Since the Greek Apocryphal Gospels, Fragments and Agrapha project made it to the “Under Development” stage of the Pre-Pub process, I’ve been spending part of my time working on it.

Specifically, I’ve been working on getting transcriptions of all of the fragmentary stuff and the agrapha together. It’s been fun, and I’ve been able to acquaint myself with these valuable fragments at a deeper level.

[Short aside: As I’ve worked on the transcriptions, I also translated them because I found it helpful for reference. So the resource will also include translations of the fragments and agrapha, which is new — not even mentioned on the Pre-Pub page yet!]

But, really, can this stuff be helpful and useful as you study the Bible? I think it can be, and that’s one reason why I wanted so much to start this project.

Let’s take a small fragment, P.Vindob. 2325 (aka “The Fayûm Fragment”) as an example.

This little guy, probably part of a larger scroll, was located in Vienna in 1885 among some papyri that Archduke Rainier had ferreted away. It probably dates to the early/middle third century (so, 200–250).

As you read it, it will sound very familiar. But the wording itself is different from other synoptic accounts of the same event. Here’s my provisional translation:

… and he brought out, as he said, that “In this night you will all fall away, as it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.'” Peter said, “Even if everyone else does, I will not.” Jesus said, “Before the rooster crows twice, today you will deny me three times.”

Sound familiar? Yup. Sounds like the same thing which is mentioned in Mt. 26:30–35; Mk. 14:26–30; see also Lk. 22:34 and Jn. 13:38. But, at the same time, it is a bit different. Jesus isn’t explicitly referred to at the beginning, at least in the portion of the text we have. It makes you wonder what happened before this event. The quote of Zech 13:7 is introduced slightly differently ([κατα] το γραφεν vs. γεγραπται γαρ), but the substance of the quote is pretty much the same. It is missing Mk 14:28/Mt 26:32, the part about the disciples meeting in Galilee after Jesus is raised. The dialogue between Peter and Jesus is a bit shorter and simpler. And the text agrees with the Markan reading, that the rooster will crow twice (Mt./Lk. just say “crow”), but says it will be “today” without Mark’s further “this night” clarification.

There are enough differences between the Greek of P.Vindob. 2325 and Mark 14:26–30 that we can pretty safely assume P.Vindob. 2325 is not directly related to the Gospel of Mark. A minority view is that it could be from the Gospel of Peter, but that relies on shaky ground (reading “Peter said” as “I, Peter, said” through an alternate reconstruction).

What P.Vindob. 2325 does tell is us that people were telling the story of Christ’s crucifixion (and resurrection) in all sorts of ways and that, at least in this instance, it sounds pretty much like what we’re familiar with. One common thought today is that P.Vindob. 2325 was a re-working and abridgment of the synoptic accounts.

There are all sorts of fragments like this, witnessing some portion found in the gospels—but not in completely the same way. While definitely not canonical, they are very interesting and enlightening.

There are also fragments that expand upon canonical material and fragments that give us completely new material. They  help us understand more about the sorts of tales and influences that were floating about in the early, early church. We’ll talk about these sorts of fragments next week!

We have wrapped up work on the reverse interlinear for the NIV 2011 New Testament. If you have Logos 4 installed, a license for the NIV 2011 with reverse interlinears, and are set up to receive updates, the update should be automatic. The reverse interlinear for the NIV2011 Old Testament is well under way, we hope to release that later this year.

Growing up as a child of the late 70’s and early 80’s, the standard Bible in my church and home was the NIV. But I have to admit, I am less familiar with the TNIV and the NIV2011, so I was actually happy to work on this reverse interlinear project.

There has been both support and criticism for the NIV 2011, particularly as it handles what have come to be known as gender issues. I won’t comment on those, but I thought I’d highlight a few of the other changes between the 1984 NIV and the 2011 NIV.

Change 1: Is it “Christ” or “Messiah”?

The 1984 NIV used “Christ” to translate the Greek Χριστος (Christos) almost exclusively. There’s nothing wrong with that. But one refreshing change I noticed is that when Χριστος is used referring to the prophesied savior to come (mostly in the Gospels), the 2011 NIV uses “Messiah” instead of “Christ”. Elsewhere, where a particular person, Jesus, is referred to using Χριστος, the 2011 NIV uses “Christ” (or “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus” as the Greek text warrants).

This is a refreshing change. I think sometimes we slip into thinking that “Christ” is Jesus’ last name, and this change helps us remember that in the Gospels it is a title referring to the Savior to come.

Change 2: Is it “Saints” or “Holy Ones”?

I was less excited about this change, but can understand why the committee made it. This typically shows up in the epistles. I think the change is primarily about focusing on the effect of Christ on someone (made holy) versus focusing on some sort of status ascribed to a person as a result of that effect. The use of “saint” today is different than it was in the 1970’s and 80’s when the NIV was originally translated, so some sort of change is defensible, though it wreaks havoc with the way I remember and have internalized the text since my younger days.

These are just a few of the larger, consistent changes between the 1984 and 2011 editions of the NIV. There were scads of smaller changes, as well. If you’re really interested in those sorts of details, and you have the 1984 NIV available in Logos, you can use Logos 4’s Bible Comparison features (Morris Proctor talks about it briefly here) to tease out all of the differences—even punctuation, which is sometimes very interesting!

If you don’t have NIV 2011, you can pick yours up today!

Has the NIV been beneficial to your Bible study? Leave us a comment and tell us how!

One of the Pre-Pubs I’m most anticipating has the misfortune of being an extremely big project of seemingly narrow interest.

I’m talking about the Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the Septuagint, which has been on Pre-Pub since mid-2010, and at present  is only about 20% of the way to the development threshold.

Why am I so interested in a syntactic analysis of the Septuagint? Simply put, using the Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the Greek New Testament helps me think through the text as I read it, and my Greek has gotten much, much better because of it. Sure, there are benefits to being able to search the syntax. But for me, the primary benefit comes when reading and working through the text. The Cascadia Syntax Graphs help me see the high-level components of the text, and in so doing help me see the text as phrases and clauses, and less as a string of words to be decoded.

Let me give you an example that has absolutely nothing to do with searching.

One thing I like to do when reading Greek is to use the ‘Display’ feature to turn off certain levels of the analysis. With Cascadia, if you turn off the “Phrases” and “Terminals” (and, if you’re daring, the “Literal Translation” as well), you get a structure that consists of clauses and clause functions. With the intermediary levels turned off, you can begin to see the components (subjects, objects, verbs, adverbials like negators and prepositional phrases, etc.). Even better, you start to see these when reading the text outside of the graphs, too. Here’s an example from John 3:16:

Jn 3:16 in the Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the NT

The dotted lighter-colored lines in the graphic above (dotted lines in the program) are where phrase and terminal level items are elided out. Reading the Greek from top to bottom, you can work through the Greek while referencing the structure of the sentence according to the Cascadia analysis. When I do this, I typically don’t worry about the “embeddedness” of the clauses, I just pay attention to the S, V, O, IO, ADV and other clause function notation. I can also readily see conjunctions and other particles, and get ideas in how they are functioning in the verse as well.

I’ll admit it’s a little selfish, but this is why I so want the Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the Septuagint Pre-Pub project to start — because I want to read the Septuagint the same way. I muddle through, and I’m getting better, yet I can’t help but think I’d get better faster with graphs of the Septuagint, though.

This brings me to my point: If you’ve had some Greek in the past (either recently, or not so recently), then try this little trick with the Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the New Testament. If you want, keep the “Literal Translation” portion active too. Do this diligently for awhile, and see if your Greek improves. If it does, and you think, “Wow, it really would be great to have this for the Septuagint too!” then please subscribe to the Pre-Pub, and help make it happen.

As I said, we’re only 20% of the way to funding the Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the Septuagint project. We need more people to subscribe to the Pre-Pub to make this happen. Will you be one of them?

One reason I wanted to make the Apostolic Fathers Interlinear was because the writers of these documents used the Old Testament, New Testament, and even some portions of apocryphal/deuterocanonical books. These guys knew Scripture, and they used Scripture (and some related writings) in their writings.

Clement of Rome (First Clement is attributed to him, Second Clement is traditionally attributed to him though most today do not view Clement as its author) is exceptional in his use of the OT and NT. He uses large portions of Scripture to the point where they can even be useful for text-critical purposes. Did you know that 1Clem 18 is a quotation of Psalm 51, and that it largely reflects the text of the Septuagint as we have it today? And that there is a large chunk of Isaiah 53 in 1Clem 16? And that Clement also quotes from Proverbs and even Job? And that some portions sound like they’re coming straight from Hebrews (e.g. 1Clem 36) and that he probably has familiarity with some of Paul’s epistles—especially First Corinthians?

Further, there is a simply incredible prayer in 1Clem 59–61. You have to read it. Really. And trust me, it reads even better if you read it aloud!

And let’s not forget Second Clement (also known as “An Early Christian Homily”) which is essentially a sermon that uses portions of Isaiah 54 as its primary text. This is the earliest Christian sermon available outside of the New Testament, and  you can read it. Really! And it is awesome from its very start.

This is all well and good, but why an interlinear and not a translation if I’m interested in folks really using this stuff? Well, I wanted to make something that folks who had some Greek and who find themselves using lexicons like BDAG could use to help them into the Greek text of this secondary material. Something people could search for Greek words and phrases, and see how they were used outside of the New Testament. Working on the Apostolic Fathers Interlinear was a lot of work, but it was also incredibly rewarding. I hope you’ll find it similarly helpful in your studies.

Here’s an extra bonus tip: If you’re interested in the Apostolic Fathers’ use of the New Testament, Logos has a neat book published in the early 1900’s called The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers.  This book lists possible quotations and allusions to the New Testament in most of the works of the Apostolic Fathers (Barnabas, Didache, I Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, and II Clement). It is very helpful for looking into possible use of the NT in the Apostolic Fathers.

They can also be helpful in understanding words and concepts that don’t occur too often in the New Testament. This is one of the primary reasons I look to these writings, and one of the primary reasons I wanted to make these writings more widely available in the form of the Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear.

My guess is that most of us are familiar with 1 Corinthians 13, the so-called “Love Chapter.” You know, “Love is patient, love is kind,” and all that?

Did you know that the Greek word translated “is kind” in that verse (1Cor 13:4) is the only instance of that word in the New Testament? The Greek word is χρηστεύομαι. It isn’t a difficult word, though, and looking elsewhere isn’t going to change the definition we’d use in 1Cor 13:4. But did you know this word occurs three times in First Clement?

First Clement is a letter that was probably written in the early 90’s from the Roman church to the Corinthian church (you know, the church that Paul wrote First and Second Corinthians to about 30 years earlier). In Clement’s time, the Corinthian church had booted out its leadership, but the Roman church didn’t think the action was merited. So they wrote a letter to the Corinthians saying, essentially, “You guys need to get along. Here’s why.” In the midst of that, Clement talks to them about being kind in chapters 13 and 14.

In the first two instances (1Cl 13.2), after attributing his words to “the Lord Jesus” in 1Cl 13.1, Clement gives a pastiche of gospel quotations (Mt 5:7; 6:14–15; 7:1–2, 12; Lk 6:31, 36–38), mixing “kindness” in with them:

For [Jesus] spoke as follows: “Show mercy, that you may be shown mercy; forgive, that it may be forgiven you; as you do so will it be done to you; as you give so will it be given to you; as you judge so will you be judged; as you are kind so will kindness be shown to you; with which measure you measure, with it will be measured to you.” (1Cl 13.2)

Continuing the argument in chapter 14, Clement uses “kind” one more time:

Therefore it is right and holy, men and brothers, for us to be obedient to God rather than to follow those instigators of loathsome jealousy in arrogance and insurrection. For it is not common harm but rather great danger we will endure if we recklessly surrender ourselves to the purposes of the people who plunge into strife and rebellion in order to estrange us from what is good. Let us be kind to them, according to the tenderheartedness and sweetness of the one who made us. (1Cl 14.1–3)

Do you see what Clement is doing? He is exhorting the Corinthians to put aside how they feel, to be “obedient to God,” and to not treat the leadership of their church with the same harshness the leadership dealt them. Verse 3 (using our word, χρηστεύομαι) turns it back around: “Let us be kind to them.” Verse 4 follows this using a very similar word, χρηστός (the noun form, “kind”), again probably quoting Scripture, this time Prov 2:21–22; Ps 37:9, 38, “The kind shall be inhabitants of the land ….”

Whether purposefully or not, Clement is using the same word Paul used as he writes to the same church. Paul told the Corinthians that “love is kind”; Clement is telling them how to show the kindness of love to the exiled leadership of the church.

This is one of the reasons why I so enjoy the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. They use the same language and the same themes, and careful examination of them in conjunction with study of the Bible can reap profitable dividends.

If this kind of stuff appeals to you, maybe you should get in on the pre-pub for the Apostolic Fathers Greek-English Interlinear while it is still available with Pre-Pub pricing.

Why a blog post about Darrell L. Bock and Gregory J. Herrick’s book Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study?

If you’re at all like me, there comes a point in your reading of the New Testament where you start to realize that the world of the New Testament is vast in scope, and the New Testament itself only tells us a little about the context of that world. And you start to wonder how much you’re missing. Not doctrinally, of course. I’m thinking more of the literary and historical setting of the New Testament.

From here (if you’re like me) you research a bit and you find there’s all sorts of stuff you can read. There is so much it is almost overwhelming. You can (and should) read, of course, the Old Testament for the setting of the people of God. But this is only the start.

From here you can dip into the apocrypha (or deuterocanonical books) for insight on the developments between the testaments. Then the firehose opens wide: you can go from here to the works of Josephus (a historian contemporary with the time of the New Testament), and to Philo (an Alexandrian Jew from the same era) whose writings are preserved for us. You can go to the Apostolic Fathers (a personal favorite of mine) for some understanding of how the early Christians lived, thought and preached. You can go to Jewish literature — to the Talmud, to the Targums, to the Mishnah and all sorts of stuff. You can also go to what is called the “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” which helps you understand how both Jews and Christians interacted with their literature, and how they understood it, and what they expected to happen. From here your search will only get wider.

But (again, if you’re like me), that’s a whole lot of reading. And some of the material is a bit … er … “dry” in translation. What to do?

Thankfully, Bock and  Herrick published a book called Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study. What is this book? It is laid out in parts, and it provides readings from texts like those of Josephus, Philo, the OT Pseudepigrapha, Apostolic Fathers, Targums, Talmud, etc. for each major section of the gospels. So, for the section on “The Calling of the Disciples” (Mt 4:18; Mk 1:16–20), a section of the Qumran Hymn Scroll (1QH 5.7–8) is referenced. On the section of the healing of the Demoniac in the Synagogue (Mk 1:23–28; Lk 14:33–37), some Greek Magical Papyri (yes, such things exist) and 1QapGen 20.27–29 (the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran) are cited. This is fun stuff!

You’d have to read and study a whole lot to put all of this together for the Gospels. But Bock and Herrick have done the heavy lifting for you. And they’ve arranged it in a way that makes it easy to consult while you’re studying the Gospels on your own. If you’ve ever thought, like I did, that there is more to the literary and historical context of the NT that (if you knew of it) might help your understanding of these important events recorded in the Gospels, then you should definitely check out Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study.

A few further notes

In 2002, Darrell Bock published a book called Jesus According to Scripture (currently on pre-pub here at Logos). That book arranges the Gospels in such a manner that makes the events of the Gospels easier to associate with their likely order of occurrence. The numbering system used by that book is also used in Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study. While Jesus in Context is considered a companion volume of sorts to Jesus According to Scripture, both texts do stand alone and are designed to be useful for their contexts.

Also, the Baker New Testament Studies Collection includes Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study and 13 other volumes. The collection is a great set of books at a great price. If you’re interested in more than one or two of the titles, you might want to consider the whole collection instead of the individual volumes.