Review of; "James: A Commentary on the Greek Text" by William Varner

“James: A Commentary on the Greek Text.” By William C. Varner. Fontes Press, 2017, 423 pp. ISBN: 1-948048-01-9, $19.95.

Dr. William C. Varner is Professor of Bible and Greek at “The Master’s College” and has published books, many academic journal articles, book chapters, and has written commentaries on the Greek text of the New Testament. His latest work is a new edition of his earlier commentary on the New Testament book of James. This new edition improves the previous edition which is no longer available in print (Forward, xv). Some of the improvements of this edition are his treatments of the new NA28 variant readings as well as references to the text of the Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament (SBLGNT), the Greek text of the NIV2011, and the new Tyndale House Greek New Testament (THGNT). Varner also references the new “Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek” (GE), and, where relevant, the new Christian Standard Bible (CSB). For those who may own the earlier edition of his James commentary, these features, coupled with the affordable price, would alone justify purchasing this newly updated edition.

The main draw to this commentary is the originality of the work. Varner’s comments are focused and bolstered by a fresh examination of the Greek text in a top-down combination of the discourse level and sentence, phrase, and word syntax. Unlike some commentaries on the market, Varner’s work does not get bogged down in re-quoting, and re-treading the ground of previous commentaries (however useful this may be). The discussion revolves around the outline of James, which was determined by noting each place where a “cohesive device” was used. Varner wrote that James

“uses a cohesive device that cements his hortatory written discourse together much like a good preacher organizes and presents his material in a progressive manner by a coherent outline, sometimes with a repetitive device like alliteration. That cohesive device is his use of the direct address word “brothers” accompanied by either an imperative command or by a rhetorical question.” (pg. 38)

Each point on the outline is dealt with in the following manner. First the Greek text is quoted from the NA27 (cf. pg. 2). Then, if there are any textual issues these are discussed under the paragraph heading “Textual Notes.” Following this is a segment entitled “Sentence Flow and Translation” where a flowing translation is given and the text is indented to show sentence structure. Varner next gives any relevant historical background under the “Context” section. And finally, the bulk of the commentary is found under the heading of “Exegetical Comments,” where Varner brings a detailed discussion of each phrase and key word in the Greek. Throughout these subheadings Varner brings insight from the Old-Testament, Apostolic fathers, papyri, and other extra-biblical literature.

The only minor criticism that I have with the commentary has to do with some of the terminology used. Throughout the commentary Varner refers to “text-types,” such as “Alexandrian, Western, and ‘Majority,’ textual traditions” (pg. 3). The theory of text-types has largely been abandoned by most textual scholars, especially those at the INTF who produce the NA28 (see the relevant essays in the 2^nd edition of “The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis”). However, this terminology is not prohibitive and may still be useful in referring to groups of similar manuscripts and does not detract from the excellent coverage of textual issues and transmission history of James.

Varner’s new commentary is an excellent resource for any scholar, pastor, student, or any others who may be working through the Greek text of James. And the cost of such a high quality work at only $19.95 means that “James: A Commentary on the Greek Text” is accessible to nearly everyone desiring a deeper understanding of James.

 

Review of; "Walk Worthily" by Jeff Smelser

“Walk Worthily: A Commentary on Ephesians.” By Jeff Smelser. Cillicothe, OH: DeWard Publishing Company, 2017, 273 pp., ISBN:9781936341948, $19.00.

“Walk Worthily” is a commentary on the epistle of Ephesians by Jeff Smelser, who has written articles in several confessional periodicals and edits a website that hosts courses in New Testament Greek.[1] The ‘Preface’ indicates that “this work has been prepared having in mind the first or second year Greek student” (p. 10). Those seeking a highly technical commentary on the level of a “Hermenia” or “International Critical Commentary,” that exhaustively interacts with the scholarly literature and examines every textual variant may be disappointed. “Walk Worthily” is best suited for the pastor, beginning student, or layman.

Despite its beginner level, the introduction is quite comprehensive and at fifty pages, consumes roughly one fifth of the work. The length reveals the importance Smelser places upon a proper understanding of the historical setting and recipients of the epistle. He argues that issues of Pauline authorship can be resolved by accurately determining the intended recipients (p. 16). According to Smelser, the epistle was not written to the Ephesian church specifically, but rather was originally intended as an encyclical (p. 32-38).

He gives the resemblance of Ephesians to Colossians as evidence in favor of Pauline authorship arguing that the similarity reveals that both epistles were likely written at the same time and place (p. 16). Smelser compares the outline and wording of both epistles and concludes that both have similar main ideas (p. 17-24). Ephesians being at 4:1, “Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthily of the calling which you were called,” and Colossians being at 2:6, “Therefore as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, in him walk” (p. 24). Yet Colossians includes very specific and individualized comments, whereas Ephesians does not, which would be out of place if the Ephesians were the intended recipients, considering Paul’s long history with the Church there (cf. p. 25).

Another clue that allegedly points away from an original Ephesian destination is the overall gentile focus of the letter. Pointing to the events described in Acts 18 and 19, Smelser highlights the primary Jewish rather than gentile membership of the Church at Ephesus (p. 26-27). Thus, it seems out of place for a letter allegedly sent to the Church at Ephesus to be addressing gentiles primarily (p. 27).

The most convincing clue tipping away from an original Ephesian destination is of course the lack of the words “in Ephesus” in a few manuscripts. These are P46, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus, among others, all of which are important witnesses to the text of Ephesians (p. 28). Also, several early Church fathers are witnesses to the lack of “in Ephesus” in the manuscript tradition. Origen (early 3rd cen. CE), and Basil (late 4th cen. CE) having extensive discussion of this verse (p. 29-30).

Accumulatively, the evidence discussed above has led the author to conclude that the letter of Ephesians was not originally intended for the Ephesian Church, but was meant as an encyclical letter, written at the same time as Colossians and Philemon, and carried by Tychicus to the various Churches in Asia Minor (p. 32). Smelser gives a detailed proposal as to the route Tychicus may have taken in bearing the letter (p. 33). He suggests that Tychicus traveled the “Syrian Gate” and left copies of the encyclical letter in the cities along the route, which included the city of Laodecia (p. 32-38). This might explain Marcion’s association of the letter with Laodicea (p. 30).

Rome rather than Ephesus or Caesarea is given as the likely place of composition (p. 43-50). A date range of composition at 60 CE and no later than 64 CE is assigned to the epistle based upon the details given in the book of Acts (p. 55). Smelser gives a lengthy chronological discussion of the events in Acts, anchoring his dates on the time of Gallio’s term as Procunsul of Achaea (p. 50-52).

In the text of the commentary Smelser focuses in at the verse and clause level, rather than at the discourse level. He begins each discussion by giving his own English translation of the verse under examination. In describing his intent behind the translation, he writes,

“I have not attempted to provide a fluid, easily readable translation. Rather, my goal has been to produce a translation that will facilitate ready comparison with the Greek text for those who have some knowledge of Greek.” (p. 10)

Though the author does not reproduce the Greek text for each verse in its entirety, however, he does include the text taken from the NA 28 when the discussion requires it.

Throughout the work Smelser references most of the standard Greek grammars and lexicons. According to the “Works Consulted” list in the back, the following original language resources were used (p. 267-273); C.F.D. Moule’s, “An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek,” Richard Chenevix Trench’s “Synonyms of the New Testament,” Daniel Wallace’s “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics,” and Maximillian Zerwick, “Biblical Greek.” 

Unfortunately, this list is not representative of every work referenced within the commentary. Scanning through the footnotes the following sources were also consulted by the author; A.T. Roberton’s “A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Reasearch,” “A Manual Gramar of the Greek New Testament,” Herbert Weir Smyth, “A Greek Grammar for Colleges,” Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, “A Greek Grammar of the New Testament,” Dana and Mantey, “A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament,” Kittel, Friedrich and Bromiley, “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,” as well as BAGD, and BDAG.

Considering my own interests in textual criticism, composition, and publication of the New Testament writings, the introduction was the most interesting to read and thus garnered the most attention in this review. Smelser gives some great insight into the circumstances surrounding the composition and distribution of the letter. Despite this, I was disappointed at the lack of interaction with scholarly literature on this issue. There was no mention of Günther Zuntz’s work and his discussion of encyclical Hellenistic royal letters extant in the papyri that had a blank space for the names of the recipients to be entered at each destination.

Despite the drawbacks, “Walk Worthily” is an affordably priced commentary that balances approachability with detailed analysis. Beginners will not be over intimidated by technicality and more advanced readers may yet find insight and scholarly commentary to satisfy their curiosity.
_____________________________________
[1] http://www.ntgreek.net/. For a list of his published articles see the website here.

Augustine of Hippo on Greek Accents

At around 410 CE, Paulinus Bishop of Nola (near Mt. Vesuvius in Italy) wrote a lengthy letter to Augustine Bishop of Hippo asking if the great doctor would explain some obscure passages in the scriptures. Towards the end of this epistle, Paulinus asked if Augustine could explain a portion of Psalm 17:14 (16:14, LXX). Paulinus wrote;

In the following psalm I should like to have that passage explained to me where it says: "Their belly is filled from thy hidden stores. They are full of pork," or, as I hear it is written in another version of the psalms: "They are full of children, and they have left to their little ones the rest of their substance." (Aug. Ep. 121) 

The first reference Paulinus quotes appears to be taken from the Greek LXX and the second quotation seems to be taken from Jerome's Latin version. The Greek text of this Psalm reads, "ἐχορτάσθησαν υἱῶν" (Rahlfs') which can be translated "they are satisfied with sons (or children)" or, as the NETS translates the phrase "they were fed with sons."

Augustine did not respond to Paulinus' question until 414 CE. It may be because it took some time before he was able to study a Greek LXX (Latin was his native tongue), for he wrote "I had not been able to consult any Greek texts on certain words of Psalm 16, but afterward I secured some and consulted them" (Aug. Ep. 149). A few paragraphs later he wrote;

As to the following passage, "They are full of pork," I have explained what I think of it. What readings other texts have or are truthfully reported to have--because the more carefully written copies explain this same well-known ambiguity of the Greek word by the accent, according to the Greek method of writing--is a matter somewhat obscure, but it seems to fit in better with the more acceptable meaning. He had said: "Their belly is filled from thy hidden stores," by which words the hidden judgments of God are meant, and no doubt they are hidden from the wretched, who rejoice even in evil, whom "God gave up to the desires of their heart." (Aug. Ep. 149)

Augustine explains that Paulinus may have a corrupted text that had not been copied well and had not been transcribed with the proper Greek accents. In this case, it seems that Augustine is alluding to the similarity between the Greek word for son in the genitive  plural "υιων" and the Greek word for pig in the genitive plural "υων." To further confuse the situation, some forms/styles of the word for son also did not include the iota and were spelled the same as pig (υων).
The perplexing facet to Augustine's explanation is that it is difficult to understand whether he is mistakenly referring to a missing iota in the genitive plural for "of sons" in Paulinus' manuscript (thus it is a poorly copied manuscript); or that he is indicating that, in his understanding of the Greek of his day, these two words were differentiated in the placement of their accents.
It seems that the latter explanation makes the most sense of Augustine's comments. Paulinus probably had an LXX Psalter that had poorly copied (or missing) accents. This ambiguity over accents, coupled with the verb "ἐχορτάσθησαν" (an "eating" verb) led Paulinus to erroneously interpret the words as "pigs" rather than "sons."
Therefore Augustine reminds us of the importance of accents so that when we read Romans 8:19 we do not think that "creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the pigs of God."

 

Saint Augustine. (Circa 1645-1650) by Philippe de Champaigne

_______________________

Augustine, Letters (Sister Wilfred Parsons, trans. The Fathers of the Church. Volumes II and III. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1953).

Karl Kelchner Hulley, "Principles of Textual Criticism Known to St. Jerome." Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 55 (1944): 87-109.

Augustine On Learning Greek

In the midst of Augustine's "Confessions" (ca. 400 CE) he complains of the difficulty in learning Greek and wrestling with the language of Homer and other Greek classics.

"I sinned, then, when as a boy I preferred those empty to those more profitable studies, or rather loved the one and hated the other. "One and one, two"; "two and two, four"; this was to me a hateful singsong: "the wooden horse lined with armed men," and "the burning of Troy," and "Creusa's shade and sad similitude," were the choice spectacle of my vanity. Why then did I hate the Greek classics, which have the like tales? For Homer also curiously wove the like fictions, and is most sweetly vain, yet was he bitter to my boyish taste. And so I suppose would Virgil be to Grecian children, when forced to learn him as I was Homer. Difficulty, in truth, the difficulty of a foreign tongue, dashed, as it were, with gall all the sweetness of Grecian fable. For not one word of it did I understand, and to make me understand I was urged vehemently with cruel threats and punishments." (Confessions 1.13-14)

Though he apparently was forced to read Greek and difficult classical texts, he notes that "not one word of it did I understand." Even threats and punishments did not help him in navigating a foreign tongue. Nevertheless, looking back in the maturity of his adult years, he now regrets that he did not spend more time studying and learning Greek and reading the classics. 
Those of you who are either attempting to learn the elements of the Greek language, or (like myself) are doing their best to stay disciplined in reading the Greek New Testament every day and further advance their knowledge, take heart from Augustine, you will not regret studying Greek, but you may, later in your life, look back and regret that you had not stayed disciplined in your studies.

___________

Translation taken from;
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/Englishconfessions.html

Basil the Great and Ancient Manuscripts

Basil the Great

 A previous post discussed the useful life of ancient papyrus books and a few Church fathers that mentioned ancient manuscripts in their writings. It is a real treat when an ancient author explicitly references a textual reading, it is even more exciting when they mention the age and number of manuscripts that contain a particular reading.

The Majority of Copies
Basil of Caesarea (ca. 329-379 CE) explicitly mentions an interesting textual variant, Luke 22:36, in his Asceticon, Shorter Responses, 251. Here Basil mentions a reading that is found today in only one manuscript, the 5th century Codex Bezae (Nestle, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, 340). Here Basil quoted Luke 22:36;

He [Jesus] said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one." (ESV)

Basil notes that the majority of manuscripts (τα πολλα των αντιγραφων) contain the future tense "the one who has no money bag will take it" and today this reading is preserved in Codex Bezae alone. Basil apparently preferred the minority reading, the imperative "the one who has a moneybag take it" as it stands in modern Greek editions and English translations. We can tentatively infer from Basil's statements (whether by conscious editing or by chance) that textual traditions dominant in certain regions were later superseded.
It would have been difficult (even impossible) for ancient scholars to accurately assess the number of manuscripts that contained a particular reading. But knowledge of the broader textual tradition of the New Testament must have been accessible to a degree (at least in the region of Asia Minor) because Basil makes reference to "majority of manuscripts."

The Oldest Copies Handed Down
Basil made another interesting reference to an important textual variant in Ephesians. In his Against Eunomius 2.19, Basil used Ephesians 1:1 in countering Eunomius;

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are [in Ephesus], and are faithful in Christ Jesus." (ESV)

Basil left out the bracketed words "in Ephesus" and quoted the sentence as "to the saints who are" and declared that "those who came before us handed it down in this form, and we have found it in the oldest copies" (Donaldson, Explicit References, Vol II, 501). Though the vast majority of manuscripts today contain [in Ephesus], some of the oldest extant manuscripts of Paul's epistles do not contain this phrase, P46, Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus among others (Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 532; Comfort, New Testament Text, 577-579).

Codex Sinaiticus (4th cen.) with the marginal note "in Ephesus."

In referring to the manuscripts that did not read "in Ephesus," Basil used the same word, "παλαιος," that the corrector in the Colophon of Pamphilus in Codex Sinaiticus used to describe the "extremely old copy" that Sinaiticus was corrected against (see discussion here). If we consider again the useful life of ancient papyrus manuscripts, Basil was likely referring to copies of Ephesians that were a hundred or more years old.
Another interesting aspect of Basil's comment is that he wrote that these "ancient copies" were "handed down" from "those who came before." Basil used the verb "παραδεδωκασι" (handed down), a phrase that implies a formal tradition or body of teaching. This verb is related to the noun used by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "παραδoσεις" to refer to the traditions he passed along to the Thessalonian Christians;

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions (παραδoσεις) that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (ESV)

Basil sheds some light on how he might have known which reading was in the "majority of manuscripts." When a textual variant changed the meaning of a text, how it was interpreted, or that it was traced to widely known editorial activity, then it may have been more widely known and even disseminated within Christendom. This must have happened in the case of  Asclepiodotus and Theodotus who apparently were altering their text to better accommodate their doctrinal views.
Eusebius wrote 120 or so years after the time of Asclepiodotus and Theodotus, yet he knew of their editing practices. This account he had learned from "a laborious work by one of these writers against the heresy of Artemon" which is no longer extant and is attributed to various Church fathers (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 5.28, NPNF 2.1:246). Perhaps Basil had learned of the age and preference for the manuscripts that did not contain "in Ephesus" through the writings of other Church fathers, such as Origen, who discussed this variant as well (Metzger, A Textual Commentary, 532).

Bibliography
Comfort, Philip W. New Testament Text and Translation Commentary. Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2008.

Donaldson, Amy M. "Explicit References to New Testament Variant Readings Among Greek and Latin Church Fathers" (PhD diss., University of Notre Dame) 2009.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Nestle, Eberhard. Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament. Translated by W. Edie. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1901.

A Latin Manuscript and its Greek Roots

A number of years ago, I managed to obtain a single parchment leaf of a 13th century Latin manuscript of 2nd Corinthians. There are many interesting features of this parchment leaf that could be discussed. However, one interesting feature are the uniquely Christian Nomina Sacra (hearafter NS), that is, abbreviated names for God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, etc. The unique feature of these NS, specifically the abbreviation for Christ, is that it is not a contracted Latin word (i.e. Christus), but rather it is the Greek word for Christ (i.e. χριστος) that is abbreviated. Of course, it comes as no surprise that the New Testament was originally written in Greek and that the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament exhibit NS of the Greek word for Christ. However, it does come as a little bit of surprise when one considers the larger Ecclesiastical circumstances that this manuscript would have found itself in. At this time, the Latin translation of the Bible (i.e. the Vulgate) would have been considered the official authoritative translation in the medieval west. Coupled with this was the disconnect between the the western and eastern (Byzantine) churches.