL and the Hebrew verb

I read an interesting article this weekend by Alexander Andrason, “The Panchronic YIQTOL: Functionally Consistent and Cognitively Plausible.” 62 pages.

It is rather top-heavy with metalanguage from Cognitive Linguistics so I will try to summarize and interact with the main points, plusses and minuses, in language that gets halfway back to common English, including some comments for Hebrew learners. Unfortunately, talking about a language is always more complicated than using a language, so the reader needs to bear with me.

I like the flexibility in Andrason’s approach and his synchronic starting point is a breath of fresh air. Cognitive Linguistics has room in its theory for things in language that defy overly simplistic labels. The Hebrew verb is one of these things. Some background comments of my own: as many scholars, maybe most, are at least intuitively aware, the Hebrew verb fuses the parameters of Tense/Aspect/Mood/Textual relationship [i.e. TAM + the ‘sequential’ system] into the four and one-half categories of the indicative Hebrew verb. (qatal, yiqtol, wayyiqtol, and we-qatal are four, qotel is the 'nominal' that was added to the verbal system, making five.) Despite that, many studies spend a lot of ink trying to fit one label on a Hebrew verb category, Tense or Aspect or Mood. As is mentioned in our chapter “The Hebrew Verb: A Short Syntax” in Selected Readings (Biblical Language Center, 2006), such ‘single label’ attempts ultimately fail in a similar way that particle or wave interpretations of light fail by themselves. Light can be a particle ‘when it needs to be’ and it can be a wave ‘when it needs to be’. In fact, it is simultaneously/potentially both. (Physicists are still sorting that out, though String Theory went a step in that direction.) The Hebrew yiqtol conjugation can be a Tense and an Aspect and a Mood as the situation demands. Such is reality and such explains how a person would have learned Biblical Hebrew in antiquity. The formal categories of the verb (qatal, yiqtol, wayyiqtol, we-qatal, qotel, plus the volitionals eqtela, qtol, yaqtel) are mapped by the language users’ experience to the whole realm of human communication and to any referential worlds. Derek Bickerton was one of the linguists of the last generation who re-enunciated this by claiming that the ‘meaning’ of a verbal category in a language will be determined in part by how many pieces ‘the cake’ is divided. He pointed out that many theoretical linguists lose sight of this. Nevertheless, many try to postulate one semanatic parameter for yiqtol and qatal that is mitigated by context. Instead, Hebraists should have been calling a multi-dimensional spade, a multi-dimensional spade. After adding the ‘sequential’ forms, the resulting four and one-half categories (plus the volitionals eqtela, qtol, yaqtel) have a complex ‘mapping’ into their various semantic usages and spaces in BH. Such is reality. Such was the reality of the ancient user and this basic framework needs to be the reality of the modern user.

Fortunately, Andrason develops and posits such a semantic mapping, which is why I called this a breath of fresh air. He also avoids getting himself tangled up by the names he is using for the tense-aspect-moods. Andrason, p. 17: "it is thus not surprising that all attempts to reduce the yiqtol to one well-defined and unambiguous semantic-functional verbal domain (i.e., to one taxis, one aspect, one tense, or one mood) have failed and will always lead to oversimplifications." More background comments from me: probably the majority of materials written for beginner and scholar alike call the yiqtol an ‘imperfect’ or an ‘imperfective’. Those labels have a potential to mislead a person in BH future contexts. In future contexts the overwhelming majority of references are to situations that are being conceived of perfectively [!] as ‘complete/whole’, howbeit in a future time. If someone says ‘maHar yavo ’ מחר יבוא “tomorrow he will come”, the default reference is not to “he will be in the process of coming”, the default implication is that the person ‘will arrive tomorrow’. In other words, in Hebrew the yiqtol refers to future contexts without specifying the aspect, least of all imperfective! As Andrason writes, future yiqtol “is an aspectually neutral tense” (Andrason, p. 53). This is exactly the opposite to what some students and too many scholars assume, based on the name ‘imperfect’. Many scholars have avoided this pitfall. The Jouon Muraoka reference grammar is based on Jouon 1923 where he intuitively called the yiqtol a ‘future’. The problem, though, is that the yiqtol is also a past imperfective. Hence, we encounter the need to recognize a fusion taking place with the parameters of time and aspect in the Hebrew yiqtol. Mood interacts with yiqtol too, but it is more complicated to define and will not be highlighted in this brief discussion and review. See “The Hebrew Verb: A Short Syntax” for further integration of yiqtol with mood and the Hebrew volitional system.

Now back to Andrason. On page 15 of his article Andrason presents a nice, summary, semantic ‘map’ of the indicative yiqtol that includes its basic functions. He also presents a modal map on page 16. As with all maps, the reader should be aware that the graph will change slightly depending on how coarse or refined one wants to make the boxes. But the point is that yiqtol does in fact ‘map’ onto all of these meaning areas. And linguistics does not have good names for the specific ‘fusion’ of TAM that is found in a language like Hebrew. Any single name based on one TAM characteristic may potentially mislead a student. (So naming the form is often the best shortcut: yiqtol, the “yiqtol conjugation”.) Yet the multivalent mapping system works. Andrason, p. 18, "It should be emphasized that the prefix conjugation is not just an accidental amalgam of any functions but, on the contrary, possesses a well established set of time-aspect-taxis-mood and textual uses which are actualized in a particular context." When Andrason summarizes his synchonic view of yiqtol at the end of the article he concludes with an inclusive 'both-and' approach to previous views: “all so far proposed frameworks are to some extent correct” (p. 57). This is a good start.

One item needs correction, page 8. Andrason needs a different example for 2c future imperfective “I will serve you seven years …” (Gen 29:18). Andrason supports his imperfective interpretation based on a Polish possibility. However, his Arabic example 13k on page 51 should have given him a more Semitic perspective, “He spent [suffix conjugation] 40 days in the wilderness.” Since a demarcated time period in the past is normally presented as perfective in Hebrew, it is only consistent if future, demarcated time periods are also considered to be perfective. Thus, Gen 29:18 is not an example of a future imperfective but only provides an example of a durative Aktionsart within a perfective aspect, within a future context. This item does not change Andrason’s overall schema since he elsewhere says that the yiqtol future is neutral for aspect. (The Arabic example 13g is not imperfective either: “Tonight his head will be done away with.” [my translation--RB])

So far so good. Andrason is trying to formalize the Hebrew verb within the theoretical framework of Cognitive Linguistics. As such, it gives theoretical backing (even for those who may not want to venture into reading Cognitive Linguistics) to what may be called a Tense-Aspect-Modal fusion.

The continuation of the paper gets into more speculative territory. It is for theorists rather than language users. Andrason is trying to give a historical linguistic account of how the yiqtol developed into the shape, semantics, and functions in which it is found in Biblical Hebrew, and he is fitting the discussion into Cognitive Linguistics. Persons who read this article will need to be prepared for discussions of ‘trajectory’, Proto-Semitics, Akkadian, Arabic, and Modern Hebrew. His conclusions about a split “imperfective-modal diachrony” and a development from an Akkadian *yaqattal+u are interesting and may be correct (see figure 7, page 55). At the same time, they may confuse the non-linguist learner/user of Biblical Hebrew. Fortunately, Andrason is not arguing that *yaqattal actually existed in Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew did not have *yaqattal, and yiqtol would only be a metamorphicized, fused, morphological remnant. Of course, one should be aware of not reading etymological meanings into the semantics of the BH verb. In support of Andrason, he avoids this in this article.

The article is a rewriting of part of a dissertation that Andrason has written. When discussing the ‘imperfective-modal’ trajectories from a "Central Semitic" to Biblical Hebrew in this article, he pointed out that any theory that projects correctly into Biblical Hebrew needs to project correctly into other Central Semitic languages, too. However, there is an oversight in the discussion on Arabic, pp 50-51. Arabic includes a past imperfective as “kan ‘be [past]’ + yiqtol [!]”. For comparison, the integration of the participle into the BH verbal system [BH qotel] already by First Temple times needs to be included in the overall framework. This is a major disjunct between Arabic and Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew developed a past imperfective in “haya ‘be [past]’+ qotel [participle!]” while Arabic developed its past imperfective as “kan ‘be [past]’ + yiqtol [!]”. Since this article focussed on yiqtol in BH, not Arabic, I would hope that these diverging trajectories will be dealt with in any section on BH qotel in future publications. In the meantime, it should be noted that this may be evidence that the development of Hebrew peaked and included time in one of the trajectories at an earlier stage than Arabic, though both Arabic and BH already included a non-past yiqtol without aspect. Furthermore, because qotel penetrated into the BH verb system, it appears that proto-BH *yiqtol-nonpast became simply BH yiqtol-future. The so-called present-tense examples of yiqtol appear to be instantations of a modal yiqtol and habitual/timeless yiqtol. See Randall Buth, “The Hebrew Verb: A Short Syntax” in Buth Selected Readings (138, 142).

A person may access the original article at
Panchronic Yiqtol

For Biblical Hebrew learners, my advice is to keep working directly on the internalization of BH itself. The BH system is the reality and the grid that Hebrew readers need to use when using the language, however it developed historically. It is also the grid that any historical explanation will need to include. For those with interests in historical or theoretical linguistics, this work of Andrason will provide some great reading and an excellent stimulus. It is a remarkable contribution by a PhD student and will likely cause more than one Semitist to wade into the waters of Cognitive Linguistics.

Listening for reading

Question:
I want to read the Hebrew Bible//Greek New Testament. Why is there so much listening in the BLC courses if the purpose of learning Hebrew//Greek is only for reading?

Answer:

Lots of listening and speaking will make you a significantly better reader of a new language.

There are several reasons for using extensive listening and speaking in learning a language, even when the goal of learning the language is only to read the literature. The reasons together lead to the conclusion that listening produces something significantly better for the learner than reading alone. If one's goal is a high level reading skill, then an 'infrastructure of spoken fluency' needs to be built.

1. Although a minor reason, listening is a faster way to begin. Learning is not held back by a foreign alphabet but can proceed at full speed from the very beginning. In modern languages, listening also helps someone acquire a better accent.

2. Listening is also the natural way to begin. A child listens and learns a language before they learn to read. By itself, this reason is not compelling, but it turns out that this more natural way also produces benefits in final skill levels.

3. Listening builds a skill of speed for faster comprehension. The speed of speech is often much faster than a learner would chose for processing a new language. Listening leads a student to rise to that level of natural speed in the new language.

4. Listening and speaking is one of the main vehicles for developing 'fluency', automaticity in the language, that is, the ability to rapidly 'think in the language'. This comes through rapid, meaningful use of the new language as well as more repetitions in the new language. An adult has a natural tendency to want to retreat into an old familiar language, and this can be overcome through listening and speaking, where the natural speeds of communication override any possibility of retreat. The result of such learning is being able to think in and with the new language. 'Reading only' does not produce the same fluency skills.

5. Fluent listening and speaking skills allow for higher level reading skills to be activated. A reader only has a limited amount of energy for processing the message being read. If a significant part of conscious energy is diverted to the 'formal nuts and bolts' of the language rather than the meaning, then one's full conscious energies cannot be directed to the threads and connections of the meaning and larger message. As one illustration, the meaning of a word is not just itself, or what it refers to, but includes its relationship to the other potential words in a language that were not chosen at any one point. A reader who is fluent in a language and can think in the language will process these meanings and relationships as the message unfolds.

6. Psycholinguistic studies have shown that a significant percent of unconscious processing energy is devoted to processing the sound system of a language, even in languages with picture writing systems like Chinese. Without an underlying spoken infrastructure, the processing of the 'new' language is left incomplete and maybe 'crashed' in a processing loop.

7. Finally, it must be remembered that the graphic system of a language, the writing system, is only a partial representation of a language. Languages are always more than a writing system and a spoken communication medium is always fuller than the symbol system that is used to partially record the spoken language. Readers who speak the language that they are reading are intuitively aware of this. Developing fluency skills allows the reader of an ancient text to become more aware of the overall communication process.

8. Listening does not have the problem of 'dyslexia'. Dyslexia is a problem caused when simultaneous visual input is reversed. Audio input is serial and cannot be reversed in the same way.

9. Listening and reading should not be confused with audio and visual learning. Visual learning takes place whenever a language is used in a real life context or when pictures accompany the language description. When a person gets to visually 'see the meaning', then visual learning takes place. This is true whether the language input is spoken or written.

10. Caretaker speech, that is, special, slowed down speech is sometimes used with learning through listening. This occurs between mother and child, and ideally, it is often used between teacher and student. This goes hand in hand with point nine, immediately above.

Biblical Hebrew at Fresno Pacific University

Wayne Steffen, editor-in-chief of Pacific Magazine, wrote an article for the March 2010 volume about my Biblical Hebrew course here at Fresno Pacific University. It has recently been put on FPU's website.

He begins his article by describing language learning by immersion:

"REMEMBER WHEN YOU WERE A BABY?

Probably not, so here’s what happened: You were surrounded by people much larger than you, who were making noises and moving their faces, hands and arms in ways that made sense to them. After awhile, you realized that these noises and gestures meant things—some good, like food and hugs; some not so good, like night-nights.

Fascinated, you copied those sounds and gestures. Then you discovered frustration as what you did didn’t bring the desired result. Still, the big people were encouraging, so you kept trying.

One day, success! You did something and the big people responded. From then on, no one could shut you up.

That method—immersion—is how you learned your first language. Immersion is also how Brian Schultz teaches biblical Hebrew."

Although I wish I could say otherwise, the problem with first year Hebrew students isn't getting them to "shut up," but to speak even more. But what is exciting for me to see is their motivation to learn which seemingly can't be "shut down." It is certainly higher than in any of my other classes! And as the article points out, not a few have told me that Biblical Hebrew is their favorite class - and they aren't even Biblical Studies majors!

Click here to read the rest.

Reading and discussing John 2 in Cana - all in Koine Greek

On day two of BLC's "With Jesus in the Galilee" we went to the historical site of Cana. Most people think of an Arab village just outside Nazareth, Kfar Cana, as the location of where the miracle took place. However, Kfar Cana was "introduced" in the Byzantine period so as to allow pilgrims walking from Nazareth to the Sea of Galilee to commemorate the event somewhere along the way, rather than having to make a long detour to the historical site. Because of the convenience of modern transportation, we went to the historical site, an archaeological tel ("ruins" in Hebrew) on the top of a hill, overlooking the fields of the Beth Netofa valley. And of course, once on top, we read John 2, in Koine Greek.

The video below has us sitting in the ruins of a large building (we would like it if it turned out to be a synagogue). Enjoy hearing the story in Koine Greek, and then see if you can follow our conversation (also in Koine Greek). The footage is unedited.

BLC's "Jesus in the Galilee"

At a guest house in the modern town of Migdal, overlooking ancient Migdal on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, about twenty individuals have come together for ten days of intensive Koine Greek. We are attempting to do something that has rarely, if ever, been done in modern times: speak only Koine Greek from sun-up to sun-down. BLC has been running "Koine Greek only" evenings for the past few years, with the result that several here already have varying degrees of "fluency" in the language, and their job is to pull the rest of us along. Participants are a mix of professors and PhD students, but also individuals who are simply interested in acquiring a higher proficiency in the language.

The typical day begins with prayers shortly after sunrise. The liturgy we are using is a collection of biblical texts from the Septuagint and the New Testament, some which are read in unison and others by designated readers, with a brief moment for extemporaneous prayers. A page in our workbook gives us some helpful suggestions of different sentences we can string together or use to begin a sentence or a thought.

For meal times, our workbook includes a short lexicon with the various foods and utensils we may wish to use in our conversation with one another. Conversation at this point (three days in) is still very simple: "give me the juice," "what is this?" etc. Those sitting near the leaders may have more involved conversations about their life, studies, or some other topic still.

The day is spent doing a variety of "activities" that keep us in Koine Greek. A usual first activity in the day is learning or reviewing less known vocabulary that we will encounter in the readings assigned for the day. In keeping in line with the time of the year (Passover and Easter) they are all dealing or relating in some way to Jesus' last week. The vocabulary is taught using the technique of Total Physical Response (TPR): no English is used, but with the help of props and actions (by both the instructor and the participants) as well as repetition, we discover and internalize the meaning of the words being reviewed. We then read the assigned texts for the day in small groups, for the purpose of discussing together - in Koine Greek - matters of exegesis.

Another activity is called "verb practice." By focusing on only a few verbs, and using a lot of actions and repetition, we seek to internalize the various forms. Being able to recognize the form in writing is one matter, but being able to come up with it in speech is a much more difficult challenge. Still, the benefit of this drill is already being felt in our other conversations. To help us out, BLC has prepared a book of verb charts, so that if an instructor is not at hand, we can turn to the page and find the proper form and use it.

These ten days are not all spent inside the classroom. First of all, spring weather at the Sea of Galilee is as gorgeous as our surroundings, so that we spend as much time outside in the guest house's gardens as in the classroom. But there are also field trips: on day two we went to Cana to read and discuss John 2 and to the Yiftahel winery. Today it will be to Capernaum.

Today is Easter Morning. Jet lag as me up well before dawn; early, like the women who went to visit the tomb. As a write, it is beginning to be light, and shortly we will be meeting for a sunrise service. A couple nights ago we "re-enacted" a passover meal (all in Koine Greek). This morning, we will celebrate the Resurrection together, with readings and songs - all in the Greek of the New Testament.

I don't know when the BLC will do this again, but the experience so far has been most amazing.

The Theme of Egypt for the Believer: Personal Participation in God’s Redemptive Acts

Matthew 2:15 “I called my son out of Egypt” is often read at Christmas time. It is sometimes puzzling because it comes from Hoshea 11:1 where it refers to the exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt. However, it reflects an important spiritual principle that relates to the coming Passover season.

In the passover Haggadah, there is a section of the four sons and four questions. The wicked son asks, “What is this religious ceremony to you all?” The haggada then explains, “he said, ’to you’, and not ‘to him’, accordingly he has excluded himself from the group and denied a principle of faith. Blunt his teeth and say to him, ‘for this the Lord did this for ME in my going out from Egypt’ (Ex 13:8). The scripture says ‘for me’ and not ‘for him’. If he had been there he would not have been redeemed!”

The passover tradition expects a later generation to vicariously share in redemption through faith. Retelling the story is supposed to be as if the celebrants themselves were included in the original exodus. This same theme is picked up by Paul and applied in the opposite direction in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2, “Our fathers all were under the cloud and all went through the sea. They were all baptised in relation to Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” More explicitly vicarious is Galatians 2:19-20, “I was crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who am living, but Christ is living in me. What I now live in the body I live through faith of the son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.”

How can a person living in the 21st century claim to be crucified with Christ 2000 years ago? This is a similar question that the son asks on Passover night. How can the person celebrating Passover claim that God redeemed him from Egypt? And how can Paul claim that the people of Israel were 'baptized in relation to Moshe'? The answer comes through a linkage of faith. A person puts their faith in the same God who acted mightily in the past or will act mightily again. That action is then considered as if it had been done for both the ancient and the modern person. The person celebrating Passover is joining the people of the ancient Passover redemption through faith.

This idea of vicariously joining a spiritual redemption across generations can help us understand Matthew’s thinking in 2:15. Just as God took Israel out of Egypt, so he takes the Messiah out of Egypt. When the young Jesus came out of Egypt God was spiritually repeating and extending a mighty act from the past, across generations. In this sense Jesus' trip out of Egypt parallels the scripture Hoshea 11.1 and Matthew brings out this added dimension based on a wordplay of "son" to refer to both the people of Israel and the Messiah. Matthew describes this as a 'fulfillment' of the scripture. This is similar to rabbis in midrashic literature who call an interpretation of scripture a 'fulfillment'.

[מה אני מקיים "ואכלתם בחפזון"? זה חפזון מצרים. "How do I establish/fulfill/interpret the scripture 'and you shall eat it in haste'? This is the haste (confusion) of the Egyptians." Mekhilta dePischa 7.9. At Qumran, scriptural applications like Matthew's were called pesher 'explanation (prophetic realization)', which is not Matthew's more rabbinic term (Matthew wrote: ἵνα πληρωθῇ 'that it might be fulfilled'), though 'pesher' interpretation is very similar to Matthew's method, to describe a spiritual, prophetic realization based on some aspect of a text.]

The important point for believers is to be able to personally join God’s people through faith across generations. God works across generations. This is the principle of faith that the believer affirms at Passover.

Pre-release preview of BLC's MP4 Companion

Here at Fresno Pacific University, I have been working together with a team of student workers at developing an MP4 Companion to BLC's Living Biblical Hebrew - Introduction Part 1. It is almost finished, and we hope to have it available soon. In the meantime, I thought it would be nice to give you a sneak preview of what it will look like.

In the video, you will see the beta version for the quiz after lesson #2. In the first two lessons (end of week one in a three-unit semester course), students will have been introduced to basic vocabulary through the medium of pictures, all in Biblical Hebrew, without ever relying on any English. In the quiz, as they hear a word or sentence, they need to identify to which of the three pictures it relates. After a brief pause, the correct drawing is revealed.

An advantage of this method is that it bypasses the need for English glosses, and helps the student internalize the language as Hebrew, not as a translation of an English term. Students like it, because it is way more fun than going through vocab lists or flash cards, and as a result, much easier to assimilate and retain. It's a win-win!

Additionally, students are already becoming intrinsically familiar with basic sentence structure while they are learning vocabulary. And after a few lessons, tenses are introduced so that students can begin "feeling" the patterns that mark tenses.

Keep checking the Biblical Language Center's website for when this MP4 Companion will be available. In the meantime, one can always purchase the book with the audio CD (mp3) and get started already. One can start learning Biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek in this way.

The Hebrew Language Academy on lamed-yud pi``el: גִלִּיתִי and גִלֵּיתִי

Yesterday, 27 Jan 2010, the Hebrew Language Academy confirmed that alternative 1st and 2nd person suffix tense (‘past’) forms of pi``el lamed-yud roots will be officially acceptable in modern Hebrew. גִלֵּיתִי will be acceptable, and apparently even גִלֵּיתָ. The reason for the confirmation and acceptance is that forms with both [i] and [e] occur in the Hebrew Bible, גִלִּיתִי and גִלֵּיתִי. This is also a good illustration for language learners that there are places in a language where ‘close’ is good enough, where sounds that in other contexts might cause problems can be acceptable.

The sounds in question revolve around [i] and [e], written Hiriq and tsere in the Hebrew writing system. This involves the vowel of the second syllable in pi``el ‘suffix tenses’ in the first and second persons, where the ‘third root letter’ was a “yod”. Current Israeli Hebrew as a majority dialect prefers the [i] sound גִלִּיתִי . According to the Hebrew Language Academy, both [i] and [e] forms will be officially acceptable in the pi``el pattern.

This issue is of interest to those studying Biblical Hebrew and for those who would teach Biblical Hebrew. What form should be used in teaching materials?

A majority dialect is typically recommend in language learning. A student needs to start somewhere, even if they will end up responding to more than one form of a word.

Below are two lists of some common verbs of the pattern described by the Hebrew Language Academy. The left Hebrew column would be the ‘newly accepted’ forms, while the right Hebrew column has the current majority. Both columns here are limited to occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, so as to be directly applicable to discussions of biblical Hebrew. Underneath each line are the numbers of occurrences in the Bible of the [e] form and then the [i] form.

Lamed-yud pi``el (1^st and 2^nd person suffix tenses)

Eng. gloss [e] [i]

‘I discovered’ גִלֵּיתִי and גִלִּיתִי

4 and 2 (occurrences in HB)

‘you discovered’ גִלֵּית and גִלִּית

0 2

‘I compared’ דִמֵּיתִי and דִמִּיתִי

0 2

‘you compared’ דִמֵּיתָ and דִמִּיתָ

0 1

‘we compared’ דִמֵּינוּ and דִמִּינוּ

0 1

‘I winnowed’ זֵרֵיתִי and זֵרִיתִי

0 6

‘you winnowed’ זֵרֵיתָ and זֵרִיתָ

0 1

‘I finished’ כִלֵּיתִי and כִלִּיתִי

4 1

‘you finished’ כִלֵּיתָ and כִלִּיתָ

0 1

‘I covered’ כִסֵּיתִי and כִסִּיתִי

2 4

‘you covered’ כִסֵּיתִי and כִסִּיתָ

0 2

‘we covered’ כִסֵּינוּ and כִסִּינוּ

0 1

‘I cleansed’ נִקֵּיתִי and נִקִּיתִי

3 0

‘you cleansed’ נִקֵּיתָ and נִקִּיתָ

0 1

‘I commanded’ צִוֵּיתִי and צִוִּיתִי

5 30

‘you commanded’ צִוֵּיתָ and צִוִּיתָ

0 13

‘I waited in hope’ קִוֵּיתִי and קִוִּיתִי

2 6

‘you cleansed’ קִוֵּינוּ and קִוִּינוּ

0 3

‘I compared’ שִוֵּיתִי and שִוִּיתִי

0 6

‘I cleansed’ זִכֵּיתִי and זִכִּיתִי

0 2

‘I waited’ חִכֵּיתִי and חִכִּיתִי

0 1

‘we waited’ חִכֵּינוּ and חִכִּינוּ

0 1

‘I satisfied’ רִוֵּיתִי and רִוִּיתִי

1 0

While the above list is not complete for all pi``el lamed-yud verbs, it does include those with 3 or more examples of a form, plus some random examples. [rivveti] 'I satisfied' was included in order to show how accidental statistics can produce a verb with a supposedly 'opposite' pattern.

It is immediately apparent that the forms with [i] are the majority.

In fact, in the second person singular ‘you,s.’ and first person plural ‘we’ the forms are always with [i]. This statement is true for any pi``el pattern lamed-yud root in the Hebrew Bible, not just those listed here.

Also, when these verbs have object suffixes they always have the [i] vowel.

For example:

צִוִּיתִיךָ ‘I commanded you.’ This may relate to preserving an earlier form of the verb.

So what should we do and what do we find?

In books like Living Biblical Hebrew, volumes 1 and 2 the patterns that students use are based on צִוִּיתִי not צִוֵּיתִי.

Then when students encounter an alternative form when reading a text they can be informed that [e] was an alternative vocalization.

Galilee Greek Immersion April 2010

Greek inscription at Hippos

One of many inscriptions in Sephoris synagogue. Notice spelling of και.

Overlooking 'parable bay', a nice place to preach from a boat

Imagine breakfast to bed overlooking the Lake of Genneseret, all in Koine Greek. Reading the gospels, discussing them in Koine Greek, some fluency pedagogy, and visits to sites around the lake. 31 March to 11 April 2010. Keep those dates open and watch the Biblical Language Center website for details.

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.