Structural Lexicology and the Greek New Testament: Applying Corpus Linguistics for Word Sense Possibility Delimitation Using Collocational Indicators 9781463236625

Citation preview

Structural Lexicology and the Greek New Testament

Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages

6 Editorial Board James K. Aitken Aaron Michael Butts Daniel King Michael P. Theophilos Wido van Peursen

Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages (PLAL) contains peer-reviewed essays, monographs, and reference works. It focuses on the theory and practice of ancient-language research and lexicography that is informed by modern linguistics.

Structural Lexicology and the Greek New Testament

Applying Corpus Linguistics for Word Sense Possibility Delimitation Using Collocational Indicators

Todd L. Price

9

34 2015

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2015 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

2015

‫ܚ‬

ISBN 978-1-4632-0534-8

9 ISSN 2165-2600

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Price, Todd (Todd L.), author. Structural lexicology and the Greek New Testament : applying corpus linguistics for word sense possibility delimitation using collocational indicators / by Todd Price. pages cm. -- (Perspectives on linguistics and ancient languages, ISSN 2165-2600 ; 6) ISBN 978-1-4632-0534-8 1. Greek language, Biblical--Lexicology. 2. Bible. New Testament--Language, style. 3. Corpora (Linguistics)--Data processing. I. Title. PA810.P75 2015 487’.4--dc23 2015009842 Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................... ix Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ xi Typographical Conventions ................................................................................................. xvii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... xix Chapter 1: Sizing up Progress in Lexicography and its Application to the Greek New Testament ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Recent Advances in Linguistics and Lexicography ............................................... 1 1.2 Structural Lexicology Improves Accuracy in Greek New Testament Word Sense Disambiguation .................................................................................. 3 1.3 Explanation of Terminology .................................................................................... 5 1.4 History of CL .............................................................................................................. 7 1.4.1 Early Approaches: CL Before CL (1200s–1700s) ........................................ 7 1.4.2 Ideas Begin to Percolate: Precursor to Modern CL Approaches (1933–1958) ........................................................................................................ 8 1.4.3 Work Begins: Early Work in English CL (1959–1987) ............................... 9 1.4.4 Building up Steam: CL Garners Interest and Support (1988– 1996)................................................................................................................... 11 1.4.5 Gaining Traction: CL’s Influence Spreads (1997–1999) ........................... 12 1.4.6 Going Mainstream: CL’s Influence Explodes (2000–2005) ..................... 13 1.4.7 Specializing and Diversifying: CL Produces Specialty Studies (2006–2012) ...................................................................................................... 14 1.4.8 Projects and Conferences............................................................................... 15 1.4.9 Other Languages ............................................................................................. 16 1.5 Application to the Greek New Testament ........................................................... 17 1.6 Limitations of this Study for Hellenistic Greek ................................................... 20 1.7 Conclusion to Chapter 1 ......................................................................................... 21 Chapter 2: A Method for Applying CL to Greek New Testament Lexical Semantics .......................................................................................................................... 23 2.1 Theoretical Underpinnings ..................................................................................... 23 2.2 Purpose of the Corpus............................................................................................. 25 2.3 Size of the Corpus .................................................................................................... 25 2.4 Word Count in the Corpus ..................................................................................... 26 2.5 Genre of Texts to Include in the Corpus ............................................................. 28 2.6 Representative Samples for the Corpus ................................................................ 29 v

vi

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

2.7 Length of Individual Texts to Include in the Corpus ......................................... 30 2.8 Synchronic, not Diachronic, Texts in the Corpus ............................................... 30 2.9 Dealing with Linguistic Variables in the Corpus ................................................. 36 2.10 Availability and Appropriateness of Texts in the Corpus ................................ 42 2.11 Use of Multiple Corpora ....................................................................................... 44 2.12 Primary Corpus Contents ..................................................................................... 44 2.13 Secondary Corpus Contents ................................................................................. 47 2.14 Tertiary Corpus ....................................................................................................... 49 2.15 Text Preparation ..................................................................................................... 49 2.16 Conventions for Indicating Word Position........................................................ 52 2.17 Function Words ...................................................................................................... 53 2.18 Singletons in the Corpus ....................................................................................... 53 2.19 Supervised Method vs. Unsupervised Method .................................................. 54 2.20 Inductive and Deductive Approach .................................................................... 55 2.21 Conclusion to Chapter 2 ....................................................................................... 57 Chapter 3: Making Sense out of Meaning ............................................................................ 59 3.1 The Primacy of Meaning for Our Study ............................................................... 59 3.2 Metalinguistic Difficulties ....................................................................................... 59 3.3 Sentential Definitions .............................................................................................. 60 3.4 Semasiological Approach ........................................................................................ 61 3.5 Denotative Meaning vs. Connotative Meaning ................................................... 62 3.6 Defining Context ...................................................................................................... 64 3.7 Polysemy .................................................................................................................... 69 3.7.1 Polysemy, Ambiguity and Vagueness ........................................................... 70 3.7.2 Prototype Theory and Schematicity........................................................................ 73 3.7.3 Meaning Extension ......................................................................................... 76 3.7.4 Homonymy....................................................................................................... 77 3.7.5 Granularity ........................................................................................................ 79 3.8 Default (Typical or Common) Meaning ............................................................... 83 3.9 Conclusion to Chapter 3 ......................................................................................... 84 Chapter 4: Defining Units of Meaning ................................................................................. 85 4.1 Terminology for Units of Meaning ....................................................................... 85 4.2 Computational Terminology................................................................................... 89 4.3 Disambiguation through Structure ........................................................................ 89 4.4 Determining Usage and Composing Definitions ................................................ 90 4.5 Example of with......................................................................................................... 91 4.6 Conclusion to Chapter 4 ......................................................................................... 95 Chapter 5: Collocations and Colligations (Part 1) .............................................................. 97 5.1 Collocation................................................................................................................. 97 5.2 Colligation ................................................................................................................100 5.3 Statistical Measurements of Collocations ...........................................................101 5.4 Differentiating Near Synonyms ...........................................................................103 5.4.1 Boat vs. Ship, Πλοῖον vs. Ναῦς ...................................................................103 5.4.2 Ἀγαπάω and Φιλέω ......................................................................................105 5.5 Σύν and its Collocations ........................................................................................109

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

5.5.1 Indicating Two or More Entities Involved in the Same Activity ..........110 5.5.2 With Verbs of BEING, etc. to Indicate Presence in Same Location ...........................................................................................................112 5.5.3 Default Meaning of σύν, 1 Cor 10:13 and 2 Cor 4:14 .............................113 5.5.4 Σύν + τούτοις .................................................................................................119 5.5.5 Σύν to Express Means or Instrumentality .................................................121 5.5.6 Σύν + Anarthrous ABSTRACT NOUN to Express Manner .....................123 5.5.7 Σύν + God, god or demon ..........................................................................124 5.6 Conclusion to Chapter 5 .......................................................................................125 Chapter 6: Collocations and Colligations (Part 2) ............................................................127 6.1 Ζάω Collocated with σύν.......................................................................................127 6.2 Δύναμις Collocated with σύν, μετά and Ἐν .......................................................131 6.2.1 Σύν δυνάμει ....................................................................................................132 6.2.2 Μετὰ δυνάμεως..............................................................................................135 6.2.3 Ἐν δυνάμει ......................................................................................................142 6.2.4 Σὺν τῇ δυνάμει in 1 Cor 5:4 ........................................................................143 6.3 Conclusion to Chapter 6 .......................................................................................153 Chapter 7: Collocations and Colligations (Part 3) ............................................................155 7.1 Συνίστημι and its Collocates ................................................................................155 7.1.1 Συνίστημι Collocated with ἐκ .....................................................................156 7.1.2 A Rare Usage of Συνίστημι with Σῶμα.....................................................158 7.1.3 Συνίστημι Meaning to bring into existence .....................................................159 7.1.4 Συνίστημι Speaking of an Event Occurring .............................................159 7.1.5 Συνίστημι Speaking of Warriors Gathering ..............................................161 7.1.6 Συνίστημι Meaning to exist, especially in Philo .........................................162 7.1.7 Examination of Evidence for the Meaning to hold together .......................163 7.1.8 Συνίστημι in Col 1:17 ...................................................................................172 7.2 Συνείδησις and its Collocates................................................................................180 7.3 Conclusion to Chapter 7 .......................................................................................182 Chapter 8: Semantic Preference...........................................................................................183 8.1 Semantic Sets and Semantic Preference..............................................................183 8.2 Σύν Used to Include smaller ‘parts’ .....................................................................184 8.3 Σύν with transportable items ................................................................................185 8.4 Σύν + feature or possession .................................................................................187 8.5 Conclusion to Chapter 8 .......................................................................................189 Chapter 9: Conclusion ...........................................................................................................191 9.1 Conclusion to our Study ........................................................................................191 9.2 A Final Challenge ...................................................................................................192 Works Cited ............................................................................................................................193 Index ........................................................................................................................................229 Biblical References ........................................................................................................229 Old Testament .........................................................................................................229 New Testament .......................................................................................................230

viii

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ancient Sources.............................................................................................................232 Authors ...........................................................................................................................239 Subjects ...........................................................................................................................245 Greek words ..................................................................................................................248

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book is a light revision of my PhD thesis submitted March 2013 to London School of Theology under the supervision of Prof. Max Turner. The research for the project was completed December 2012, though the bibliography has now been updated slightly to reflect works which became known to me after that time. I would like to express gratitude to many who have made this work possible: the late Prof. Rodney Decker, who first instilled in me an interest in linguistics as a Greek student at Calvary Bible College; Prof. Alan Tomlinson for imparting to me an interest in primary Greek sources through his classes at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary; Prof. Steve Walton for his encouragement and for feedback during and after my research; my supervisor, Prof. Max Turner who, even though retiring, agreed to take me on as one of his last students; my second supervisor, Dr Margaret Sim, for her valuable input from the perspective of a linguist and Bible translator; Prof. Ronnie Cann for his questions, feedback and corrections; Drs James Aitken and Melonie Schmierer-Lee for accepting my manuscript; two anonymous reviewers for Gorgias Press for their constructive criticisms; the leadership of my mission agency, Pioneers, who value education and allowed me to devote time to further my education while continuing as a faith missionary; my father, Dr B. Max Price, who set the bar high by being the first to attend college in his family, and going on to earn a PhD; my mother, Geri Price, a very good writer; my children, Timothy, Jonathan, Elizabeth, Matthew, Kirsten, Daniel and Ariela for their love and support; and my faithful secretary, Joy Hill, for library assistance, for proofreading and formatting the manuscript and preparing the indices, though I am responsible for any errors which might remain. By far, the human being I want to acknowledge and thank more than anyone is my wife of 26 years, Pamala. She has always loved and supported me through many years of studies. It is a joy to be married to her and to be able to serve on the mission field together. Most of all I am grateful to Jesus Christ, for all he has done and continues to do as my Lord and Savior. To him be all the glory! χαίρωμεν καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμεν καὶ δώσωμεν τὴν δόξαν αὐτῷ (Rev 19:7)

ix

ABBREVIATIONS Except for abbreviations for biblical and apocryphal/deutero-canonical books which follow NRSV, unless otherwise noted, all abbreviations follow Patrick H. Alexander, et al., SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999). I, II, III, etc. ACL ALS ANLEX ASTHLS Barclay BBE

BECNT Begg Begg/Spilsbury BHGNT BHL BNC BoE Brenton CAL CAtL CEB

CCGNT CECNT

century in which a text was written Applications of Cognitive Linguistics Applied Language Studies Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker’s Greek New Testament Library (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2000) Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science John M. G. Barclay, trans. and ed., Against Apion, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2006) Bible in Basic English (Ontario: Online Bible Foundation, 1964) Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Christopher T. Begg, trans. and ed., Judean Antiquities, Books 5–7, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2004) Christopher T. Begg and Paul Spilsbury, trans and eds, Judean Antiquities, Books 8–10, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2005) Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics British National Corpus (http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/) Bank of English (http://www.titania.bham.ac.uk/) Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, trans., The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament Translated into English (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1844) Cambridge Applied Linguistics Cambridge Approaches to Linguistics Common English Bible Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament xi

xii

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

CJB

CL

CLR COB1 COB2

COB4

COCA

COHA

CSL CTL Čarnić DDbDP DDKB

DEL

DK

ECC EGT ETEL

EVV

FE Feldman GURTLL

GWN HCSB

Hermeneia ICE Jeruzalemska Knežević KS

KWIC L1 L2 LAL LCSPL

David H. Stern, Complete Jewish Bible (Clarksville, Md.: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1998) used in this study for the intersection of Corpus Linguistics, Corpus Lexicography and Computational Linguistics Cognitive Linguistics Research John McHardy Sinclair, ed., Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (London: HarperCollins, 1987) John McHardy Sinclair, ed., Collins COBUILD English Dictionary (2d rev. ed.; London: HarperCollins, 1995) John McHardy Sinclair, editor-in-chief, Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary (4th ed.; Glasgow: HarperCollins, 2003) Corpus of Contemporary American English (http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/) Corpus of Historical American English (http://corpus.byu.edu/coha/) Cambridge Studies in Linguistics Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics Emilijan M. Čarnić, Novi Zavet (Belgrade: Biblijsko Društvo, 1973) Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri Karyn Henley, Day by Day Kid’s Bible (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale, 1998) Describing English Language Đuro Daničić and Vuk Stef. Karadžić, Biblija ili Sveto Pismo Staroga i Novoga Zavjeta (n.p.: Biblijsko Društvo, 1871) Eerdmans Critical Commentary The Expositor’s Greek Testament Edinburgh Textbooks in Empirical Linguistics English versions of the Bible fixed expression Louis H. Feldman, trans. and ed., Judean Antiquities, Books 1–4, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1999) Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics God’s Word to the Nations Holman Christian Standard Bible Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible International Corpus of English (http://ice-corpora.net/ice/) Adalbert Rebić, Jerko Fućak and Bonaventura Duda, Jeruzalemska Biblija: Stari i Novi Zavjet s Uvodima i Bilješkama (Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 2007) Ruben Knežević, Biblija: Novi Zavjet (Sarajevo: BDFBH, 2001) Jure Kaštelan and Bonaventura Duda, Biblija: Stari i Novi Zavjet (Zagreb: Kršćanska Sadašnjost, 1997) Key Word in Context language 1 (one’s native language) language 2 (language learned as a foreign language) Learning about Language Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics

ABBREVIATIONS LDCE

LEB

LEH LLC LLL LNTS LOB LP Masona

Masonb

MHT1

MHT2 MHT3

MHT4 MI MT MW9

MW11

MWU

NASBU NCV NET

NETS Newman

NIVAC

NIVU NIrV

NLP

NLT NRSV

OED OLS OSLL OTbL

xiii

Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English W. Hall Harris, III, et al., eds, Lexham English Bible (Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2012) Johan Lust, Erin Eynikel and Katrin Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003) London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English Longman’s Linguistics Library Library of New Testament Studies Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen Corpus Language in Performance Steve Mason, trans. and ed., Life of Josephus, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2003) Steve Mason, trans. and ed., Judean War 2, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2008) James Hope Moulton, Prolegomena, vol. 1 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906) James Hope Moulton and Wilbert Francis Howard, Accidence and Word-Formation, vol. 2 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963) James Hope Moulton and Nigel Turner, Syntax, vol. 3 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963) James Hope Moulton and Nigel Turner, Style, vol. 4 of A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1976) mutual information Masoretic Text Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1986) Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 2003) multi-word unit New American Standard Bible (updated, 1995) New Century Version New English Translation New English Translation of the Septuagint Barclay M. Newman, Jr., A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993) NIV Application Commentary New International Version (updated, 2011) New International Reader’s Version Natural Language Processing New Living Translation New Revised Standard Version Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.oed.com) Open Linguistics Series Oxford Studies in Lexicography and Lexicology Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics

xiv

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Paideia PAL PBTM Perseus Pillar POS or PoS RACL Radosna vijest Robertson SBG SBLSBL SCD SCL SL SP SS Stefanović STTR Šarić Thayer

TL TLG TLP TLRP TLSM

TNIV

TSLT TTR UBLI UBSHSHT WGM

Whiston Winer WSD WSPD

Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament Palgrave Advances in Linguistics Paternoster Biblical and Theological Monographs Perseus Digital Library (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/) Pillar New Testament Commentary part of speech Routledge Advances in Corpus Linguistics Radosna vijest o Božijem carstvu i Djela poslanika, Antti Tepponen, et al., eds. (Tuzla, Bosnia & Hercegovina: Krstjanska zajednica u BiH, 2004) A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 3d ed. (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914) Studies in Biblical Greek SBL Studies in Biblical Literature Studies in Corpus and Discourse Studies in Corpus Linguistics source language (the language from which translation is made) Sacra Pagina Syntax and Semantics Dimitrije Stefanović, Novi Zavet (n.p.: n.p., 1934) standardized type/token ratio Ivan Šarić, Biblija ili Sveto Pismo Staroga i Novoga Zavjeta (Sarajevo: n.p., 1942) Joseph Henry Thayer, trans. and rev., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm’s Wilke’s Clavis Novi Testamenti (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1889) target language (the language into which translation is made) Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/) my translation (Todd L. Price) Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs Today’s New International Version Text, Speech and Language Technology type/token ratio Usage-Based Linguistic Informatics UBS Handbook Series, Helps for Translators William G. MacDonald, The Idiomatic Translation of the New Testament (n.p.: n.p., 2006), BibleWorks, v.9. Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Buffalo, N.Y.: John E. Beardsley, 1895 [repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1987]). G. B. Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis, 3d rev. ed. (9th English ed.), trans. W. F. Moulton (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882) word sense disambiguation word sense possibility delimitation

ABBREVIATIONS Yonge ZECNT

Philo of Alexandria, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, trans. Charles Duke Yonge (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854–55 [new updated ed., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996]) Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

xv

TYPOGRAPHICAL CONVENTIONS Example * ?

Explanation to mark as ungrammatical: *I sees the zebra. to mark as grammatically correct, but anomalous or nonsensical: ?She has a beautiful lap. ALL CAPS to indicate all inflections of a lemma: for example, BEFALL refers to befall, befalls, befell, befallen, befalling, et cetera. italics when used in concordance (KWIC) lines to indicate a lexeme or to highlight the node word; when used elsewhere, to identify a gloss, to add emphasis or to indicate the first use of a technical term (parentheses) to identify added explanatory words ‘quotes’ to identify a translation SMALL CAPS to indicate a concept, as opposed to a lemma, for example, ANIMAL underlining to highlight a feature (other than the node word) which is being discussed and being shown in concordance (KWIC) lines, normally significant collocations which are found with a particular sense These conventions apply only to our text. Unless otherwise noted, we have left quotations from others unaltered even when they are using different conventions. It is standard convention in CL to display KWIC lines with the node word (word being studied) aligned horizontally in the same location so that the reader’s eye can quickly take in the four or more words to each side of the node when reading down the page. It was our desire to always include in our KWIC tables enough of the context for the line to make sense, and also to include what appeared to be key collocations or colligations, yet due to space restraints on pages in portrait position, we were not always able to do so. In a few instances we were forced to include the reference on a second line, or even to use an ellipsis (…). To see the full lines of text, please consult the spreadsheets on the web site which accompanies this work: http://structurallexicology.wordpress.com.

xvii

LIST OF TABLES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

Primary Corpus Contents Percentage of Sections of Primary Corpus Secondary Corpus Contents Keep and its Collocations Critical of vs. Critical to Σύν Indicating Entities Involved in Same Activity Σύν with Verbs of BEING Σύν with Entities Involved in Same Activity Σύν + τούτοις Σύν as Means Σύν + Anarthrous ABSTRACT NOUN as Manner Σύν + GOD or DEMON Ζάω Meaning to be lively according to BDAG Ζάω Meaning to be in full vigour according to LSJ Σὺν δυνάμει αὐτῶν Σὺν δυνάμει in Secondary & Tertiary Corpora Σύν + Articular δύναμις Μετὰ δυνάμεως Meaning with an army Μετὰ δυνάμεως in Alleg. Interp. 3 Μετὰ δυνάμεως in NT Δύναμις in Mk 9:1, 13:26, 14:62 Μετὰ δυνάμεως in Secondary Corpus Ἐν δυνάμει Meaning with an army Ἐν δυνάμει in NT Genitive Absolutes in 1 Corinthians Dispersion of Συνίστημι in Primary Corpus Συνίστημι with ἐκ A Rare Usage of Συνίστημι with Σῶμα Συνίστημι Meaning to bring into existence Συνίστημι Speaking of an Event and Collocated with WARFARE Συνίστημι Speaking of People and Collocated with WARFARE, ROBBERY Συνίστημι Meaning that something exists References for to hold together Better Understood as to exist References for to hold together Better Understood as to consist of References for to hold together Better Understood as to make, create References for to hold together Better Understood as to gather people xix

45 47 47 86 99 111 112 118 120 121 123 124 129 130 132 133 134 135 136 136 138 141 142 143 144 155 157 158 159 160 161 163 164 165 166 168

xx 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Translation of References Supposedly Meaning to unite Συνείδησις Meaning conscience Συνείδησις Meaning consciousness Σύν Used to Include SMALLER ‘PARTS’ Σύν with TRANSPORTABLE ITEMS Σύν + FEATURE or POSSESSION

169 181 181 184 185 187

CHAPTER 1: SIZING UP PROGRESS IN LEXICOGRAPHY AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 1.1 RECENT ADVANCES IN LINGUISTICS AND LEXICOGRAPHY Over the past three decades the fields of linguistics in general and lexicography in particular have undergone rather dramatic changes. These changes have greatly influenced work in the English-speaking world and in many other world languages, yet sadly have had minimal influence on the world of biblical studies. In a cleverly-titled article in 1975, Rydbeck asked the question, ‘What happened to New Testament Greek grammar after Albert Debrunner?’ 1 In light of the fact that much of the progress in linguistics and lexicography over the last 30 years has yet to significantly influence NT studies, perhaps we should ask ourselves, ‘What happened to New Testament lexicography 2 after Louw and Nida?’ 3 One area where significant progress has been made is in the field of corpus linguistics. Tognini-Bonelli calls this approach a ‘revolution in the way we perceive language,’ leading to ‘new, exciting and unexpected discoveries’ made possible through ‘accessing … a corpus, and observing the repeated lexical and grammatical choices of a certain community of language users’. 4 It is outside the scope of this study to examine Rydbeck, ‘What Happened to New Testament Greek Grammar after Albert Debrunner?’, pp. 424–427. 2 Some might answer by pointing to advances in cognitive linguistics which have been applied to biblical Hebrew (see Blois, ‘Lexicography and Cognitive Linguistics’, pp. 97–116; ‘The Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew’; ‘Word Classes in Biblical Hebrew’; Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew [www.sdbh.org]; Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies). This approach has promise for NT lexicography and we will touch on it tangentially throughout this study, yet it will not be part of our focus to a significant degree. 3 Lee is correct that the publication of L&N marked progress beyond BAGD, and BDAG marked progress over BAGD, yet this ‘is a beginning, not more’ (Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography, p. 158). 4 Tognini-Bonelli, ‘Working with Corpora: Issues and Insights,’ p. 11. In her earlier work she states that corpus linguistics ‘has turned out to be a theoretical and qualitative revolution in that it has offered insights into the language that have shaken the underlying assumptions behind many well established theoretical positions in the field’ (Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 48). 1

1

2

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

all the advances made in lexicography specifically, much less the broader field of linguistics. 5 Rather our focus will be on one aspect, structural lexicology, 6 especially as developed through corpus linguistics. This approach offers some of the most influential and exciting contributions and has great potential to enhance NT studies. Structural lexicology is a method which pays close attention to lexicogrammatical structure, which for the moment we will describe as ‘meaningful patterns of word combinations’. 7 (We will develop this idea more specifically below when we speak of collocations, colligations and semantic preference.) This approach has come to light through the development of three interrelated disciplines, all represented by the abbreviation CL: computational linguistics, computational lexicography and corpus linguistics. Computational linguistics is the application of computer technology to the scientific study of language. 8 Computational lexicography applies these computer findings to lexicography. 9 Corpus linguistics 10 is ‘the computer-aided empirical study of naturally occurring language which has been collected into a representative sample (the corpus).’ 11 These three disciplines have developed simultaneously, each building on the findings of the others, with computational linguistics wrestling with the ‘how-to’ of 5 To some degree it is of questionable value to speak of applying ‘linguistics’ to the NT; there are so many varied approaches to, and branches of, linguistics, that one must narrow the field to a specific linguistic approach. Though a book written in the 1980s could have had a subtitle asking how linguistics helps us understand the Bible, nowadays, with the proliferation of various areas of linguistics and the extreme specificity of many approaches, a book purporting to deal with linguistics in general would either be extremely massive or extraordinarily shallow. Current studies need to specify which area of linguistics is being applied to biblical studies. 6 This must be differentiated from structural semantics and structural meaning. Structural semantics is the study of words in their relationships with other words in the same semantic domain or lexical field. For example, spaniel is a hyponym of dog and both words are in the same lexical field, whereas cat and mouse are not (Trask, Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics, pp. 171– 172; Brown, ‘Glossary’, p. 123). Structural meaning, as used by Kearns, refers to how meaning is derived from syntax, so that The cat ate the mouse has a different meaning than The mouse ate the cat although both sentences contain the exact same words (Kearns, Semantics, pp. 3–4). For a discussion of the various (and often conflicting) uses of the terms structuralism and structuralist linguistics, see Lyons, Semantics, vol. 1, pp. 230–238; Lyons, Linguistic Semantics, pp. 90–91, 102– 106. 7 Sinclair, Reading Concordances, p. xii. 8 Mitkov, ‘Preface’, p. ix. 9 Hanks, ‘Lexicography’, p. 48. 10 An over-arching category is electronic text analysis, of which corpus linguistics is a sub-category, related to two other categories, natural language processing (NLP) and humanities computing (Adolphs, Introducing Electronic Text Analysis, pp. 1–2). 11 O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. xi. An even simpler definition is ‘a collection of texts which has been put together for linguistic research with the aim of making statements about a particular language variety’ (Adolphs, Introducing Electronic Text Analysis, p. 3).

CHAPTER 1: SIZING UP PROGRESS IN LEXICOGRAPHY

3

much of the research, corpus linguistics providing a promising method and many practical uses for the findings, and computational lexicography also providing practical applications, such as dictionary making. To treat the history and development of these three CLs separately would be nonsensical and would require repetition of much of the data. These disciplines are intertwined to a large degree and many of the research results touch on linguistics in general and lexicography in particular. Interplay is unavoidable since linguistics is the science of language and lexicography the art of writing the tools that explain the meaning of the language. (We use the term lexicology for the study of vocabulary, and lexicography as the application of that study to the art and science of dictionary making. 12) Because they are closely aligned, we will look at their development together. Ooi abbreviates computational linguistics as CL1, computational lexicography as CL2, and corpus linguistics as CL3 13 but we find this nomenclature unwieldy and difficult to remember. Instead, we will use CL to stand for the intersection of these three disciplines, namely, corpus and computational linguistics and lexicography. Before looking at the history of CL (1.4) we will first briefly address the need for applying CL to the study of lexical semantics of the Greek New Testament (1.2) and explain some of the more significant terminology (1.3).

1.2 STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY IMPROVES ACCURACY IN GREEK NEW TESTAMENT WORD SENSE DISAMBIGUATION When a word can have more than one meaning, how do we determine which meaning is being used in a specific context? Open a traditional Greek-English lexicon to a word such as ἀκούω and you will find a list of several possible definitions for that Greek headword, as well as verse references where the word is used with different meanings. Commenting on ἀκούω in Lk 12:3, for example, Bovon states that ‘this message, in the end, “will be heard” (in the strongest sense, ἀκούω can mean not only “listen (to),” “hear,” but especially “understand,” “welcome,” “accept,” and “obey”’, and he then references Acts 26:29 and BAGD. 14 While it is convenient when a commentary or lexicon interprets for us the sense of a word in a specific verse, it does not solve the problem. In essence, we are being told what the lexicographers think word x means in a given context, but not necessarily why or how they came to that conclusion. What would be more helpful, we argue, is for a lexicon to list structural clues indicating how we can know that the word means y in this usage. A number of newer dictionaries for advanced learners of English have significantly improved their lexical entries through observations made by applying CL to their word meaning analysis. We believe that the time has come to apply many of these advances to our study of the Greek New Testament; it is a fruitful method 15 which has yet to be fully applied to NT lexicography and which will contribute to a Jackson and Zé Amvela, Words, Meaning and Vocabulary, p. 185. Ooi, Computer Corpus Lexicography. 14 Bovon, Luke 2, p. 178. 15 O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 1. 12 13

4

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

better understanding of the meaning of many words and phrases. It would be foolhardy to imagine that CL is the magic bullet that will consistently provide ‘exegetical nuggets’, 16 though it is our argument that it can provide firmer footing for a more accurate understanding of a number of Greek New Testament passages. These will be discussed throughout our study. Hanks’ example of listen is an excellent illustration of our point. Though dictionaries may point out that listen is often followed by to, they usually fail to mention in which situations listen to is used, as opposed to listen for, or listen out for, or just listen by itself. The Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary (COB1) as a corpus-driven dictionary, explains these structural differences as follows: 1. If you listen to someone who is talking or to a sound that you can hear, you give your attention to them or to it. 2. If you listen for something that you are expecting to hear or listen out for it, you keep alert and make an effort to be ready to hear it if it occurs. 3. You say listen when you want someone to pay attention to you because you are going to say something important. 17

There is always the temptation to look through a lexicon, notice the list of possible glosses (one-word English-translation ‘equivalents’), and pick the one that seems to us to fit. But on what are we basing that? Have we taken the time to notice structural pointers to the meaning of a word or phrase in its context? As Porter observes regarding lexica, ‘the fact that the meanings are extrapolated from actual contexts is often forgotten. These contexts are often virtually obliterated in the lexicon and consequently often overlooked by its users, who treat the translational equivalents as a smorgasbord of meanings to sample, selecting the one that is most palatable.’ 18 Much of the research in CL, which includes numerous examples like the ones we will refer to below, has resulted in better dictionaries for those learning English and other major modern languages, but it seems to have had little impact on NT lexica. In the following chapters we will give illustrations from English and Hellenistic Greek and will offer suggestions for improved NT Greek-English lexical entries. One example we will examine is συν- which appears 623 times in the NT as a stand-alone preposition or as a nominal or verbal prefix. As is well known, συν- means with, yet in application things are not quite so simple. First, it is a fallacy to suppose that in every instance we can simply add with to our translations and have a proper understanding of the sense. Second, with in English has numerous different senses (some would say dozens; see 4.5) and we need criteria on which to base our understanding of the meaning of with in an utterance. This is of more than purely theoretical interest since it sheds light on several NT texts. For example, is it proper to 16 Indeed, understanding of biblical languages itself cannot do this, as pointed out by Silva (Silva, God, Language and Scripture, pp. 277–279). 17 Hanks, ‘Definitions and Explanations’, p. 122. 18 Porter, ‘Linguistic Issues in New Testament Lexicography’, p. 53.

CHAPTER 1: SIZING UP PROGRESS IN LEXICOGRAPHY

5

translate ἀλλὰ ποιήσει σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ καὶ τὴν ἔκβασιν (1 Cor 10:13) as ‘but [God] will make a way out when you are tempted’ as a way of getting God off the hook so that we are not saying that God will make a way out along with making the temptation? That is, does CL answer the question of whether σύν is used to express contemporaneity? We will address this specific example below (see 5.5.3). The argument of this study is that NT Greek-English lexica would be improved if, based on findings from the application of CL, we were to add structural lexicological information to our lexical entries, such as differences in meaning when a word is connected to other specific words, phrases or grammatical structures. This information will inform the exegesis of numerous passages, some of which we will examine in the course of this study. Though CL has been used in numerous ways for English and other modern languages, it seems to us that the most fruitful application to Greek New Testament studies is in the area of word meaning (lexical semantics), specifically in its contribution to word sense disambiguation (WSD) and to the study of near synonyms. Practically speaking, we are asking the following questions: Does a word or phrase have a different meaning when that word or phrase is present with certain other words (collocations), with certain grammatical structures (colligations), and with words from certain semantic domains or sets (semantic preference)? If so, can paying attention to the collocations, colligations and semantic preferences help us disambiguate a polyseme (a word with potentially different meanings) in a Greek New Testament passage? Also, when faced with two words which seem to have the same meaning (called synonyms, near synonyms or similonyms) can we distinguish between them by observing their collocations, colligations and semantic preferences? In this study, we answer yes to the above questions and will illustrate our findings using several Greek New Testament words and passages.

1.3 EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY Before we go further it is important to clarify our use of terms. Literature in the fields of linguistics and biblical studies abound with technical terms, sometimes used in very different ways so it is critical at the outset that we understand how we are using a number of important terms. Word refers to a series of letters separated by a space before and after which we normally associate with an entry in a dictionary, such as with or σύν. Though this may seem so obvious as to not require definition, it is actually quite significant. We will elaborate on this below (see 2.4). Lemma refers to a dictionary headword under which a definition is listed, so that the definition listed under, for example, GATHER, is said to apply to all its inflected forms, such as gathers, gathered and gathering, and the meaning listed under συνίστημι applies to all its inflected forms, such as συνέστηκεν, συνεστήσατε and συνεστῶσα. It is normally taken for granted in lexicography that the meaning of a lemma applies also to all its inflected forms, yet some lexicographers who use a CL approach question this and argue that there are often different senses for the different inflected forms. However, in order to avoid confusion, in this study we will still use the term lemma in the traditional way.

6

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Lexeme has been understood in five different ways, to refer to: 1) all the inflected forms of a lemma, 2) only those forms of a polysemous lemma which share the same sense, 3) a distinct inflected form, 19 or 4) related lemmas which share a common meaning; 5) it has also been extended to include idioms. (1) is the most common use of the term and is in essence the practice of our Greek-English NT lexica, in which, for example, the definition given for σωφρονέω would apply to σωφρονεῖν, σωφρονήσατε, σωφρονοῦντα, and its other forms. (2) would mean that come in the sense of TRAVEL or MOVE (He comes here every summer) is a different lexeme than come in the sense of AMOUNT TO (Your total comes to five dollars). (3) would mean that πιστός is a different lexeme than πιστοῖς, and chose a different lexeme than choose. (4) is much rarer and is not normally used by lexicographers, but it is used by Rademaker who says ‘the adjective σώφρων, the noun σωφροσύνη and the verb σωφρονεῖν, etc. can be regarded as belonging to a single lexeme … σωφρονεῖν then generally means “to be σώφρων” in all the relevant senses of that word, and σωφροσύνη is the “quality of being σώφρων”’. 20 (5) is extremely rare, but is used by some to refer to idioms since a single meaning is communicated by the entire group of words (for example, a red herring). 21 In this study we use lexeme in the first sense above, that is, (1) to refer to all inflected forms of a lemma, such that the lexeme ΣΠΕΙΡΩ stands for σπείρω, σπείρει, ἐσπείραμεν, σπαρέντες, and its other forms. In this study there will be an intentional focus on lexical items as introduced by Sinclair. 22 This is a departure from older approaches to lexicography where the focus was on lexemes in sense (1) above. 23 With Sinclair, we use lexical item to mean a ‘unit of language representing a particular area of meaning which has a unique pattern of cooccurrence with other lexical items. It cannot always be identified with an orthographic word.’ 24 It can include single words, word pairs and combinations or multi-word units (MWUs), including idioms which he refers to as multiverbal items. ‘If the collocational behaviour of the unit of language … turns out to be significantly different … from the behaviour of any other unit, it is a lexical item, whatever its form.’ 25 Though we will cover these topics in more detail below, we give here a very brief working definition of three terms: Sense refers to the meaning of a lexical item in usage. 26 Collocation is ‘the more-frequent-than-average co-occurrence of two lexical Cruse, A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics, p. 92. Rademaker, Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-Restraint, p. 252. 21 Cruse, Glossary, p. 92. 22 Sinclair, Jones, and Daley, English Collocation Studies, p. 90. 23 See the discussion in Tucker, ‘So Grammarians Haven’t the Faintest Idea’, p. 175. 24 Sinclair, Jones, and Daley, English Collocation Studies, p. 9. 25 Sinclair, Jones, and Daley, English Collocation Studies, p. 9. 26 We are not using sense (also called sense relations [Cann, Kempson, and Gregoromichelaki, Semantics, p. 5]) in the semi-technical way used by Lyons wherein sense indicates the relationship between a word and other related words, such as its hyponym and hypernym, so that the sense of animal is more general, and dog more specific. Compared with dog, animal has a larger extension 19 20

CHAPTER 1: SIZING UP PROGRESS IN LEXICOGRAPHY

7

items within five words of text’. 27 Colligation is the co-occurrence of a lexical item with a grammatical or syntactical structure (see 5.2).

1.4 HISTORY OF CL In the following section we will discuss the development of CL from 1262–2012. Through this survey we seek to show how CL has emerged as an important field which demands the attention of NT lexicographers. In summary, we find that CL seeks to ascertain the meaning of lexical items by observing their usage in a large collection (corpus) of texts. As Biber, Conrad and Reppen point out, this is a ‘new perspective on language use: studying the use of language characteristics by considering the relevant “association patterns”’. 28 Though we will elaborate on many details, essential characteristics of the approach are that it is empirical (examining patterns found in naturally occurring texts) and makes extensive use of computers for analysis using both quantitative and qualitative techniques. It sheds light on questions of meaning by observing co-occurrences with other words and phrases. 29 It should be pointed out that the following overview is in no sense exhaustive. We have sought to paint the picture of the development of CL in broad strokes, introducing the major players and contributions over the last few decades. Through this approach of listing the history of CL, we show the procession of how it has developed and the wide impact it has had on lexicography, which makes it all the more astounding that it has yet to influence New Testament Greek studies to any significant degree. We admit that the division of dates is somewhat arbitrary and that some developments do not fit neatly into the dates we have chosen. Nevertheless, in general terms the following breakdown does show the progress of CL and its impact on linguistics and lexicography. 30 1.4.1 Early Approaches: CL Before CL (1200s–1700s) In one sense, the idea behind CL was used as early as the first concordance. According to Alexander Cruden, the first concordance to the Bible was produced in Latin by Hugo de S. Charo who died in 1262. This was followed by a Hebrew concordance by Mordecai (Isaac) Nathan in 1448. Concordances to the Greek New Testament were produced by Henry Stephens in 1599 and by Erasmus Schmidius in 1638. For the LXX, the first was published in 1602 by Conrad Kircher and another in 1718 by (encompassing many more entities) and a smaller intension (with fewer defining properties) (Lyons, Language, Meaning and Context, p. 60). 27 Krishnamurthy, ‘Editor’s Preface’, p. xiv. 28 Biber, Conrad and Reppen, Corpus Linguistics, p. 4. 29 Biber, Conrad and Reppen, Corpus Linguistics, pp. 4–6. 30 For example, even though we label 2006–2012 as a period of specialization in CL, some specialization was seen earlier, such as in the proceedings of the 1999 ICAME conference where there were a large number of papers on specific areas such as gender studies, sociolinguistics and discourse analysis (Mair and Hundt, ‘Introduction’, p. 2).

8

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Abraham Trommius. Cruden himself published the first edition of his concordance of the English Bible in 1737. 31 As Stubbs points out, Cruden noted that a concordance is useful in distinguishing various senses of the same word, and seemed generally aware of the importance of collocations and phraseology. 32 In 1790 Samuel Ayscough published An Index to the Remarkable Passages and Words Made Use of by Shakspeare; Calculated to Point Out the Different Meanings to Which the Words are Applied, and as the subtitle indicates, he too was aware of the important linguistic principle that language is use. 33 So we see that as early as the 1700s, the idea was beginning to develop that concordances could be used as a kind of corpus analysis to illustrate how the same word often had different meanings depending on which others words it occurred with. Little can be said about research in CL until a century and a half later. 34 Stubbs comments that significant findings in linguistics and semantics were made, lost and remade from the mid-1700s to the late 1900s. 35 For that reason we will fast forward to the 1930s. 1.4.2 Ideas Begin to Percolate: Precursor to Modern CL Approaches (1933–1958) H. E. Palmer is credited with early findings in CL in his Second Interim Report on English Collocations. 36 Palmer’s report is very difficult to find today and was unavailable to me. However, Stubbs gives a brief overview of the work and states that in this 1933 report Palmer recognized the importance of collocations and the principle that the same word occurs with different senses when used in different phraseology, a principle still very import to modern CL. 37 Many of the findings of CL were anticipated by the British linguist John Rupert Firth in the 1930s–1950s, 38 though their actual discovery was not possible until the development of computers able to analyze large quantities of digitized text. Some of his far-reaching ideas on meaning and collocations which were laid out in his 1951 Cruden, A Complete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, p. 13. Stubbs, ‘Technology and Phraseology’, p. 16. 33 Stubbs, ‘Technology and Phraseology’, p. 16. 34 One exception is Kaeding’s 1897 work which used a corpus of 11 million words for a study of German spelling conventions: ‘den Zählstoff auf 20 000 000 Silben oder fast 11 Millionene Wörter zu bemessen’ (Kaeding, Häufigkeitswörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, p. 6), mentioned in McEnery and Wilson, Corpus Linguistics, p. 3. 35 Stubbs, ‘Technology and Phraseology’, p. 15. 36 Submitted to the Tenth Annual Conference of English Teachers, under the auspices of the Institute for Research in English Teaching, Dept. of Education, Tokyo, October 1933. See Stubbs, ‘Technology and Phraseology,’ p. 17. 37 Stubbs, ‘Technology and Phraseology’, p. 17. 38 Bayer, et al. include Leonard Bloomfield (1933) and Zellig Harris (1951) in this same line. Though they did not use CL per se, they did emphasize ‘empirical observation based on systematic analysis of a corpus of utterances’ (Bayer, et al., ‘Theoretical and Computational Linguistics’, p. 233). 31 32

CHAPTER 1: SIZING UP PROGRESS IN LEXICOGRAPHY

9

article, ‘Modes of Meaning’, 39 and his paper published in 1957, ‘Linguistic Analysis as a Study of Meaning’, 40 were not to be fully developed until later linguists had access to corpora in electronic format. His oft-quoted observation, ‘You shall know a word by the company it keeps’, anticipated the day when large corpora of texts could be analyzed to show how collocations differ according to a word’s different senses. 41 Halliday has paid tribute to Firth’s insights and foresight about lexis 42 and F. R. Palmer refers to his influence and to that of the ‘London school’. 43 His legacy has been well described by Stubbs who summarizes many of the lasting contributions which Firth made to the ‘British tradition’, 44 and by Clear in his chapter, ‘From Firth Principles’. 45 1.4.3 Work Begins: Early Work in English CL (1959–1987) In 1959 Luhn produced a report which was quite significant for computational linguistics in which he introduced the idea of using machine readable texts for generating a key-word-in-context (KWIC) index. 46 This use of early computers represented a major step forward since, even though concordances had been in existence for centuries (see 1.4.1), until this time they had to be produced by hand. This was followed by the first major CL project in the modern sense of the word, the work by Henry Kuçera and W. Nelson Francis 47 on what came to be known as the Brown Corpus, an electronic database of over one million words of American English taken from works published in 1961. 48 A new innovation in CL, the Brown Corpus was a systematic approach to analyzing a corpus made up of texts which were all the same length (in order to standardize comparisons), texts produced the same year Firth, ‘Modes of Meaning’, pp. 190–215. Firth, ‘Linguistic Analysis as a Study of Meaning’, pp. 12–26. 41 Firth, ‘A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, 1930–55’, p. 179. 42 Halliday, ‘Lexis as a Linguistic Level’, pp. 148, 161. 43 F. R. Palmer, ‘Firth and the London School’, pp. 81–84. 44 Stubbs, ‘British Traditions in Text Analysis’, pp. 1–36. Handl and Graf refer to Firth’s approach as ‘British Contextualism’ (Handl and Graf, ‘Collocation, Anchoring, and the Mental Lexicon - An Ontogenetic Perspective’, pp. 119, 127–128). 45 Clear, ‘From Firth Principles’, pp. 271–292. 46 This was first released August 31, 1959, as a report delivered at the 136th Meeting of the American Chemical Society. It was published in American Documentation 11 (4): 288–295 in October 1960, and republished as Luhn, ‘Keyword-in-Context Index for Technical Literature (KWIC Index)’, pp. 159–167. Keyword has also been called search-word (Barnbrook, Language and Computers, p. 67). 47 Kuçera and Francis, Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English. 48 The printed results of the Brown Corpus are listed in Francis and Kučera, Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. (It should be noted that both spellings, Kuçera and Kučera, are found in the literature.) This volume summarizes the various samples chosen for the Brown Corpus commensurate with their goal of representing numerous genres (pp. 4–6), explains their tagging system (pp. 6–15), and lists interesting findings on sentence length and structure (pp. 549–556). 39 40

10

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

(insuring strict synchrony), and texts organized by genre (to represent the amount of works published that year in each genre). As computer use became mainstream, other linguists began benefitting from the approaches of corpus and computational linguistics, namely, Haskel in 1971, 49 Geffroy et al. and Berry-Rogghe in 1973, 50 Kelly and Stone in 1975, 51 and then later Martin et al. in 1983. 52 After alluding to CL and specifically mentioning prototype theory, valency and collocational studies in his 1983 preface, Sterkenburg says that these ‘new orientations … require … a theoretical re-think of the entire subject of lexicography’. 53 Many were recognizing the importance of CL to lexicography and much effort was made to put it into practice. Many of the now well-known first-generation corpora were developed during this period, including the Brown Corpus (covering 1961–1967), the Survey of English Usage (covering 1953–1967), the Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen corpus (LOB; 1960–1967) 54 and London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English (LLC; 1970– 1978). 55 In 1983, in what is to our knowledge the first reference in the area of biblical studies, Silva referred briefly to articles by Firth and by Sinclair and Jones on their understanding of collocations. 56 The most influential researcher by far has been John McHardy Sinclair at the University of Birmingham. His work in these areas began in 1966 with a chapter in In Memory of J. R. Firth 57 and in 1970 with a report that was not actually published until 2004. 58 Sinclair published articles from 1974–1985, 59 but his approach began to become well-known with his first book-length publication in 1987 60 and with the development of the highly influential COBUILD (the Collins Birmingham University International Language Database) corpus. 61 This was a watershed event in that Haskel, ‘Collocations as a Measure of Stylistic Variety’, pp. 159–168. Geffroy, et al., ‘Lexicometric Analysis of Co-Occurrences’, pp. 113–133; Berry-Rogghe, ‘The Computation of Collocations and Their Relevance in Lexical Studies’, pp. 103–112. 51 Kelly and Stone, Computer Recognition of English Word Senses. 52 Martin, Al and Sterkenburg, ‘On the Processing of a Text Corpus’, pp. 77–87. 53 Martin, Al and Sterkenburg, ‘On the Processing of a Text Corpus’, p. ix. 54 For an explanation of the sampling principles used (pp. 2–6) and tagging method (pp. 6– 15), as well as a list of most of the words in the LOB with frequency data, see Johansson and Hofland, Tag Frequencies and Word Frequencies. 55 For an overview of the development of corpora over the past 25 years, see Renouf, ‘Corpus Development 25 Years On’, pp. 27–49 56 Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, pp. 141–143. 57 Sinclair, ‘Beginning the Study of Lexis’, pp. 410–430. 58 Sinclair, Jones and Daley, English Lexical Studies; Sinclair, Jones and Daley, English Collocation Studies. 59 Sinclair and Jones, ‘English Lexical Collocations’, pp. 15–61; Sinclair, ‘Computational Text Analysis at the University of Birmingham’, pp. 13–16; Sinclair, ‘Reflections on Computer Corpora in English Language Research’, pp. 1–6; Sinclair, ‘Naturalness in Language’, pp. 203– 210; Sinclair, ‘Basic Computer Processing of Long Texts’, pp. 185–203. 60 Sinclair, ed., Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project. 61 Renouf, ‘Corpus Development’, pp. 1–40. 49 50

CHAPTER 1: SIZING UP PROGRESS IN LEXICOGRAPHY

11

COBUILD was the first to examine corpora with a view to lexicography in an effort to produce a dictionary based on corpus-driven findings. 1.4.4 Building up Steam: CL Garners Interest and Support (1988–1996) Sinclair’s influence has been significant; so much so that Stubbs refers to the ‘FirthHalliday-Sinclair line of development’. 62 Sinclair and his team developed COBUILD, which is considered a second-generation corpus 63 and which led to numerous dictionaries and lexicogrammatical publications in the COBUILD series. 64 As time progressed, Sinclair and his COBUILD research colleagues continued to provide insight and challenge in the fields of linguistics and lexicography. 65 His 1991 book laid out in practical terms his approach to CL and its contributions to lexicography and grammar. 66 Other researchers followed with further contributions to CL, including Leitner’s 1992 work on practical methods, 67 Ravin on computation, 68 and Spear’s 1993 dictionary as a practical application in the area of verbal phrases. 69 Not one but two Festschriften for Sinclair appeared in 1993, 70 showing how quickly and broadly his ideas had taken hold. Data, Description, Discourse (an alliteration reminiscent of the title of Sinclair’s book from two years earlier 71) contained chapters from notable scholars Halliday, 72 Johansson, 73 and Coulthard. 74 As can be seen from the citations below, the editors of Text and Technology (Baker, 75 Francis, 76 and Tognini-Bonelli 77) and several contributors (Hunston, 78 B. Louw, 79 Partington 80 and Stubbs 81) would themselves Stubbs, ‘British Traditions in Text Analysis’, p. 1. Adolphs, Introducing Electronic Text Analysis, pp. 29–30. 64 Sinclair, Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary; Sinclair, Collins COBUILD Essential English Dictionary; Sinclair, Collins COBUILD Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs; Sinclair, Collins COBUILD English Grammar. 65 For example, Sinclair, ‘Shared Knowledge’, pp. 489–500. 66 Sinclair, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. 67 Leitner, ed., New Directions in English Language Corpora. 68 Ravin, ‘Synonymy from a Computational Point of View’, pp. 397–419. 69 Spears, NTC’s Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs and Other Idiomatic Verbal Phrases. 70 Baker, Francis and Tognini-Bonelli, eds, Text and Technology; Hoey, ed., Data, Description, Discourse. 71 Sinclair, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. 72 Halliday, ‘Quantitative Studies and Probabilities in Grammar’, pp. 1–25. 73 Johansson, ‘“Sweetly Oblivious”’, pp. 39–49. 74 Coulthard, ‘On Beginning the Study of Forensic Texts’, pp. 86–97. 75 Baker, ‘Corpus Linguistics and Translational Studies’, pp. 233–250. 76 Francis, ‘A Corpus-Driven Approach to Grammar’, pp. 137–156. 77 Tognini-Bonelli, ‘Interpretative Nodes in Discourse’, pp. 193–212. 78 Hunston, ‘Professional Conflict’, pp. 115–134. 79 Louw, ‘Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer?’, pp. 157–176. 80 Partington, ‘Corpus Evidence of Language Change’, pp. 177–192. 81 Stubbs, ‘British Traditions in Text Analysis’. 62 63

12

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

become major contributors to CL. These publications show that CL was emerging as a discipline in its own right and that it offered serious contributions to the fields of linguistics and lexicography. The following few years saw the arrival of Kjellmer’s 2,200 page collocation dictionary (1994), 82 a practical application of CL carried out on the Brown Corpus, and Stubbs’ outstanding text in 1996, which explained in detail the methods behind CL. 83 Kjellmer’s work made accessible to the public the findings of CL which showed how English words and phrases combined in usage and expressed different meanings depending on collocations. Unfortunately, biblical studies in general and NT lexicography specifically had yet to be influenced. P. Cotterell and M. Turner in 1989, 84 Silva in his 1994 revised edition, 85 M. Turner again in 1995 86 and Porter in 1996 87 mentioned the importance of collocations for lexical semantics, but did not bring CL to bear on the issue. Writing in 2001 in the second edition of his famous book on lexicography, with the advantage of looking back toward 1984 and his first edition, Landau comments that from 1985–1995, ‘the world of dictionaries underwent a dramatic change … The greatest and most far-reaching impact of this change has been in the development of huge electronic collections of naturally occurring language (called corpora …).’ 88 1.4.5 Gaining Traction: CL’s Influence Spreads (1997–1999) The influence of CL on lexicology continued to spread, as can be seen by the appearance of four publications in 1998: the volume on phraseology in the OSLL series contained chapters by Mel’čuk 89 on collocations and by Moon 90 and Altenberg 91 on corpus studies; the volume on corpus linguistics in the CAtL series by Biber, Conrad and Reppen 92 served as an introduction and overview; and two volumes in the ETEL series, one by Ooi on lexicography 93 and one by Oakes on the highly important subject of handling statistics in CL. 94 Johansson has been an influential voice in CL (see ICAME below) for years and a Festschrift for him in 1999 contained CL-based articles by numerous influential Kjellmer, A Dictionary of English Collocations. Stubbs, Text and Corpus Analysis. 84 Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, pp. 143, 155, 160, 189, 317. 85 Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning (Revised and expanded ed.), pp. 193–198. 86 Turner, ‘Modern Linguistics and the New Testament’, pp. 151–152. 87 Porter, ‘Linguistic Issues in NT Lexicography’, pp. 71, 73. 88 Landau, Dictionaries, p. 2. 89 Mel’čuk, ‘Collocations and Lexical Functions’, pp. 23–53. 90 Moon, ‘Frequencies and Forms of Phrasal Lexemes in English’, pp. 79–100. 91 Altenberg, ‘On the Phraseology of Spoken English’, pp. 101–122. 92 Biber, Conrad and Reppen, Corpus Linguistics. 93 Ooi, Computer Corpus Lexicography. 94 Oakes, Statistics for Corpus Linguistics. 82 83

CHAPTER 1: SIZING UP PROGRESS IN LEXICOGRAPHY

13

scholars, including Aarts, 95 Kjellmer 96 and Leech. 97 Additionally, many of the practical findings of CL were incorporated into the 1999 grammar by Biber et al., 98 making available to the public practical findings from CL which shed light on English grammar usage. 1.4.6 Going Mainstream: CL’s Influence Explodes (2000–2005) The new millennium saw a veritable explosion of interest in CL. A number of significant series were produced, among them SCL published by John Benjamins which includes volumes by Tognini-Bonelli on CL in general, 99 and by Hunston and Francis on the contribution of CL to our understanding of grammar. 100 In 2000 Ravin and Leacock edited an anthology which included computational approaches to polysemy. 101 Also in 2000, the publication of O’Donnell’s article marked the first application to biblical studies. 102 In 2001, chapters in the Festschrift for Michael Hoey utilized CL to explore lexical patterns 103 and Stubbs produced a ‘handson’ guide to CL as it applies to lexical semantics. 104 Hunston’s 2002 volume in the CAL series provided an overview of various applications for CL, including its influence on the production of dictionaries and grammars and its contribution to foreign language teaching. 105 By the early 2000s, the use of electronic corpora was mainstream. In 2003 Cermák stated, ‘Since the arrival of corpora, a fundamental shift of priorities has taken place, however, and corpora now serve the purpose, alongside others, of data-collection’. 106 He goes on to state, ‘There is hardly any alternative to corpora as the primary and main resource for lexicographers now, and the number of corpus-based dictionaries is steadily growing’. 107 This influence can be seen in the 2003 publication of Oxford’s handbook on computational linguistics. 108 Aarts, ‘The Description of Language Use’, pp. 1–20. Kjellmer, ‘As Is’, pp. 79–92. 97 Leech, ‘The Distribution of Function of Vocatives in American and British English Conversation’, pp. 107–118. 98 Biber, et al., Grammar of Spoken and Written English. 99 Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work. 100 Hunston and Francis, Pattern Grammar. 101 Ravin and Leacock, Polysemy. 102 O’Donnell, ‘Designing and Compiling a Register-Balanced Corpus of Hellenistic Greek for the Purpose of Linguistic Description and Investigation’, pp. 255–297. 103 Hunston, ‘Colligation, Lexis, Pattern, and Text’, pp. 14–33; Renouf, ‘Lexical Signals of Word Relations’, pp. 36–54. 104 Stubbs, Words and Phrases. 105 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics. 106 Cermák, ‘Source Materials for Dictionaries’, p. 18. 107 Cermák, ‘Source Materials for Dictionaries’, p. 20. 108 Mitkov, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics. 95 96

14

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Sinclair continued to be a driving force in CL and in 2003 published his most practical and helpful ‘how to’ book, 109 followed a year later by another significant volume with Ronald Carter. 110 That year Halliday collaborated with Teubert, Yallop and Čermáková to produce a short introduction to CL in the Open Linguistics Series. 111 As Svartvik stated in his address to ICAME in 2004, CL had ‘now gone global’. 112 1.4.7 Specializing and Diversifying: CL Produces Specialty Studies (2006–2012) It is outside the scope of this study to list all the work now being done in CL since it has grown and diversified to an astonishing size. CL has become so well established that in 2006 Renouf and Kehoe could already speak of ‘the changing face of corpus linguistics’. 113 Suffice it to say that over the last several years large numbers of specialized studies in CL have appeared and a number of significant series have been published. In a 2006 volume of the Routledge Applied Linguistics series, McEnery et al. discussed the application of CL to various areas including register and genre analysis, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and forensic linguistics, and even had a special section on ‘swearing in modern British English’. 114 CL had become a major field and was interacting with other disciplines, such as cognitive linguistics 115 and cross-cultural studies. 116 The SCL series continued to publish notable works, including a 2009 anthology on the interface between grammar and lexis, 117 and Philip’s 2011 volume on figurative language, especially as used with colors (e.g., blue in the face, the grass is always greener, etc.). 118 Of note also are the LCSPL series, especially the 2010 volume on the state of the art in CL, 119 and the RACL series including an entire volume on semantic prosody in 2010 120 and Hunston’s work on evaluative language in

Sinclair, Reading Concordances. Sinclair, Trust the Text. 111 Halliday, et al., Lexicology and Corpus Linguistics. 112 Svartvik, ‘Corpus Linguistics 25+ Years On’, p. 15. Though not published until 2007, the papers in this volume came from the ICAME conference at the University of Verona, 19–23 May 2004 (see p. 1 of that volume). 113 Renouf and Kehoe, eds, The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics, p. 3. 114 McEnery, Xiao and Tono, Corpus-Based Language Studies. One can only marvel at the narrow scope and specificity of some studies, such as the Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Language (http://www.hd.uib.no/colt/). 115 As the name suggests, the emphasis of cognitive linguistics is understanding how linguistics interfaces with the human mind and the way in which it conceptualizes or perceives the world (Trask, Key Concepts, pp. 37–38). 116 See Granger and Meunier, Phraseology. 117 Römer and Schulze, eds, Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface. 118 Philip, Colouring Meaning. 119 Gries, Wulff and Davies, Corpus-Linguistic Applications. 120 Stewart, Semantic Prosody; see our note on semantic prosody at 3.7.2 below. 109 110

CHAPTER 1: SIZING UP PROGRESS IN LEXICOGRAPHY

15

2011. 121 CL had become so mainstream that in 2010 Murphy could say, ‘Modern dictionaries are typically based on … corpus research.’ 122 Not only has CL specialized, but the size of the corpora has dramatically changed over the last three decades. From the Brown Corpus of one million words in 1967, there is now talk of using the Web itself as a corpus, whose size is almost immeasurable. Renouf and WebCorp have been on the cutting edge of this research. 123 1.4.8 Projects and Conferences In the previous sections we have focused on the literature in books and journal articles, yet we would be remiss if we did not also mention that there have been numerous projects and conferences focused on developing corpora and corpus studies. 124 The corpora continue to grow as computers become more powerful and as separate organizations collaborate. Back in 2003 Cermák referred to the corpora running into the hundreds of millions of words, such as the British National Corpus (BNC) and the Czech National Corpus (CNC) which had 100 million words, as third-generation corpora. Now in 2013 with the growth of corpora, including the two billion word Oxford English Corpus (OEC; http://oxforddictionaries.com/words/the-oxford-englishcorpus) and the 155 billion word Google books section of the COCA (http://googlebooks.byu.edu/), we might be tempted to already begin speaking of fourth-generation corpora. Conferences 125 and associations 126 dedicated to both theoretical and applied CL have been carried on for years. Any list printed here would quickly become out-ofdate, yet information is readily available online. We can see that CL has grown from being a novel idea in the 1930s to now becoming a burgeoning discipline. It is a wonder that it has yet to catch on in biblical studies. Hunston, Corpus Approaches to Evaluation. Murphy, Lexical Meaning, p. 20. 123 See http://wse1.webcorp.org.uk/ and Renouf, ‘From Super-Corpus to Cyber-Corpus’, pp. 43–45. 124 Some of the more significant projects include the Bank of English (BoE; http://www.titania.bham.ac.uk/), the International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English (ICAME; http://icame.uib.no/), the University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language (UCREL; http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/), and the UCL Survey of English Usage (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/index.htm). 125 A few of the more influential are the Corpus Linguistics Conference (http://cl2011.org.uk/archives.html), International Conference on Linguistic Informatics (see Kawaguchi and Takagaki, eds, Spoken Language Corpus and Linguistic Informatics), Research on Computational Linguistics (ROCLING) International Conference, International Conference on Computational Lexicography, and Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC; http://www.xanthi.ilsp.gr/lrec/default.htm). 126 For example, the American Association of Corpus Linguistics and the Association for Computational Linguistics. 121 122

16

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

1.4.9 Other Languages The early impetus in CL which began with work in English has been followed by studies in numerous other languages. Research on German corpora has been extensive. 127 Referring to many of the earlier English authors mentioned above, Stathi has stated, ‘Die Korpuslinguistik, die in den 1980er Jahren im englischsprachigen Raum ihren Ursprung fand und sich seitdem rasant entwickelt hat, stellt für die Sprachwissenschaft sowohl eine große Herausforderung als auch eine große Chance dar.’ 128 Scandinavian scholars have also been very influential with research done in Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish. 129 Other major languages have also benefited from CL: French, 130 Spanish, 131 Dutch, 132 (modern) Greek, 133 Italian, 134 Japanese, 135 Chinese, 136 and others. 137 It is interesting to note that studies have been done also in lesser-known languages, such as Albanian. 138 127 See for example, Bennett, et al., ‘Annotating a Multi-Genre Corpus of Early Modern German’; Bader, ‘Word Order in German’, pp. 717–762; Dietrich, et al., Lexikalische Semantik und Korpuslinguistik. 128 Stathi, ‘Korpusbasierte Analyse der Semantik von Idiomen’. 129 See the various contributions in Hasselgård and Oksefjell, eds, Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Note also the English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus (EPNC), http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/services/omc/enpc/. 130 See, for example, Stein, ‘Syntactic Annotation of Old French Text Corpora’, pp. 157– 171. French journals include Corpus (http://corpus.revues.org/), Discours: Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique (http://discours.revues.org/) and Semen: Revue de sémio-linguistique des textes et discours (http://semen.revues.org/). French corpora include Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien (CFPP), Corpaix, Corpus de Référence du Français Parlé, Corpus Evolutif de Référence du Français (CERF) and C-ORAL-ROM (see Deulofeu and Blanche-Benveniste, ‘C-Oral-Rom’, pp. 181– 198; Branca-Rosoff, et al., ‘Discours sur la Ville. Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien des Années 2000 [CFPP2000]’; Benzitoun, et al., ‘Quand un Corpus Rencontre un Adjectif du Troisième Type’, pp. 245–264). See also Durand, ‘Préface: Le Français à la Lumière des Corpus’, pp. 1–2. 131 See Fernández-Ordóñez, ‘La Grammaire Dialectale de l’Espagñol à Travers le Corpus Oral et Sonore de l’Espagnol Rural (COSER, Corpus Oral y Sonoro del Espagñol Rural)’, pp. 81–114; Parodi, ed., Academic and Professional Discourse Genres in Spanish. See also http://www.lllf.uam.es:8888/coser/. C-ORAL-ROM has a Spanish component (MorenoSandoval and Guirao, ‘Morpho-Syntactic Tagging of the Spanish C-ORAL-ROM Corpus’, pp. 199–218). 132 For example, Nelleke, ‘The Spoken Dutch Corpus’. 133 For example, Hatzigeorgiu, et al., ‘Design and Implementation of the Online ILSP Greek Corpus’. 134 See, for example, Franziska, ‘Investigating Interrogation in the Northern Italian Area’, pp. 137–164; Augendre, ‘La Dislocation en Italien’, pp. 221–244. C-ORAL-ROM has an Italian component (Cresti and Moneglia, eds, C-ORAL-ROM, pp. 71–110). 135 Kawaguchi, ‘Foundations of Center for Usage-Based Linguistic Information’, p. 3. 136 See, for example, Hsu, Chang and Su, ‘Computational Tools and Resources for Linguistic Studies’, pp. 1–40; Sun, et al., ‘Hua Yu’.

CHAPTER 1: SIZING UP PROGRESS IN LEXICOGRAPHY

17

1.5 APPLICATION TO THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT It is the argument of this study that much which has been learned through structural lexicological examination of English and other modern languages can and should be applied to the Greek of the New Testament. At the time when this research was completed (March 2013) there were almost no corpus-based or corpus-driven studies in biblical studies. 139 The one of which we are aware is O’Donnell’s on the Greek New Testament. 140 In his preface he refers to his own work as ‘a prolegomena [sic] to the 137 In 2002 the Europarl project included corpora in Danish, German, Greek, English, Spanish, French, Finnish, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese and Swedish (Koehn, ‘Europarl: A Multilingual Corpus for Evaluation of Machine Translation’; Koehn, ‘Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation’) and in 2010 had expanded to also include Bulgarian, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovene (http://www.statmt.org/europarl/). UBLI has developed corpora for Russian, Malaysian and Turkish as well (Kawaguchi, ‘Foundations of Center for Usage-Based Linguistic Information’, p. 7). 138 Murzaku, ‘Does Albanian Have a Third Person Personal Pronoun?’, pp. 243–255. 139 To our knowledge, this approach has not been applied to biblical Hebrew or Aramaic. Despite the use of ‘corpus’ in the subtitle, Davies’ two volumes on Hebrew inscriptions (Corpus and Concordance) are not very helpful from a CL point of view. Many of the texts are very fragmentary and thus provide very short concordance lines, but more importantly no attempt is made to provide definitions of words and phrases based on their meanings in specified collocations and colligations, which can also be said of the many other concordances to the Hebrew Bible. Andersen and Forbes (Biblical Hebrew Visualized) use a corpus linguistic approach but do not specifically apply it for word sense disambiguation in a lexical semantic investigation. Forbes applies corpus linguistics in discussing POS issues in ‘Squishes, Clines, and Fuzzy Signs’, pp. 105–140. Van Keulen and Van Peursen’s edited volume (Corpus Linguistics and Textual History) is an application of corpus linguistics focusing on textual criticism for the Peshitta and the Hebrew Bible. (Oosting Reinoud’s The Role of Zion/Jerusalem in Isaiah 40–55 came to my attention after the research for this project had already been completed.) For an example in a Semitic (though not biblical) language, see Ebeling, ‘Corpora, Corpus Linguistics, and the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature’, pp. 33–50. 140 Though acknowledging that Boyer’s studies (Boyer, ‘First-Class Conditions’; Boyer, ‘Second-Class Conditions in New Testament Greek’; Boyer, ‘Third (and Fourth) Class Conditions’; Boyer, ‘Other Conditional Elements in New Testament Greek’; Boyer, ‘The Classification of Particles’; Boyer, ‘The Classification of Infinitives’; Boyer, ‘The Classification of Subjunctives’; Boyer, ‘A Classification of Imperatives’; Boyer, ‘The Classification of Optatives’; Boyer, ‘Relative Clauses in the Greek New Testament’) do not employ a ‘linguistic framework or explanation for the results’, O’Donnell does refer to them as examples of corpus linguistics due to the extensiveness of the database used and the employment of computational analysis (O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 62). Though not biblical studies, Lorente Fernandez examines Isocrates in her study of verbal tense in ancient Greek (Lorente Fernandez, L’aspect verbal en grec ancien) and Dehoux investigates the Greek verb from Homer to the fourth century in a corpus of 140,000 verb forms (Dehoux, Le verbe grec

18

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

application of corpus linguistics to Hellenistic Greek, and the Greek of the New Testament in particular, laying a foundation for future work’. 141 Our hope is that this present study can build on that foundation and form part of the needed ‘future work’. O’Donnell’s work is a masterpiece and has done us an invaluable service in laying a foundation for using corpus linguistics in NT studies. His work introduces the use of corpus linguistics in numerous areas, including authorship attribution (Chapter 2), textual and source criticism (Chapter 5), lexicography (Chapter 6), and grammar and discourse analysis (Chapter 7), whereas this study focuses specifically on lexical semantics and the contribution of collocations in lexicology. It is an application of his observation that ‘this kind of collocational analysis that combines lexical, grammatical and semantic elements would seem likely to yield rich patterns of co-occurrence not immediately recognizable through the traditional inflected concordance listing.’ 142 In his 2000 article, 143 updated in 2005, 144 O’Donnell gives a detailed suggestion of which texts should be included in a corpus which would be representative of the Greek of the New Testament. We agree with his suggestions (see our 2.6) and have compiled a similar corpus (see 2.12, 2.13, 2.14) which is eight times larger. The increase in size is necessary in order to find a sufficient number of uses (see 2.3) to examine for collocations (see 5.1) with the goal of forming sentential definitions (see 3.3) for the lexeme under investigation. In this study, we analyze our corpus using WordSmith and Logos Bible Software, the latter being especially useful after their edition of Perseus became available in 2012 (see 2.6), which was not available at the time of O’Donnell’s monograph. O’Donnell uses CL to examine differences between ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω. 145 We have taken his approach a step further in this study. We examine several Greek lexemes using a similar approach, yet we focus on using collocations (see 5.1), colligations (see 5.2) and semantic preference (see 8.1) to disambiguate polysemes (see 3.7) and writing lexical definitions (see 3.3) This study is a preliminary investigation as a first step in making up this lack of application of CL to the Greek New Testament. We will use CL as we seek to answer the following questions: ‘Do different senses of a polyseme 146 coincide with different collocations and colligations of that lexeme?’ ‘Can the differences in meaning between near synonyms be seen in the differences of their collocations and colligations?’ ancien. 2e éd.) and aspectual choice in a corpus of 50,000 words (Dehoux, Etudes sur l’aspect verbal en grec ancien). 141 O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. xi-xii. 142 O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 334–335. 143 O’Donnell, ‘Designing and Compiling a Register-Balanced Corpus of Hellenistic Greek for the Purpose of Linguistic Description and Investigation’. 144 O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 103–137, 164–165. 145 O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 314–396. 146 We assume the reality of polysemy (see 3.7). Aside from Ruhl (On Monosemy), monosemy has few defenders today. For a modified and updated approach to monosemy, see Cappelen and Lepore, Insensitive Semantics.

CHAPTER 1: SIZING UP PROGRESS IN LEXICOGRAPHY

19

One of Sinclair’s arguments is that different meanings coincide with different grammatical forms and different syntactic structures. His bald statement that every distinct meaning has a distinct form 147 is incorrect if taken in an absolute sense. 148 Yet his more nuanced approach, found in many of his writings and those of his students and colleagues, has much to commend it. 149 That is, the different senses of polysemes often occur with different collocations and colligations with that lexeme. 150 We will demonstrate this claim below. In practical lexicographical and exegetical terms, it is not valid to uncritically choose a sense from those listed in a lexicon entry without first considering the grammatical form of the lexeme and the words collocated with it. 151 This is a temptation when using NT lexica. We can come to a given verse and when we are puzzled over the meaning of a certain word, we can open a lexicon, scan through the entry and pick the definition which makes the most sense to us. However, this approach is dangerous when we forget to pay attention to the form of the word in question and to the other words with which it is collocated. In looking at the lexical entry in order to determine how our word is being used, we should pay attention to the forms and collocations. For example, it may be that it has sense x for the most part when it occurs with certain other words (collocation) or is joined with a word in a certain grammatical form (colligation). It may be that sense y may be used predominantly with the plural and rarely with the singular (for example, eye vs. eyes). Stubbs’ comments are instructive:

Sinclair, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, pp. 6–7. Likewise, Cheng’s comment that ‘form and meaning are inseparable,’ though not wide of the mark, is still an overstatement (Exploring Corpus Linguistics, p. 6). It is wiser to nuance our claim; a better option would be: ‘form and meaning are often related’. In the context of verbal aspect, Porter says something similar: ‘one must begin from the dictum that where there is a difference of form there is a difference in meaning or function’ (‘In Defence of Verbal Aspect’, p. 34). Porter presumably means by ‘difference of form’ that the present tense form of a lexeme differs in meaning from the aorist tense form of the same lexeme. Presumably he does not extended this literally to the point where a first person singular would differ in meaning from a third person singular of the same tense form of the same lexeme. 149 However, we find unpersuasive, for example, Esser’s study of the BNC in which he claims that trees (in the plural) is often used when meaning a tree in the sense of a PLANT, but hardly if ever when meaning tree in the sense of a DRAWING (that is, a graph or chart like a family tree), and that understanding (as a present continuous verb following BE) is used to mean 1) to know the meaning of what someone is telling you, and 2) to know how or why something happened, but that it is not used to mean 3) to know the language someone speaks, 4) to know how someone feels, and 5) to think that something is the case (Esser, ‘Corpus Linguistics and the Linguistic Sign,’ pp. 91–101). 150 See O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 339, 363. 151 For example, see 5.5.6 where we point out that the relatively rare sense of σύν to express manner seemingly always occurs with an anarthrous abstract noun. 147 148

20

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT For a small example, apparently innocent, but far-reaching in its implications, Sinclair shows the non-equivalence of singular and plural forms of nouns, by documenting the different patterning of eye and eyes. “There is hardly any common environment” between the two word forms, and they “do not normally have the capacity to replace each other”. The plural co-occurs with adjectives such as blue, brown, covetous, manic … Such analyses show that the co-patterning of different forms and senses of lemmas and of syntax is much more detailed than is generally shown in grammars. And new links are being proposed between lemmas, word forms and syntactic patterns. What corpus study shows is that lexis and syntax are totally interdependent. Not only different words, but different forms of a single lemma, have different grammatical distributions. 152

Just as corpus studies in English have shown the different uses of eye vs. eyes, CL studies in the Greek New Testament will reveal similar patterns. This study seeks to apply to the Greek New Testament principles which have been worked out by Sinclair, Stubbs, Francis, Hunston, Hoey and others in the area of structural lexicology in English. In the following chapters we will examine several topics. In Chapter 2 we will explain the method used in this study. In Chapter 3 we will focus on polysemy using English examples, examining how various senses of polysemes are expressed through differences in collocation and colligation. Chapter 4 will discuss the concept of units of meaning. Following this we will apply the principles of word sense disambiguation (WSD) through a study of collocations and colligations (Chapters 5–7) and semantic preferences and semantic sets (Chapter 8). Chapter 9 will conclude our study.

1.6 LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY FOR HELLENISTIC GREEK Throughout the CL literature there are numerous English examples given. These examples have been culled from decades of study and are used as illustrations to explain phenomena which occur broadly in the English language. Most of the literature concentrates on a specific word or phrase, or more commonly on a certain lexicogrammatical concept which is then illustrated with several lexical items. Multiyear, in-depth studies of an entire language (e.g., English) are massive enterprises undertaken by multi-person teams and culminating in numerous publications, such as those of COBUILD. A project of that nature requires many researchers, many years and generous funding. It is outside the scope of this study to look at the Greek of the New Testament as a whole. For practical reasons we have limited our study to an examination of a few lexical items and a few NT passages. This is another way of saying that the findings of this study should be seen as tentative and preliminary. It is offered as an example of how CL can be applied to a few areas as observed in a relatively small corpus of representative Hellenistic Greek in hopes that it will spur 152

496.

Stubbs, Text and Corpus Analysis, p. 38, referring to Sinclair, ‘Shared Knowledge’, pp. 494–

CHAPTER 1: SIZING UP PROGRESS IN LEXICOGRAPHY

21

others on to apply CL to other lexical items in an even larger corpus. The challenge before us remains to produce a true lexicogrammar 153 of the entire Greek New Testament based on CL.

1.7 CONCLUSION TO CHAPTER 1 In this chapter we introduced the contribution of CL to lexicography and presented a challenge to apply this approach to Greek New Testament lexical semantics. We claim that applying structural lexicology to the Greek New Testament will assist us in WSD and that WSD information about collocations, colligations and semantic preference should be included in our NT Greek-English lexica. We briefly traced the history of CL, showing its influence on modern-day lexicography, and yet its near absence in biblical studies. In Chapter 2 we propose the details of a method which we will use to apply structural lexicology to the Greek New Testament.

153 Many exponents of CL argue that lexis and grammar are so intertwined and interdependent that, rather than publishing lexica separately from grammars, we should seek to integrate them as fully as possible into one resource, which deals with them together (Francis, ‘A Corpus-Driven Approach to Grammar’, p. 139). In print editions it is usually not possible to produce them as literally one source, yet with the advent of electronic and online dictionaries, it is becoming more feasible. COBUILD has been a front runner in the application of this approach as they produced a CD which contained all the various aspects of a lexicogrammar (Sinclair, Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, Lingea Software 3.0; Sinclair, Collins COBUILD Thesaurus, Lingea Software 3.0; Sinclair, Collins COBUILD English Grammar, Lingea Software 3.0; Sinclair, Collins COBUILD English Usage, Lingea Software 3.0; Sinclair, Collins COBUILD Wordbank, Lingea Software 3.0). It has yet to be attempted for the Greek New Testament; see our suggestion at 9.2.

CHAPTER 2: A METHOD FOR APPLYING CL TO GREEK NEW TESTAMENT LEXICAL SEMANTICS 2.1 THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS CL is both a method and a theory. O’Donnell states, ‘Corpus linguistics can be defined as a series of methodological and theoretical characteristics guiding the computational investigation of examples of naturally occurring language.’ 1 This simple sentence is very carefully worded and deals with three significant issues in CL. First, CL is a method (see 2.20) of searching a body of texts, which have been carefully assembled to accurately represent a given slice of language, organizing it in concordance lines based on word combinations, and then making observations in order to more clearly understand the behavior and meaning of these words. Second, it stems from a theory which says that we can best understand words and phrases, not by relying on intuition nor by inventing sentences which use the words and phrases, but by examining a large number of usages in sentences when people were ‘just using’ the language, when they made no conscious effort to use it in a certain way. Third, for the most part the benefits of this approach were not seen until the advent of computers which could organize and search large bodies of spoken and written texts; thus we are still learning about this area as computer storage and speed increase and as scholars cooperate in sharing what they have learned using CL. CL has been hotly debated the last few decades and one of the main reasons is that it came on the scene at a time when the reigning approach to grammar and semantics involved seeking to discover the structure of language through native speaker intuition and examination of invented sentences. In this approach, 2 it was felt that this was best accomplished through the intuition of a native speaker. 3 In other words, linguists would think of a sentence and their competence as native speakers would tell them if it was grammatical and well-formed. They then sought to find the O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 1. Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, pp. 3–4; Salkie, ‘The Chomskyan Revolutions’, pp. 109–110. For a summary of four strong arguments in favor of intuition, see Ruhl, On Monosemy, p. 13. For limitations of written corpora and the need for native speaker intuition, see Béjoint, ‘On Field-Work in Lexicography’, pp. 72–73. 3 Stubbs, ‘British Traditions in Text Analysis’, p. 3. 1 2

23

24

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

reasons why it was or was not, and laid out the grammatical rules which explained the reasons. This approach has often been disparagingly labeled armchair linguistics. This view is certainly appropriate at times, but a different approach was developed as well. 4 Whereas most approaches to linguistics at that time were based on the intuition and memory of the linguist, a new possibility arose of using computers to examine large quantities of digitized texts. With the emergence of accessible and powerful computers, CL began to develop in the 1960s–1970s. This newer approach, sometimes touted as the empirical view, saw the shortcomings of intuition. For example, A. Tyler and V. Evans mention how their intuition of the primary meaning of over differs from Dewell (‘higher than and above’) and Lakoff (‘above and across’). 5 Intuition varies from person to person. Corpus data often leads the observer to facts that are ‘both unexpected and inevitable … unexpected in that native speakers cannot produce the facts from introspection, but inevitable once it is realised why a particular search method finds these phrases’. 6 Intuition will always be an important part of lexical semantics as the native speaker seeks to understand a lexical item, but it should always be checked and validated by examination of data (that is, the corpus). 7 This adds the benefit of empiricism, 8 and yet intuition is needed to interpret the empirical data. Corpora show usage, but they do not explain the meaning in and of themselves: ‘The corpus simply offers the researcher plenty of examples; only intuition can interpret them.’ 9 Leech is surely correct when he calls us to use corpus plus intuition rather than corpus or intuition. 10 Some might argue that all study of the Greek New Testament is corpus study since by definition it is studying the closed corpus of the Greek New Testament and it generally includes comparisons with other Hellenistic Greek to determine meaning. However there is a difference between studying a corpus (or more accurately, an archive 11) and using CL principles to study a corpus, and this will become apparent throughout this study. CL is based on the premise that careful, systematic investigation of a well-chosen corpus is essential for observing the behavior and sense of lexical items. In this chapter we explain the approach behind this study which is based on the understanding that Carter, ‘Introduction’, p. 2; Stubbs, Text and Corpus Analysis, p. 23. Tyler and Evans, The Semantics of English Prepositions, p. 11. See also the example given in Stubbs, Words and Phrases, p. 71. 6 Stubbs, ‘An Example of Frequent English Phraseology’, p. 94. 7 Partington, Patterns and Meanings, p. 1. 8 Adolphs, Introducing Electronic Text Analysis, p. 6. 9 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, p. 23. 10 Leech, ‘The Distribution of Function of Vocatives’, p. 85. In addition to corpus and intuition, context (developed in 3.6) is highly important as well. 11 An archive is a collection of texts ‘with no particular organizational structure or selection criteria for the texts they contain’ (O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 105). 4 5

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

25

the corpus must be of adequate size (2.3) and representative character (2.6), and must be examined systematically (2.20). Also, in order to ensure that the corpora on which we base our study are sufficiently similar to the Greek New Testament we need to establish that the texts are sufficiently similar in chronology (synchronic, 2.8) and genre (see 2.5).

2.2 PURPOSE OF THE CORPUS Before we discuss the specifics of the corpus, we must first address the issue of purpose. A corpus is defined by C. Meyer as ‘a collection of texts or parts of text upon which some general linguistic analysis can be conducted’ 12 and the purpose of that analysis drives the process of text collection. For example, many corpora in English have been compiled over the years, but their contents are quite different depending on their intended use. As Meyer points out, the Brown Corpus is balanced with various genres making it appropriate for studying differences across different genres, though it is quite limited in size. The Penn Treebank, on the other hand, is less concerned about variation in genre and more concerned with size since it was created so that a computer could be trained on how to parse and tag the text (see 2.15). In other words, a large amount of data was needed so that the computer would have an adequate amount of text to properly learn how to (semi-)automatically determine POS and syntax structure. 13 The purpose of the corpora which we developed for our study is to provide a large enough collection of texts to find collocational indicators for determining differences in senses of lexical items. This led us to corpora of a certain size and character as explained below.

2.3 SIZE OF THE CORPUS The corpus must be of adequate size. It must be large enough to provide a sufficient number of examples to give an adequate representation of the behavior and meaning of a word. A firm conclusion about the meaning of lexical items must be based on an adequate number of usages, yet what constitutes an ‘adequate number’? A corpus which gives us, for example, only five usages of polysemes such as run or λόγος would be inadequate; many more than five examples would be necessary to gain an appropriate understanding of the meanings of these common words. Statistics can be misleading if based on an inadequate number of samples. For example, a claim by a toothpaste company that their brand led to 23% less cavities sounds impressive, until we read the fine print that says their test was conducted on only 12 people. 14 Conversely, a corpus that gives us 500 examples of telephone would surely be overkill. It would be beyond the capacity of one human being to wade through all the examples, and then draw meaningful conclusions from such a large mass of information. A balanced approach requires that we aim somewhere in the middle, between these two extremes. Meyer, English Corpus Linguistics, p. xi. English Corpus Linguistics, pp. xii–xiii. 14 Huff, How to Lie with Statistics, pp. 37–38. 12

13 Meyer,

26

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Throughout this study we have used a working hypothesis that at least 50 examples of a lexeme’s usage would be needed for establishing a solid foundation for determining word meaning through collocations. 15 Sinclair at times said 60 examples were necessary and sometimes 100, and at one point stated that for their Office for Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) report they normally chose to study words which appeared between 90 and 290 times. 16 ‘The more frequent the node, the greater likelihood of obtaining reliable information about it … but words with a frequency greater than 300 tended to be grammatical rather than lexical.’ 17 In this study it was felt that an analysis based on less than 50 examples would be unreliable; it would provide too few examples for the observer to make any substantial observations. In some ways, there is no upper limit. It can be argued that the more examples the better; a greater number of examples provides surer footing for observations. Computers are able to easily handle large numbers of usages and computer searches and sorts could run into the hundreds and thousands. However, once the initial collation by computer is made, the number has to be reduced to what a human observer can realistically examine. The corpus can give us a list of examples (usages), but it takes a human reader (semanticist) to determine the sense. 18 The number of examples which we used are listed in the specific examples throughout this study (see below), sometimes with around 100, sometimes 300, and in one case over 1,000.

2.4 WORD COUNT IN THE CORPUS The issue of word count is not necessarily as straightforward as has been assumed. There are at least two issues. First, what constitutes a word? When a software program counts words, it is in reality counting spaces. For practical purposes, a word is a string of letters, numbers and diacritics which are separated by a blank space from other strings of letters, numbers and diacritics. 19 Technically, this is called an orthographic word. 20 However, this does not always give an accurate picture of the number of words in a text. For example, haven’t is counted as one word by software programs, but could just as easily be considered two words, have + not, 21 just as κἄν will be counted as one word, though it could easily be considered two, καί + ἐάν. Contraction and hyphenation can be handled in different ways by the software so linguists must be clear 15 O’Donnell refers to the adequacy of samples with 50–100 occurrences of the keyword (O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 335). 16 Sinclair, Jones, and Daley, English Collocation Studies, pp. 17, 99. 17 Sinclair, Jones, and Daley, English Collocation Studies, p. 72. 18 Murphy, Lexical Meaning, pp. 21–22. 19 Hockey, ‘Textual Databases’, p. 124. 20 Murphy identifies four definitions of word: orthographic (spaces separate each word); semantic (each word has a distinct meaning); phonological (each word has one main stress); or grammatical (each word is a separate POS and cannot take an intervening word) (Murphy, Lexical Meaning, pp. 12–14). 21 Cheng, Exploring Corpus Linguistics, p. 5.

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

27

about their criteria. For the Greek texts we used in our corpora, it was not possible (nor particularly desirable) to break contractions into their constituent parts, so κἀγώ, for example, counted as one word. Hyphenation was not an issue with our Greek texts. Murphy points out that the definition of words as ‘bits of language that have a space on either side of them in print’ uses circular logic. The reason we put spaces on either side is in order to indicate that it is a word. For example, the space between cat and nip makes a difference in the two following sentences: Tom saw the cat nip the baby and Fluffy loves catnip. 22 In other words, the fact that we have added spaces is an indication of what we have already defined as words. Second, should we count repeated words? How many words are there in Ephesians 1:3? Εὐλογητὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ εὐλογήσας ἡμᾶς ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις ἐν Χριστῷ. In CL, there is a distinction made in word counts between tokens and types. Tokens are the total number of running words, so that when we say a document has 1,000 tokens, we mean it has 1,000 words, even though many of the words are used several times. Types refer to unique words in a text, excluding repetitions. Ephesians 1:3 has 22 tokens but only 18 types since the article is used three times, Χριστός twice and ἐν twice. Of course, software will only be able to detect that ὁ and τοῖς are from the same lemma if the text has been annotated to mark lemmas. If no lemma list is provided, CL software would count ὁ and τοῖς as two separate types, just like do, does, doing, and did would be counted as separate types in English, even though they come from the same lemma (DO). 23 This type of distinction is helpful in discovering how repetitive a text is. The lower the type/token ratio (TTR), the less variety there is in the text and the more repetition; or in Hockey’s words, TTR is ‘a measure of the spread or richness of the vocabulary’. 24 The non-lemmatized Gospel of John has 15,640 tokens (running words), of which 2,813 are types (distinct words, though not distinct lemmas). To calculate the TTR we divide the number of types by the number of tokens (2,813/15,640 which represents 17.99%). As would be expected when we compare the four Gospels, John has a lower TTR (17.99%) than the Synoptics: Matthew (22.87%), Mark (26.59%), and Luke (24.95%). However, we must be cautious since the longer a text, the lower the TTR will tend to be; a longer text, by its very nature, will tend to have more variety. Therefore, it is better to use a standardized TTR, which computes a TTR every n words. Because the lengths of the gospels vary, we should use a standardized TTR (STTR). If we compute a TTR on every 1,000 words and then average them, this STTR shows the same pattern: John still has the lowest STTR (41.40%), whereas the Synoptics are higher: Matthew (46.83%), Mark (47.60%) and Luke (49.65%). This corroborates what we notice when we read the Gospels, that John tends to repeat words throughout. 25 Murphy, Lexical Meaning, p. 12. Cheng, Exploring Corpus Linguistics, p. 5. 24 Hockey, ‘Textual Databases’, p. 129. 25 This type of statistic, however, does need to be used cautiously. Michael Scott (‘Introduction to WordSmith Tools’) points out that it is well known that Shakespeare used ‘a 22 23

28

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

2.5 GENRE OF TEXTS TO INCLUDE IN THE CORPUS A key aspect of corpus development is genre. 26 A corpus made entirely of editions of Fine Cooking magazine would give a poor representation of, say, the use of cup in modern-day sports talk. Or, 50 examples of table taken from carpentry manuals would give you a very different feel for the meaning of the word than 50 examples taken from a chemistry textbook. An illustration of this is that Berglund and Williams found that going to and gonna are used more frequently in a predictive sense (e.g., It’s going to rain) in newspaper writing, than in speech, fiction and academic writing, whereas the intentional sense (e.g., I’m going to kill you) is used more frequently in speech and fiction, than in newspaper writing. 27 It is important to pay attention to compatible genres since word meaning can change with change of genre. Much debate surrounds the definition of genre, as well as the art and science of accurately assigning specific writings to a specific genre. 28 The situation becomes even more complicated when we seek to classify not only genre but also sub-genres. Longman has stated that ‘one may speak of broad and narrow genres as well as admit that not only texts as a whole but also passages within a text are amenable to generic identification’. 29 Rather than debate the intricacies of genre classification, we have chosen to be conservative and to only include in our corpus those texts which most agree would be generically similar to the NT. The texts in our primary corpus (see 2.12 for specifics) include the LXX, the OT Greek Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo and the Apostolic Fathers. These writings include epistolary, deliberative, hagiographic, testamentary, biographic, deliberative, travelogue, homiletic, allegorical, apocalyptic, wisdom, and paraenetic genres. We have avoided genres which are of questionable value for NT studies, such as alchemic, astrological, astronomical, epic, mathematical, rather limited vocabulary’ in terms of TTR, yet this does not mean that Shakespeare’s style was simple or childish! We must distinguish between simple and simplistic, and add common sense to our statistical analysis. As Huff explains, ‘Many a statistic is false on its face. It gets by only because the magic of numbers brings about a suspension of common sense’ (Huff, How to Lie with Statistics, p. 138). 26 See O’Donnell’s discussion (O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 124–126). 27 Berglund and Williams, ‘The Semantic Properties of going to’, pp. 109–110, 117–118. 28 An example of possible genre categories and an attempt at classifying specific ancient Greek texts can be found in the TLG, http://www.tlg.uci.edu/help/gen.list.html. See also the discussions in Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, p. 624; Ryken and Longman, A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, pp. 98–102, 313–315, 363–365, 436–438, 462– 464; Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature, pp. 25–26; Pearson and Porter, ‘The Genres of the New Testament’, pp. 131–166; Cross, ‘Genres of the New Testament’, pp. 402–411; Ryken, The New Testament in Literary Criticism, pp. 6–7, 26–29, 302–309; Blomberg, ‘New Testament Genre Criticism for the 1990s’, pp. 40–49; Aune, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment, pp. 43, 46–47, 78–79, 84–85, 116, 122, 153, 158–180, 194–222, 226–249. 29 Ryken and Longman, Literary Guide, p. 98.

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

29

and erotic. 30 O’Donnell has an outstanding discussion of the importance of providing balance in corpus design and he applies this to the Greek New Testament by listing a suggested corpus which is much smaller than ours (512,301 tokens) though extremely well-balanced. 31

2.6 REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES FOR THE CORPUS When developing a corpus, the question arises as to which samples of text should be included. The BNC and the International Corpus of English (ICE), for example, include a relatively large number of spontaneous spoken dialogues. The reasoning is that these are good examples of ‘real’ English, applicable to more people since a much larger number of people engage in spontaneous dialogue (everyone!), than in composing radio broadcasts (very few). It is obviously not possible to create a corpus of everything. Somewhere along the line the research much be selective. C. Meyer lists three different approaches to sampling for corpus development. First is representative sampling which seeks to include in a corpus a percentage of all available texts, e.g., 4.3–4.6% of all books produced in a certain year in a certain geographic location. 32 Second is random probability sampling. For recording spoken examples for the BNC, for example, Great Britain was divided into 12 regions in which 30 sampling points were chosen which represented various regional differences. These were used to provide samples which would adequately represent the country at large. Third, in some cases the most realistic approach is nonprobability sampling. Simply put, there are times when lack of time and funds may lead the researcher to use what is convenient and affordable. In the case of written texts, acquiring copyright permission to include some texts can be quite expensive and time consuming. 33 Our approach in this study is to use a representative sampling. In the early stages of this research our aim was to use all the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) texts dated from 200 BCE to CE 200 plus the LXX (see 2.8). However, after several months of attempting this approach, it was deemed necessary to alter course since the copyright holders of the TLG would not allow full texts to be used, the search capabilities on the TLG website were extremely limited, 34 and the large number of texts was too many for one researcher to examine alone in a reasonable period of time. As will be explained in 2.10 and 2.15 we chose to create our own representative corpus 30 We chose to include Aretaeus in our secondary corpus since some Pauline and Lukan terminology seems to be medical or anatomical. 31 O’Donnell, ‘Designing and Compiling a Register-Balanced Corpus of Hellenistic Greek for the Purpose of Linguistic Description and Investigation’, updated in O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 103–137, 164–165. 32 Meyer mentions the inclusion of 2,168–2,289 books out of the total 49,276 published in the US in 1992 (Meyer, English Corpus Linguistics, pp. 42–43). 33 Hockey, ‘Textual Databases’, p. 105; Meyer, English Corpus Linguistics, pp. 43–44. 34 See O’Donnell’s criticisms (O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 331).

30

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

by using texts from the Perseus Digital Library (Perseus; http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/) and Logos Bible Software, and which were accompanied by English translations. For our purpose, which is to improve the accuracy of NT lexicography, we chose samples that are as close to NT usage as possible.

2.7 LENGTH OF INDIVIDUAL TEXTS TO INCLUDE IN THE CORPUS In the early days of CL, due to limitations of computer storage space and processing power, and in an attempt to make the corpora balanced and to make comparisons simpler, designers often limited the length of individual texts to a predetermined word count, often truncating the original text. For example, the Brown Corpus, made up of one million words, consisted of various texts of 2,000 tokens each. This pattern was followed in the LOB and the ICE. Because part of the goal of ICE is to be able to compare different ‘Englishes’ spoken around the world, limiting the texts to 2,000 tokens makes sense so that similar texts are being compared. 35 Now, however, many modern corpora contain complete texts. Most CL practitioners today agree that it is better to use complete texts rather than artificially truncated texts which are all of the same length since this can skew the data and prevent the researcher from being able to observe certain factors, such as how a certain text type tends to conclude. 36 Including full texts is more advantageous for our purposes. Because of the paucity of properly prepared Hellenistic Greek texts, it is to our advantage to use complete texts, rather than arbitrarily shortened excerpts, since in some ways we need all the text we can get.

2.8 SYNCHRONIC, NOT DIACHRONIC, TEXTS IN THE CORPUS Our aim in this study is to use CL to improve our understanding of the Greek New Testament. We take for granted that in order to do so our interest should be in the meaning of lexical items as used in the time of the NT. We are not primarily concerned here with the meaning of the words in Classical Greek, Byzantine Greek or Modern Greek since for the most part those meanings were irrelevant to the original readers of the NT. To use English as an example, handicap as a noun apparently comes from ‘hand i’ cap’ (that is, hand in cap), and refers to the two parties involved in a race or competition drawing their hands out of their caps (hats), empty if they refuse the odds declared by the umpire and full of the forfeit money if they agree to the terms. It came to mean the disadvantage given to the superior party in a (horse) race in order to make the odds more even, and eventually was used to refer to any disadvantage. 37 But now in Cheng, Exploring Corpus Linguistics, p. 60. Sinclair, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, p. 19; Stubbs, Text and Corpus Analysis, pp. 33–34. 37 See OED, http://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/83859. This was brought to our attention in Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, ‘Dynamic Perspective on Antonymous Polysemy’, pp. 132–134 who points out that today handicap can actually also mean advantage when viewed 35 36

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

31

the 21st century, when we refer to someone in a wheelchair as having a handicap, that does not mean we think they are going to be engaged in some sort of horse race. Or, though meat was used by the KJV and Shakespeare to refer to food in general, and corn to refer to grain, we do not use them that way today. Unless we are certain that someone is purposefully imitating the KJV or Shakespeare, we as modern speakers will assume that meat specifically means the edible flesh of an animal, and corn the yellow starchy vegetable that grows on a cob. And despite the fact that the KJV 38 uses it to mean vital and fertile, if I call my wife fat, she surely will not take it as a compliment. 39 Saussure referred to this as the priority of a synchronic over a diachronic approach. 40 Since Saussure, it has become axiomatic in modern linguistic theory that determining current meaning requires focus on the synchronic 41 use of terms, to the exclusion of the diachronic. 42 This viewpoint has been ably explained and defended by Silva 43 and M. Turner. 44 A diachronic study may be important for tracing changes in meaning over a period of time, 45 such as from Mycenaean Greek to Modern Greek, 46 yet as Sim has from the perspective of the one (in a race, for example) who is given a head start (with a threemile handicap). 38 ‘They shall still bring forth fruit in old age; they shall be fat and flourishing’ (Ps 92:14) in the KJV might produce giggles if read in a modern congregation. The sense is rendered well in the NIVU: ‘They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green.’ 39 For more examples, especially related to semantic change involving metaphor, see Zipf, Selected Studies of the Principles of Relative Frequency in Language, pp. 8–11. 40 He stated that the most accurate term would actually be idiosynchronic (meaning synchronic and dealing with the dialect or sub-dialect in question) but that term is unnecessarily cumbersome (Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, pp. 81–82, 89–90). 41 Because of the paucity of extrabiblical, ancient Hebrew texts and in view of the long span of time covered by the writing of the OT, some claim that this approach is an impediment to Hebrew studies (Bodine, ‘Linguistics and Biblical Studies’, pp. 327–333), though thankfully, this is not the case with Greek since the NT was written over a relatively short time span and is accompanied by abundant extrabiblical Greek texts. 42 This does not mean that diachronic studies have no place. They are essential when studying semantic changes and language development. See, for example, Markus, ‘Wherefore Therefore, pp. 215–232 which compares causal connectives in the 13th-15th centuries with modern English. The study by Holmes, ‘Ladies and Gentlemen’, pp. 141–155 is more difficult to classify since it is seeking to show the changes (diachronic) in usage over a 30-year period, a period much smaller than our period of 200 BCE–CE 200, and one which could arguably be called synchronic. It could perhaps be labelled a diachronic study within a synchronic period. For our purposes, however, when the goal is to understand the meaning of a word in a specific text (for example, Bible verses), our only concern is the synchronic. 43 Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, pp. 35–38, 47, 51, 140–141; Silva, God, Language and Scripture, pp. 41–44, 87–89. 44 Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, pp. 25–26, 131–132, 178; Turner, ‘Modern Linguistics and Word Study in the New Testament’, p. 193. 45 Lee believes it is important to be able to trace the development of meanings and to know how basic meanings later developed into other meanings: ‘… it is … desirable, as a general

32

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

pointed out, Modern Greek can support or agree with Hellenistic Greek, but it cannot determine its meaning. 47 It is true that a synchronic study shows us only a ‘slice’ of the language and does not allow us to see how the language has changed over time, 48 yet our goal is to understand the meaning of the NT texts under consideration. How the meaning has developed and changed over time is fascinating, but is usually irrelevant to what it meant in context when written in the NT verse we are examining. A. Tyler and V. Evans argue against the view that various meanings for the same word are accidental or idiosyncratic and thus unrelated. They state that a more logical approach is to understand that novel meanings arose not arbitrarily, but when an understood meaning was extended to a new usage, such as over in the sense of above extended to over in the sense of again. Otherwise, how would a hearer understand the new meaning if there was no relationship whatsoever with the previous meaning? 49 This may be true from a diachronic point of view, but it is irrelevant to someone scores or hundreds of years later when they hear the word. It is not necessary to know how or why the different sense developed in order to understand what it means today. In fact, trying to figure out why one word has several meanings and how they are related can actually be dangerous. If the two meanings of the same word are different now, to argue that they have to be related somehow in order to prove the historical development can actually lead to misunderstanding. We are not interested in the historical development of lexical items but rather in their meaning in Greek New Testament texts and therefore choose to study terms from the same era. 50 Understood properly, this view does not contradict Stubbs’ statement that ‘[corpus linguistics] is inherently diachronic; it studies what has frequently occurred in the past’ 51 nor Stathi’s, ‘Der “Jetztzustand” der Sprache wird als das Produkt einer Entwicklung angesehen, die sich in den etablierten Normen, d. h. den statistisch signifikanten Erscheinungen manifestiert.’ 52 Stubbs and Stathi are touching on a different concern. One of the goals of CL is to see what normal usage is and thus the normal meaning of a lexical item. In order to do so, linguists search a corpus to see how lexical item x was used. The (correct) assumption is that when they observe that

principle, to trace the semantic development of all senses recognized, if it is at all possible’ (Lee, ‘συνίστημι: A Sample Entry’, p. 12). 46 Lee, ‘The Present State of Lexicography of Ancient Greek’, pp. 67, 72–73. 47 Sim, Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek, p. 195. 48 Tyler and Evans, Semantics of English Prepositions, pp. 3–4. 49 Tyler and Evans, Semantics of English Prepositions, pp. 1, 5–6. 50 Sim has demonstrated the importance of paying close attention to synchrony in her argument that although ἵνα had a dictionary meaning of in order that or so that, by the time of Hellenistic Greek it had lost that meaning and at that time functioned as a ‘procedural marker which, together with the subjunctive mood, alerts the reader to expect a representation’ (Sim, Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek, p. 203). For details which defend this view, see her pp. 174–195. 51 Stubbs, Words and Phrases, p. 221. 52 Stathi, ‘Korpusbasierte Analyse der Semantik von Idiomen’, pp. 74–75.

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

33

word x was used 50 times with collocation y and it had meaning z, we can be confident that when that pattern is used in the present (word x in collocation with y) it will frequently have meaning z. To know the present meaning, we must have been able to document that meaning in recorded (written or spoken) usage which are, by definition, written or spoken in the past. So if synchronic is taken in its strictest form to mean now in the sense of this very moment, we will never have a truly synchronic usage since as soon as you write now, it is in the past. How long does the present last—a minute, a second, a nano-second? What constitutes the ‘past’—something that happened ten years ago, ten days ago, ten seconds ago or one millionth of a second ago? As Galton states, ‘The present amounts really to nothing else but the eternally fleeting dividing line between what is as yet future and what has already become past.’ 53 So in these two statements, that 1) CL should be based on synchronic studies, and 2) CL must be based on diachronic data, we are using synchronic and diachronic in slightly different ways. We must hold two, somewhat opposing, truths in tension since the slice of language under consideration must be long enough to provide an adequate number of examples of the lexical item in usage (we do not have enough Hellenistic Greek texts extant to give us 50+ examples of all lexical items written with 10 years of the NT), but short enough so that it does not contain examples which are no longer applicable due to meaning change over time. Languages change gradually over time. 54 Looking back now it is easy to see how different Chaucer’s English is from our own, for example, ‘Than thynke I, this were hire accusement’ (Toilus & Criseyde, iv. 556, from CE 1385). In the same way, Homer’s and Aristotle’s usage differs from Paul’s and Luke’s. 55 The question which we have not seen addressed in the literature is not whether the usage should be from a time earlier than the corpus linguist (it has to be from the ‘past’ or it would not be available to examine), but rather how much earlier it should be. In an effort, for example, to determine the meaning of liberty in 2012, would it be proper methodology to consider usage from 2000? From 1970? From 1930? From 1850? What about 1750? Or 1450? Where do we draw the line? There is probably no hard-and-fast answer to this. It depends on the language in question. As a native speaker of American English, I have a clear sense that Beowulf (8th–11th century) and Macbeth (c. 1600) are not modern English, but what about the Declaration of Independence (1776)? It is closer but still not modern. Yet we might consider the Gettysburg Address (1863) and ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ (1963) examples of modern usage. These are issues with which lexicographers must wrestle and for which there are no easy answers. Galton, The Main Functions of the Slavic Verbal Aspect, p. 14. Ullmann lists three reasons: linguistic, historical and social causes (Ullmann, Words and Their Use, pp. 65–67). For an argument from a cognitive linguistic perspective for linguistic change stemming from lexical gaps, see Fischer, ‘Lexical Gaps, Cognition and Linguistic Change’, pp. 12–15. 55 However, see the arguments in D. R. MacDonald, Does the New Testament Imitate Homer? 53 54

34

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

It is interesting to note that Brigham Young University labels its 425 million word collection of texts from 1990 to 2011 as a Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), while its 400 million word collection from 1810–2009 is called a Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). 56 ARCHER (A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers; http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/research/projects /archer/) covers an older period, 1650–1999, and encompasses both British and American English. Most of the well-known and time-tested corpora sit clearly within the modern era, such as the BNC which has texts from the early 1990s, the LOB which has texts dating from 1960, and the ICE which has texts produced after 1989. By contrast, the Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts covers literature from 1640–1740; its name shows that it is somewhere in the middle as it labels itself ‘early modern English’. In light of our discussion of diachronic vs. synchronic, it is interesting that the ICE project has produced the Diachronic Corpus of Present-Day Spoken English (DCPSE; http://www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/projects/dcpse/) with texts from the late 1960s through the early 1990s. The name specifies that it is diachronic because it seeks to monitor changes which have taken place from the 1960s to the 1990s, yet is what we would call synchronic in that it deals with, as its title states, ‘present-day spoken English’. It can be argued that diachronic change is on a continuum, never absolute, and that different aspects of a language change at different times, so that a language is always in a state of flux on a small scale. For example, the meanings of word x may change during a certain decade, while a grammatical structure y might change in a different decade. The only way to determine this would be through large-scale studies of particular properties of specific languages over certain periods of time, such as has been done on occasion. Several are mentioned by Stubbs, such as the use of proper* 1745–1990s, ethnic vs. racial pre-1985 and post-1985, heritage 1930s–1990s, care 1900s– 1980s, and trendy 1965–1996. 57 Traugott and Dasher examine changes in the use of indeed 1225–1998, in fact 1543–1996, and actually 1425–1993. 58 Referring to semantic change they state that ‘there are polysemous layers at each innovated stage, and in many cases multiple polysemies can coexist over many centuries’. 59 C. Meyer states that a synchronic study should probably reflect a very narrow window of time, between five and ten years, 60 while Renouf suggests that a gap of 30 years is needed (at least in modern English) in order to see ‘significant shifts in language use’. 61 In the literature, diachrony is used in two different ways. Historical linguists can use it to refer to the study of a given language over centuries or millennia, sometimes called 56 Europeans may quip that America is too young to have ‘historical usage’ and for that reason the dates are still fairly modern. 57 Stubbs, Words and Phrases, pp. 146–153, 156–161. 58 Traugott and Dasher, Regularity in Semantic Change, pp. 158–173. 59 Traugott and Dasher, Regularity in Semantic Change, p. 281. 60 Meyer, English Corpus Linguistics, p. 46. 61 Renouf, ‘From Super-Corpus to Cyber-Corpus’, p. 37.

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

35

long diachrony. In contrast, those concerned with more modern languages look at shorter periods (10–30 years), looking for change over a short time period; this view of diachrony has been called brachychrony. 62 Though this is possible and perhaps desirable for CL studies of modern languages, it is neither practical nor possible for Hellenistic Greek. We have far too little extant Greek writings within five to ten years of the writing of the NT and there is too much debate around the dating of both the NT and extra-biblical writings. 63 It is not within the scope of this study to decide which dates fall under the label modern English, but this question has to be answered for Hellenistic Greek since we must limit our corpora to texts that fall within the period of Hellenistic Greek (the salient characteristics of which are explained by Wallace). 64 It is generally accepted that the outer limits must be no earlier than ca. 330 BCE and no later than ca. CE 330. 65 This does not, of course, mean that an inhabitant of Greece went to bed on the last day of 331 BCE speaking Classical Greek, and suddenly woke up on the first day of 330 BCE speaking Hellenistic Greek, nor did a citizen of Constantinople speak Hellenistic Greek the last day of CE 330 and Byzantine Greek the next morning. There was an obvious continuum and gradation as the language developed over time, and these dates (330– 330) give a rough parameter. For the sake of this study we have limited the time frame even more. In order to get as close to the writing of the NT as possible, and yet to provide a large enough corpus for an adequate number of usage examples (see 2.3), the corpora were limited to writings dated between 200 BCE and CE 200 plus the LXX. 66 This time period falls safely within the period of Hellenistic Greek so that there will be no question of using examples from the Classical or Byzantine Greek periods. Renouf, ‘From Super-Corpus to Cyber-Corpus’, p. 38. For a discussion of some of the issues, see Ellis, The Making of the New Testament. 64 Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 17–30. 65 To be more specific, Horrocks marks the starting point with Alexander the Great’s death in 323 BCE (Horrocks, Greek, p. 33). O’Donnell is less specific saying ‘from approximately the fourth century BCE to the fourth century CE’ (O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 3, italics his). Jannaris uses Hellenistic for the period 300 to 150 BCE and GraecoRoman for 150 BCE to CE 300 (Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, pp. 5–8 [§§ 08–13]) followed by Sim (though she also uses Koinē as an alternative name for the Graeco-Roman period (Sim, Marking Thought and Talk in NT Greek, pp. 10 n. 55, 178, 181). Caragounis prefers Post-classical as one period stretching from 300 BCE to CE 600 (Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament, pp. 39–44). 66 The LXX Pentateuch was probably translated in the first half of the third century BCE (T. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch, p. 8; Porter, ‘Septuagint/Greek Old Testament’, p. 1101) and therefore some sections of the LXX are earlier than our 200 BCE cut off. However the entire LXX is included because of its importance for NT studies and its influence on the Greek New Testament (Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, pp. 105–118, 183–204, 258– 272; McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research, pp. 44–98, 146–168). For a brief, up-to-date survey on the status of LXX vocabulary studies, see Joosten, ‘The Vocabulary of the Septuagint and Its Historical Context’, pp. 1–11. 62 63

36

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

2.9 DEALING WITH LINGUISTIC VARIABLES IN THE CORPUS There are numerous linguistic variables which play a part in corpus analysis. At the present stage of CL research as applied to Greek New Testament lexical semantics, we are not yet able to fully analyze the impact of all of these variables. In the following section we will discuss these variables and the extent to which the current state of the art in Greek New Testament CL is prepared to deal with them. 67 We will comment on which variables we were able to identify and take into account in this study, and those which, due to limitations which will be mentioned below, we were not. For the study of modern languages it is usually desirable to study texts which represent a balance of age, educational level, gender 68 and regional location for the speakers and writers. 69 This can be quite complex for CL studies of modern languages and is next to impossible for Hellenistic Greek. Determining the age of the speaker or author is not always straightforward, often not being documented since it was not of interest to the original auditor or reader. Unless a text was specifically prepared for CL work, it is not always possible to determine the contributor’s age. Even when the age is determined, there is debate over where to divide the age groupings. Does a child include someone through age nine, 10, or 12 and an adolescent through ages 13, 15, or 17? Is someone considered an adult at 18, 21, or 25? And are we senior adults (elderly) beginning at 55, 65, 75 or 85? Educational level is also not always what it seems. Some individuals with only a high school diploma are widely read and self-educated and tend to use more academic speech, while some with higher credentials often write more colloquially. To what extent should we expect to find semantic differences if it was a younger Paul 70 who wrote Galatians 71 and 1 Thessalonians, 72 and an older Paul who

67 For discussion of the challenges of determining with certainty the provenance, date, demographic background and sociolinguistic setting of many Hellenistic Greek texts, see O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 108–110, 118–121, 130–137. 68 Though it may seem relatively straightforward when dealing with gender, C. Meyer’s observations clarify how difficult it may actually be. For example, if the majority of texts during a certain time period were written by men, then to seek to ‘balance’ a corpus with equal numbers of writings by males and females would skew the data by not giving a realistic picture of the actual body of writings as a whole. The situation gets even more complicated when we factor in a text written by a female and edited by a male or vice versa, texts with multiple authors, etc. Regarding gender, it can also be argued that at times men speak differently to women than to other men, and vice versa, such that not only does authorship matter, but also intended audience (Meyer, English Corpus Linguistics, pp. 48–49). 69 Meyer, English Corpus Linguistics, pp. 48–53. 70 Pauline authorship of Galatians and 1 Thessalonians is assumed by most (Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, p. 1; Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, p. 17; Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, p. 1; Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, pp. 3–4; Schreiner, Galatians, p. 22). 71 Those who accept a south Galatian hypothesis usually state that it was written around CE 48–49, making it Paul’s earliest letter; those who accept a north Galatian hypothesis normally espouse a later date (for example, 50–57 CE) (Schreiner, Galatians, p. 31), though Matera argues that there is nothing preventing the interpreter from holding a south Galatian theory and a later

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

37

wrote 2 Timothy, 73 or between a highly educated Paul and a less educated Peter. 74 No one doubts that there are stylistic variations 75 between them, as well as between other NT writers (for example, Luke vs. Mark), 76 but in determining meaning, are there indicators that their educational differences led them to use the same lexical item differently? We are not able to answer this question for the lexical items which we examine in this study due to spareness of data. At this stage of CL research for Greek New Testament lexical semantics, we surmise that this would be possible only for more common lexical items for which we have a larger number of examples from different NT authors. We must also consider the fuzzy boundaries between dialect and language. 77 Language is the more general term referring to that used by a larger population, whereas dialect refers to a smaller and usually more localized way of speaking. There is surely, though, a continuum and where dialect ends and language begins is debated in a number of cases 78 and is complicated by sociolinguistic factors, that is, how use of date, as he apparently does (Matera, Galatians, pp. 20–26). Arguments surrounding the date are inconclusive (Dunn, The Epistle to the Galatians, p. 8), and here we are raising only the theoretical question of age difference in one NT author as it might affect use of lexical items. 72 Whether 1 Thessalonians was written before 2 Thessalonians is debated (see Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, pp. 64–69). First Thessalonians was likely written as early as CE 46 or as late as 52 (see discussion in Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, pp. 11–12; Fee proposes the dates 49–50 [Fee, 1–2 Thessalonians, pp. 4–5]). 73 Pauline authorship is fiercely debated (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, pp. xlvi-lxix; Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, pp. 18–22; see Towner who leaves the question open [Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, pp. 86–88]; see also Wall and Steele, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, pp. 4–7), but we raise the possibility of Pauline authorship for the sake of illustration. 74 See MHT4, pp. 80–100 on Paul’s style and pp. 121–130 on Peter’s. 75 The difference between the styles of 1 and 2 Peter have been at the forefront of the longstanding debate over the authorship and canonicity of 2 Peter (Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, pp. 121–131; Green, Jude and 2 Peter, pp. 144–150; Davids, 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text, p. xviii). Some have also questioned whether the Greek of 1 Peter is too good to have been written by a fisherman from Galilee (see the excursus in Jobes, 1 Peter, pp. 325–338). The issue of the influence on style from an amanuensis also enters the picture, such as Silvanus for 1 Peter (Jobes, 1 Peter, p. 320). See Witherington’s discussion of Peter’s style, rhetoric and ‘Asianisms’ (Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, vol. 2, pp. 39–45). For other issues of style, see Enkvist, Linguistic Stylistics, pp. 22–26; Silva, ‘The Pauline Style as Lexical Choice’, pp. 184–207. 76 Horrocks, Greek, p. 93. See MHT4, pp. 11–30 for Mark’s style and 45–63 for Luke’s. 77 Lyons, Language and Linguistics, pp. 26–27. 78 See Hudson, Sociolinguistics, pp. 30–32, 34–37. Though here and below we refer to Hudson’s explanations of the terminology, it should be noted that Hudson himself rejects many of these distinctions, preferring to speak rather of differences and similarities in a given language (‘… varieties do not exist. All that exists are people and items, and people may be

38

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

language is related to society. 79 Hudson argues that the distinction in lay terms between language and dialect is false, except in the sense that a variety may have a higher prestige and be considered the standard, while another variety of that language has lower prestige and is not considered standard (for example, Cockney). He thus prefers the term variety. He does, however, recognize regional dialects and isoglosses, which have been extensively studied and include the different uses of near synonyms (such as, bucket vs. pail), different pronunciations of the same word in different geographic regions, 80 and social dialects (or sociolects) 81 which are differences not so much of usages in different geographic regions but in different social groups. 82 Determining dialectal variations is often more difficult than at first envisioned. What if the speaker was born in Boston, educated in Dallas, and now teaches in Toronto. Which ‘dialect’ will his present speech represent? This is not an altogether pointless distinction when it comes to Hellenistic Greek either. Many of our extant authors followed paths very similar to this. For example, Epictetus has left us material that is very useful for CL in Hellenistic Greek. Since he was born in Phrygia, then lived in Rome and later in Nicopolis, 83 what kind of Greek did he use and does this matter in using him for examples in lexical semantics? 84 The question becomes more complicated when we realize that Epictetus himself apparently did not write any of his extant works, but they were rather compiled by his student Arrian 85 who was born in Nicomedia. In application to the NT, does the fact that Paul was born in Tarsus, and more or less similar to one another in the items they have in their language’ [Hudson, Sociolinguistics, p. 40]), though this would be a minority view among linguists. 79 Hudson, Sociolinguistics, p. 1. 80 Hudson, Sociolinguistics, pp. 38–40. 81 Joosten speaks of the ‘Jewish Greek Sociolect’ as a major influence on the LXX (Joosten, ‘Vocabulary of the Septuagint’, p. 6) and, as an example, argues that Jewish liturgy and religious language formed a type of sociolect among the Alexandrian Jews which affected the LXX translation of ‫ ברך‬with εὐλογέω (Joosten, ‘Le Vocabulaire de la Septante et la Question du Sociolecte des Juifs Alexandrins le Cas du Verbe εὐλογέω, “Benir”’, pp. 19–20, 22–23). 82 Hudson, Sociolinguistics, pp. 43–44. It was interesting for me to observe firsthand the shift in former Yugoslavia due to the war. Whereas in 1990 it was common to refer to the language as Serbo-Croatian, this term was deemed highly offensive by 1992 when the country had split apart into separate nations. The Serbs then called it Serbian, the Croats Croatian, and Bosniaks Bosnian. Currently, the one language with three dialects has changed and some would argue is now three languages. This is debated since the three dialects are understood by the other groups. It is more a sociological divide because of the bloody civil war. 83 Fritz, ‘Epictetus’, p. 30; Schmeller, ‘Epictetus’, vol. 2, pp. 558–559. 84 Jobes deems him worthy to give examples that clarify Paul’s use of worship words (Jobes, ‘Distinguishing the Meaning of Greek Verbs in the Semantic Domain of Worship’, p. 203) as do other lexicographers (Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, p. 850; Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 110, 194, 214; EDNT, BAGD, BDAG, LSJ) as well as several grammarians (MHT 1–4, Robertson and BDF). 85 Tarn, ‘Arrian’, pp. 122–123; Forbes, ‘Epictetus’, p. 322.

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

39

educated in Jerusalem mean that he will use words and phrases differently than Peter who was raised in Galilee? In the early stages of this research we purposed to separate all the texts in our corpora into geographical regions to determine whether, for example, Hellenistic Greek writers in Achaia used lexical items differently than those in Egypt. It soon became apparent that our primary corpus is too small to provide enough examples from usage in various geographic regions, and at the same time, the amount of time required to study the potential differences in geographic language usage in our small corpus was beyond the ability of one researcher in the limited time span available for a thesis. This remains a desideratum but must await a future date when a team of lexicographers is available to undertake such a task. It is not always straightforward to determine which writers to include in a Hellenistic Greek corpus since some were prone to Atticisms, the tendency of Hellenistic Greek speakers to imitate Attic speakers of the classical period. For example, Lucian of Samosata qualifies for the corpus in that he lived at a time close to the NT (c. CE 120/125-c. 185), as well as close geographically (from Syria, lived also in Ionia, Greece, Italy, Gaul and Egypt). His genres fit since he wrote about philosophy and interacted with the issues of religion. Some claim that he imitated Attic Greek 86 while others argue that, being that far removed from them in time, the Attic standard was ‘irrecoverable in Lucian’s day even by the most scrupulous of Atticists’. 87 Nunn argues that his writings are helpful in understanding the NT. 88 Moulton claims that Lucian, for example, misused the optative, apparently seeking to reproduce Attic vocabulary, but unable to escape the Koinē Greek used around him every day. 89 Though Lucian has been cited as Atticizing, 90 he has also been cited as using normal Hellenistic Greek. 91 MHT use Lucian for examples of early use 92 and late use. 93 Robertson cites his use of ἐν ῥάβδῳ as an example found in the papyri and also in Classical Greek. 94 Deissmann points out that some of Lucian’s usages are found also in the papyri. 95 EDNT includes Lucian as parallels for NT usage, as does Moulton in his Prolegomena; 96 however, Horrocks considers him, a native speaker of Syrian who ‘learned his Greek at school’, probably the most successful in using Atticisms. 97 86 MHT2,

pp. 6 (n. 2), 120; Walker, ‘Lucian of Samosata’, pp. 654–656. p. 170. 88 Nunn, The Elements of New Testament Greek, p. vii. 89 MHT1, p. 25. Additionally, Moulton wonders whether in Lucian’s ἐν ῥάβδῳ in Dial. Mort. 23.2 his Syrian origin is showing itself (MHT1, p. xvii). 90 MHT2, p. 120. 91 MHT2, pp. 135, 170. 92 MHT2, p. 389. 93 MHT1, p. 170. 94 However, his point seems to be much different than Moulton in that Robertson seems to be arguing for a locative use (Robertson, pp. 457, 533). 95 Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 118, 223, 257, 267. 96 MHT1, pp. 76, 87, 144. 97 Horrocks, Greek, p. 82. 87 MHT1,

40

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

There is considerable debate on this; Horrocks comments that the distinction between Attic Greek and Koinē Greek was far from absolute, and Atticists were not purists in practice. 98 However, in order to be on the safe side we decided to exclude Lucian from our secondary corpus, as well as the Atticists Dionysius of Halicarnassus (with one exception; see Table 16) and Dio Chrysostom. It is also important to take into account social contexts and social relationships. The same author or speaker may write or speak differently in different social settings, such as an employer to his employee, versus a mother to her child. 99 I will speak differently when preaching to a congregation than I would teaching a toddlers’ Sunday school class, and differently to my wife, than to my three year-old, eleven year-old and 24 year-old children. Some corpora, such as the LLC, the American component of ICE, and the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) 100 seek to document this and contain examples of various social relationships between speakers, but this is hardly possible for a corpus of Hellenistic Greek. Related to this is diglossia 101 which refers to two languages or varieties of language used by the same speech community and often by the same speakers, and includes the use of certain high language (H) in certain formal settings, but low language (L) for most everything else, and the differences between the two can almost be considered separate languages (for example, everyday Arabic vs. Qur’anic Arabic). 102 Register 103 refers to varieties in usage 104 (functional variation 105), such as the difference in writing a formal business letter as opposed to a casual e-mail to a friend. 106 We can get even more specific and refer to field, meaning the subject matter and purpose of the communication, mode, meaning the way the communication is carried out (written or Horrocks, Greek, p. 82. Meyer, English Corpus Linguistics, p. 52. 100 Meyer, English Corpus Linguistics, p. 53 101 Porter, ‘The Functional Distribution of Koinē Greek in First-Century Palestine’, pp. 53– 78; Wise, ‘Languages of Palestine’, pp. 434–444; Porter, ‘Greek of the New Testament’, pp. 426–435. 102 Hudson, Sociolinguistics, pp. 53–55. 103 For the importance of factors such as register for lexical semantics, see M. Turner, ‘Modern Linguistics and the NT’, p. 159; Porter, ‘Aspect Theory and Lexicography’, p. 217. Biber and Conrad have done extensive work on the issue of register in corpus linguistics (Biber and Conrad, Register, Genre, and Style). 104 There is some latitude in how register is used: ‘Some linguists prefer the term register for types of language that correlate with situation, and use the term style to indicate individual variation within each register. Others have reserved register for the different subtypes of language that people use when acting in different social roles; thus a doctor uses one register in the operating theatre, another with a patient, and a third when playing with his children.’ (Enkvist, Linguistic Stylistics, p. 17). 105 Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, pp. 330–335. 106 For the behavior of facing and faced in two different registers (the general COBUILD corpus and the more specific economic corpus of The Economist and Wall Street Journal), see Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work, pp. 92, 94–95. 98 99

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

41

spoken), and tenor, referring to the relationship between those communicating (such as formally with those we do not know well, or informally with close friends and relatives). 107 As mentioned in 2.5, O’Donnell suggests which texts should be included in a register-balanced Hellenistic Greek corpus, yet to our knowledge he never compiled this corpus nor made it available for research. Even if we did have access to his suggested corpus, we believe that it is far too small to be adequate for a CL study such as ours which focuses on lexical semantics. For our study, we personally invested the time and effort to actually compile two Hellenistic Greek corpora by hand (see 2.10 and 2.15). We were not able to compile corpora with perfect register balance, yet our corpora do have the advantage of being eight times larger (four million tokens [see 2.12; 2.13] as opposed to O’Donnell’s half million). 108 Moving on from register, we can continue the breakdown all the way to the level of idiolect 109 in the sense of how one individual communicates: 110 ‘The term idiolect is often used to indicate the language of one individual, usually in its totality.’ 111 However, it can also be used to refer to an individual’s unique use of grammar or lexis. 112 (Regarding terminology, linguists sometimes use terms in differing ways, so there seems to be some fluidity and fuzziness regarding the difference between dialect, variety, sociolect, register and style.) Though not using the term idiolect, Hoey claims that every person has a different understanding of words depending on which meanings were primed 113 for them throughout their lifetime. 114 There is some truth in this in the sense that all the utterances in which I have heard word x used will never be exactly the same as all the utterances you have heard. So Hoey is correct that when we look at a corpus, no matter how large it is, we are in reality looking at how certain people have used a word at certain times, and are not seeing every potential use and therefore every potential meaning. Be that as it may, we know that given the parameters of similar time in Hudson, Sociolinguistics, pp. 48–49. O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 164–165. 109 Hudson, Sociolinguistics, p. 39. 110 Hoey goes too far when he says, speaking of how words prime for other words, ‘There is not, I claim, a single grammar to the language (indeed there is not a single language), but a multiplicity of overlapping grammars that are the product of the attempt to generalise out of primed collocations’ (Hoey, Lexical Priming, p. 47). 111 Enkvist, Linguistic Stylistics, p. 17. Idiolect has been used to describe Matthew’s Greek (Buth, ‘Aramaic’, p. 89), Mark’s style (Black, ‘Discourse Analysis, Synoptic Criticism, and Markan Grammar’, p. 93) and Johannine style (Culy, 1, 2, 3 John, p. 13; Wahlde, Introduction, Analysis, and Reference, p. 19). 112 Silva, ‘The Pauline Style as Lexical Choice’, pp. 204–205 n. 17; Silva, ‘A Response to Fanning and Porter on Verbal Aspect’, p. 79. Nolland uses idiolect to refer to Jesus’ use of ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 365). 113 See our brief discussion of lexical priming in 3.6. 114 Hoey, Lexical Priming, p. 9. Lyons and O’Donnell rightly comment that one’s idiolect is not fixed for life, but can change over time (Lyons, Language and Linguistics, p. 27; O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 392). 107 108

42

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

history, similar geography and similar education (not the exact same time, geography and education) speakers of a language will use words in a way similar enough to be understood; otherwise communication would be next to impossible. If I can use fish to mean engine, then we are seriously in trouble when I try to place an order at the auto parts store. In our study we found a few instances of differences in meaning due to the writers’ idiolect (see 7.1.6 for Philo’s use of συνίστημι). In the main, however, we were severely limited in the degree to which we were able to detect differences in meaning in the texts in our corpora which were clearly due to the variables of dialect, variety, sociolect, register or diglossia. The small size of the corpus and our lack of knowledge of the exact situations and environments in which most of the texts were composed, precluded our ability to do so. Another variable of which we must be aware, especially when using the LXX, is the presence of translation Greek. 115 For the most part, with regard to grammar and lexis, the LXX generally uses the ordinary everyday Hellenistic Greek of the period and is a good indication of the language of the time. 116 From his exhaustive study of the LXX Pentateuch, T. Evans concludes that, though there is at times Hebrew interference in the translation Greek, for the most part it is syntactically the same as other Koinē Greek of the period and should not be considered a separate ‘Jewish Greek’. Though the LXX is a heterogeneous collection, he concludes that the Pentateuch is sufficiently homogenous to be studied as a unity. 117 Lee also concludes that at least for the Pentateuch, the bulk of the vocabulary of the LXX is that of the early Koinē Greek shown in contemporary writings of III/II BCE. 118 Regarding the grammar of the LXX, aside from recognized semitisms, Porter sees it as normal Hellenistic Greek 119 and Peters says that the LXX ‘provides the context in which many of the lexical and theological concepts in the NT can best be explained’. 120 On balance, then, it is legitimate to include the LXX in our corpus, while also remaining aware of anomalies due to translation from Hebrew into Greek.

2.10 AVAILABILITY AND APPROPRIATENESS OF TEXTS IN THE CORPUS A corpus, in the CL sense of the term, is not simply a large collection of texts assembled at random. After discussing the issue of what makes a corpus a legitimate object for CL, Tognini-Bonelli summarizes as follows: ‘… a corpus is taken to be a computerised collection of authentic texts, amenable to automatic or semiautomatic 115 Kraft has ably outlined some of the difficulties involved in lexicography of translation Greek (Kraft, Septuagintal Lexicography, pp. 30–39). 116 This is especially true of the Pentateuch, and, for example, Tob, though less so in other places, for example, Lam and 4 Macc (Horrocks, Greek, p. 57). 117 T. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch, pp. 2–4. 118 Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch, pp. 145–149. 119 Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, pp. 145–147; Porter, ‘Septuagint’, p. 1104. 120 Peters, ‘Septuagint’, vol. 5, p. 1102.

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

43

processing or analysis. The texts are selected according to explicit criteria in order to capture the regularities of a language, a language variety or a sub-language.’ 121 She has chosen her wording carefully. By ‘authentic’ she means texts that have occurred in time and space, in actual usage, and were not invented by a linguist to demonstrate a certain point. They must be ‘taken from genuine communications of people going about their normal business.’ 122 A cornerstone of CL is that our understanding of language must come from examining authentic texts, rather than from introspection by linguists of what they think about language usage. Introspection has its place, but it is limited since what one person has been exposed to in personal experience is limited and may not be representative of general usage. 123 Her reference to the ‘regularities of a language’ mean that the corpus should, as much as possible, show how the language is normally used. Anomalies there will be, but a corpus should be large enough and representative enough of the bigger picture that they will be seen as anomalies. A key issue in corpus development is that the corpus should be representative of the language state or type of language being studied. 124 It would be pointless to examine a corpus that did not accurately represent the language segment being studied since conclusions drawn from the corpus could not rightfully be said to be applicable to the larger language segment. Tognini-Bonelli’s words are sobering: ‘Because corpus linguistics is a new approach, the issue of corpus reliability is one that raises concern. It is indeed a matter that has to be continuously monitored, as Biber (1994) maintained. A corpus can never be taken for granted, and must always be able to show its credentials.’ 125 Hunston is more pessimistic. Though agreeing that corpus design should aim for balance and representativeness, she says, ‘The problem is that “being representative” inevitably involves knowing what the character of the “whole” is. Where the proportions of that character are unknowable, attempts to be representative tend to rest on little more than guesswork.’ 126 She explains: A corpus can show nothing more than its own contents. Although it may (justifiably) claim to be representative, all attempts to draw generalisations from a corpus are in fact extrapolations. A statement about evidence in a corpus is a statement about that corpus, not about the language or register of which the corpus is a sample. Thus conclusions about language drawn from a corpus have to be treated as deductions, not as facts. 127

In a perfect world, we would be able to choose any text we wanted to form a corpus. In reality, due to copyright restrictions as well as the paucity of texts available in the Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 55. Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 55. 123 Hudson, Sociolinguistics, p. 2. 124 Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 57; Cheng, Exploring Corpus Linguistics, p. 1. 125 Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 88. 126 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, p. 28. 127 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, pp. 22–23. 121 122

44

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

required formats, we are held to a limited number of texts. For example, the TLG is very restrictive, allowing use of their corpus online, but not allowing the use of full texts in other software. The texts themselves are public domain (who has the right to copyright what Plutarch wrote 2,000 years ago?) but those that have been digitized, and especially those in which people have invested numerous work hours in annotating and tagging the text, are sold, sometimes at a premium price. In the following sections we will spell out the choice and formation of the corpora used for this study.

2.11 USE OF MULTIPLE CORPORA Our study involved the examination of three corpora. If a lexical item appeared 50+ times in the primary corpus it was not felt necessary to look for more usages. However, if the primary corpus yielded less than 50 usages, the secondary corpus was then checked. If it yielded enough usages to bring the total examples to 50 or more, then that was deemed sufficient. If we still lacked 50 usages after examining both the primary and secondary, then the tertiary corpus was called in. If after examining all three corpora we still lacked 50 usages, it was felt that the evidence was too slim to use for any lexicogrammatical conclusions, and the lexical item was either excluded from the study or a smaller scale study was done in which the conclusions were clearly described as provisional and inconclusive. In the ground-breaking CL work by the COBUILD team, a similar approach was taken. The first corpus consisted of seven million words and was sufficient for much of the COBUILD research, but a secondary corpus of 20 million words was sometimes used (for example, with a less-attested word such as bereaved). 128

2.12 PRIMARY CORPUS CONTENTS Our primary corpus consists of 177 full texts containing 1,740,830 tokens:

128

Krishnamurthy, ‘The Process of Compilation’, p. 63.

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS Table 1: Primary Corpus Contents

Göttingen LXX: 39 texts with 441,193 tokens Am 3,191 Hag Bar 2,602 Hos Bel 895 Isa Dan 10,562 Jdt Deut 22,871 Jer Let Jer 1,288 Job 1 Esd 9,039 Joel 2 Esd 13,464 Jon 5,838 Lam Esth 129 Ex 25,733 Lev Ezek 29,536 1 Macc Gen 32,508 2 Macc Hab 1,099 3 Macc

941 3,929 54,002 9,176 28,655 13,538 1,576 1,089 4,711 19,090 18,358 11,910 5,079

Greek OT Pseudepigrapha: 49 texts with 167,757 tokens Ahiqar 1,608 Ezek. Trag. 1,615 Apoc. Dan. 2,152 Gk. Apoc. Ezra 2,580 Apoc. Sedr. 2,325 Hist. Jos. 470 Apoc. Zeph. 52 Hist. Rech. 3,547 Apocr. Ezek. 725 Jan. Jam. 2,378 5,307 Jos. Asen. 8,214 Apos. Con. 130 Aris. Ex. 193 Jub. 2,488 Aristob. 2,212 L.A.E. 4,460 Artap. 1,765 Let. Aris. 12,850 2 Bar. 212 Liv. Pro. 2,700 3 Bar. 3,141 4 Macc. 7,859 4 Bar. 4,181 Mart. Ascen. Isa. 2,411 Cl. Mal. 160 Odes Sol. 340 Dem. 1,485 Ph. E. Poet 236 El. Mod. 18 Pr. Jac. 293 1 En. 5,705 Pr. Jos. 275 Eup. 1,678

Mal Mic Nah Num Ob Pss and Odes Ruth Sir Sus Tob Wis Zech Zeph

1,412 2,341 930 25,053 470 39,160 2,056 19,679 809 5,508 6,945 4,942 1,208

Pr. Man. Pss. Sol. Pseudo-Callisthenes Ps.-Eup. Ps.-Hec. Ps.-Orph. Ps.-Phoc. Sib. Or. T. Ab. T. Adam T. Job T. Mos. 131 T. Sol. T. 12 Patr. Theod. Theophilus

292 4,926 570 450 149 335 1,579 29,157 6,938 417 6,690 380 7,793 21,714 704 28

45

129 We used o’-Text, but not L-Text (Hanhart, Esther) since including them both would have skewed the data as most of the text would be included twice. 130 Alexander et al. place this under NT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Alexander, et al., SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Studies, p. 83) though Penner and Heiser include it in their OT Pseudepigrapha (Penner and Heiser, Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology). 131 We used the text found in Penner and Heiser, OT Greek Pseudepigrapha excluding the quote from Jude 9 which is already included in the NT word count.

46

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Philo: 41 texts with 424,023 tokens Abraham 13,284 Eternity Agriculture 8,978 Flaccus Alleg. Interp. 1 7,436 Flight Alleg. Interp. 2 6,908 Giants Alleg. Interp. 3 17,228 Good Person Cherubim 7,543 Heir Confusion 10,246 Hypothetica Contempl. Life 4,603 Joseph Creation 13,307 Migration Decalogue 8,436 Moses 1 Dreams 1 12,943 Moses 2 Dreams 2 12,842 Names Drunkenness 11,474 Planting Embassy 17,480 Posterity

9,188 8,914 10,856 3,246 7,611 15,670 2,330 12,802 12,435 16,999 14,375 12,986 8,864 10,951

Prelim. Studies Providence 1 Providence 2 Rewards Sacrifices Sobriety Spec. Laws 1 Spec. Laws 2 Spec. Laws 3 Spec. Laws 4 Unchangeable Virtues Worse

8,823 213 3,995 9,080 9,444 3,567 18,551 14,722 11,249 12,181 8,910 12,159 11,194

NT: 27 texts with 137,582 tokens 132 Acts 18,456 1 Jn Col 1,582 2 Jn 1 Cor 6,832 3 Jn 2 Cor 4,478 Jude Eph 2,422 Lk Gal 2,230 Mk Heb 4,955 Mt Jas 1,742 1 Pet Jn 15,640 2 Pet

2,141 245 219 461 19,488 11,306 18,348 1,684 1,101

Phil Philem Rev Rom 1 Thess 2 Thess 1 Tim 2 Tim Titus

1,629 335 9,405 7,091 1,481 823 1,591 1,238 659

125,274

Life

15,781

Josephus: 4 texts with 504,924 tokens Ag. Ap. 20,514 J.W. Ant. 343,355

Apostolic Fathers: 17 texts with 65,351 tokens Barn. 6,705 Herm. Mand., Sim., Vis. 1 Clem. 9,856 Ign. Eph. 2 Clem. 3,003 Ign. Magn. Did. 2,197 Ign. Phld. Diogn. 2,557 Ign. Pol. Fragments of Papias 2,195 Ign. Rom.

27,313 1,768 1,054 1,015 784 1,022

Ign. Smyrn. Ign. Trall. Mart. Pol. Pol. Phil. Trad. of Elders

1,144 947 2,418 1,130 243

132 The token count is based on the text as printed in Nestle-Aland27 which was the text used in our corpus. For a discussion of how textual variants affect computational analyses in corpus linguistic studies, see O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 273– 288.

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

47

As a whole, then, each of the following groups of writings make up the following percentage of the primary corpus: Table 2: Percentage of Sections of Primary Corpus LXX 25.3% Philo 24.4% Josephus OT Pseudepigrapha 9.6% NT 7.9% Apostolic Fathers

29.0% 3.8%

This is important to keep in mind as we analyze specific lexical items in the following chapters. See 5.3 for our discussion of significance in statistical measurements.

2.13 SECONDARY CORPUS CONTENTS The secondary corpus was made up of 161 texts with 2,298,673 tokens. Table 3: Secondary Corpus Contents

Apollodorus: 1 text with 35,146 tokens Library and Epitome 35,146 Aretaeus: 4 texts with 51,179 tokens Cur. acut. 16,326 Sign. acut. Cur. diut. 8,075

9,536

Appian: 2 texts with 222,506 tokens Bell. civ. 116,930 Hist. rom.

105,576

Epictetus: 3 texts with 84,345 tokens 133 Diatr. 77,236 Gnon.

4,989

Sign. diut.

17,242

Ench.

2,120

Galen: 1 text with 31,809 tokens On the Natural Faculties 31,809 Pausanias: 1 text with 218,180 tokens Descr. 218,180

133 We could have included Epictetus in our primary corpus since both in style and vocabulary he is close to the NT, especially Paul (Sim, Marking Thought and Talk in NT Greek, p. 15; Horrocks, Greek, p. 92; Jobes included him in her study [Jobes, ‘Greek Verbs in the Semantic Domain of Worship’, p. 209]).

48

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Plutarch: 143 texts with 986,045 tokens Adol. poet. aud. 9,876 Comp. Phil. Flam. Adul. amic. 11,784 Comp. Sol. Publ. Adv. Col. 9,890 Comp. Thes. Rom. Aem. 9,836 Comparison of Ag. Cleom. 4,488 Lucullus & Cimon Ages. 10,722 Comparison of Sertorius Alc. 9,666 & Eumenes Alex. 19,881 Compendium argumenti Alex. for. 8,341 stoicos absurdiora Am. prol. 2,172 poetis dicere Amat. 10,836 Conj. praec. [Amat. narr.] 1,815 [Cons. Apoll.] Amic. mult. 1,816 Cons. ux. [An ignis] 1,628 Crass. An recte dictum Cupid. divit. sit latenter Curios. esse vivendum 1,238 De esu An seni 6,736 De se ipsum citra An virt. doc. 649 invidiam laudando An vit. 868 Def. orac. An. corp. 840 Dem. An. procr. 9,439 Demetr. An. procr. epit. 1,192 Dion Ant. 18,457 E Delph [Apoph. lac.] 13,552 Eum. Arat. 11,755 Exil. Arist. 8,143 Fab. Art. 7,345 Fac. Brut. 11,930 Fat. Brut. an. 3,459 Flam. Caes. 16,005 Fort. Caius Gracchus 4,147 Fort. Rom. Caius Marius 12,786 Frat. amor. Cam. 11,043 Galb. Cat. Min. 16,623 Garr. Cic. 11,958 Gen. Socr. Cim. 5,852 Glor. Ath. Cleom. 8,929 Her. mal. Cohib. ira 5,450 Inim. util. Comm. not. 13,743 Instituta Laconica Comp. Aem. Tim. 478 Inv. od. Comp. Ag. Cleom. Is. Os. cum T. Gracch. 974 Lacaenarum apoph. Comp. Ages. Pomp. 1,079 [Lib. ed.] Comp. Alc. Cor. 1,068 Luc. Comp. Arist. Cat. 1,462 Lyc.

547 941 1,157

984

397

502 3,717 9,213 1,942 10,216 2,252 3,723 1,588

3,968 13,537 6,821 12,281 11,763 4,872 5,510 3,922 7,714 12,675 3,423 5,820 1,256 4,602 6,097 6,146 5,901 11,494 2,689 8,940 3,003 1,615 997 15,873 1,086 6,139 13,328 9,392

Per. Phil. Phoc. Pomp. Praec. ger. rei publ. Prim. frig. Princ. iner. Publ. Pyrrh. Pyth. orac. Quaest conv. Quaest gr. Quaest. nat. Quaest. plat. Quaest. rom. Rect. rat. aud. [Reg. imp. apophth.] Rom. Sept. sap. conv. Sera Sert. Sol. Soll. an. Stoic. rep. Suav. viv. Sull. Superst. Them. Thes. Tiberius Gracchus Tim. Tranq. an. Tu. san. Un. rep. dom. Virt. mor. Virt. prof. Virt. vit. Vit. aere al. Vit. pud. [Vit. X orat.]

9,941 5,686 8,161 20,105

12,452 5,007 562 5,844 10,872 7,114 61,963 5,933 4,059 6,178 13,500 5,112

16,069 9,212 8,783 9,366 6,649 8,466 11,889 12,074 9,713 11,492 3,323 7,904 7,385 5,030 9,052 6,046 6,901 554 5,760 5,046 663 2,006 3,655 9,098

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS Comp. Arist. Men. compend. 718 Comp. Dem. Cic. 976 Comp. Demetr. Ant. 880 Comp. Dion. Brut. 936 Comp. Lyc. Num. 1,587 Comp. Lys. Sull. 1,234 Comp. Nic. Crass 1,206 Comp. Pel. Marc. 800 Comp. Per. Fab. 719

Lys. Marc. Marcus Cato Max. princ. Mulier. virt. Nic. Num. Oth. Parallela minora Pel.

49

8,127 8,425 8,057 1,533 9,461 8,992 7,508 4,129 4,728 9,410

Polybius: 1 text with 311,336 tokens Histories 311,336 Strabo: 1 text with 285,787 tokens Geogr. 285,787 Justin Martyr: 4 texts with 72,350 tokens: 1 Apol. 14,438 Dial. 2 Apol. 3,297

51,998

Epistle to Diognetus

2,617

2.14 TERTIARY CORPUS The tertiary corpus is made up of literature, documentary papyri and inscriptions which fall between 200 BCE and CE 200 and are found in either the TLG, the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri (DDbDP) or the Packard Humanities Inscriptions (PHI). This means that for a few of the lexemes, we were close enough to having enough examples in our primary and secondary corpora that we deemed it beneficial to search for a few more usages in this tertiary corpus. This will be documented below whenever the tertiary corpus was used.

2.15 TEXT PREPARATION An important albeit time-consuming task in CL is preparing the corpus. The corpus is made up of a series of texts and these must be in digital, computer-readable format. They must be available, in the sense that they are either in the public domain or permission has been granted to use copyrighted texts. They must also be readable by a concordancing program. Thankfully there are many texts available for the study of the Greek New Testament and Hellenistic Greek and many are already available as digital texts. The more formidable task for the current study was finding or preparing texts which were readable in concordancing programs. Two well-known databases were deemed inadequate, namely, the TLG and Perseus. Although the TLG is unprecedented in its breadth since it contains essentially all known Greek texts from antiquity through the advent of the printing press, its search capability is extremely limited allowing the user to search on a maximum of three lemma within a given distance of each other. The output was also limiting in that the user was given a string of sentences in a list, but not in true, centered KWIC lines. Perseus provides access to a wealth of Greek texts, but is also very limited in its search and display capabilities.

50

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

It is axiomatic in CL that in order to make an informed analysis, the user has to be able to sort the texts based on numerous criteria, such as node word, word or phrase following the node, word or phrase preceding the node, etc. To do that, an adequate concordancing program is necessary, which was not available within either the TLG or Perseus. In the early stages of this study an attempt was made to examine the TLG but it was found to be far too clumsy for CL. The process of cutting and pasting texts from the TLG was not only far too time consuming for one person, but was not allowed on copyright grounds if it included the entirety of a text. Perseus’ materials were public domain so copying and pasting was not forbidden, but we determined through trial and error that finding and copying the needed texts was far too laborintensive and time-consuming to be practical for one man’s thesis. It would take a team of workers to prepare the text, thousands of work hours, and therefore serious funding to make such a project feasible. It was thus deemed unrealistic to take this approach for this study. It was found that the two most practical programs for CL were WordSmith Tools 134 and Logos Bible Software. Logos had available numerous Greek texts which met the qualification of being written between 200 BCE and CE 200 and of genres analogous to the Greek New Testament. Logos also contained its own proprietary Bible word study feature which quickly found all lemma occurrences and displayed them in KWIC lines which could be sorted in various fashions. Many texts were available in Logos and in 2011 (halfway through this study) they released the entire Perseus collection, making it now possible to use the powerful Logos concordancing feature on hundreds of public domain texts. For this reason it was decided to use Logos for much of the CL analysis. In practice we used what Sinclair calls ‘multiple data streams’ which means that we maintained the corpus in two forms, as raw text and as marked-up (or annotated) text. 135 When adequately trained, a tagger/parser 136 can save valuable time in preparing a corpus for analysis. Tagging refers to adding annotation to a plain text, such as an indication of part of speech (POS). This allows the computer to search for more than just word forms. Parsing refers to separating a plain text into its constituent parts, such as into clauses. Annotation encompasses both tagging and parsing and includes any other mark up that is added to the text (such as a header listing the name of the author, date of composition, etc.) and is very beneficial for analysis. 137 Scott, WordSmith Tools 5.0. Sinclair, ‘Corpus Processing’, pp. 190–192. 136 We are using parsing in the sense used in computer science, linguistics and NLP which refers to syntactical analysis whereby the computer determines the function in the sentence (such as POS, prepositional phrases, etc.), as opposed to the more commonly understood meaning of parsing in biblical language study whereby the reader determines the grammatical properties of a word (such as tense, mood, voice, person, etc.). 137 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, pp. 18–20. See O’Donnell’s detailed discussion and examples (O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 138–163, 251– 272). 134 135

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

51

The archive in Logos came with its own internal tags and annotation, that is, in most instances the text was parsed and lemmatized and assigned POS. We copied the text (without tags and annotation) from the Logos corpus and saved them as plain text (.txt files in Unicode), and then stripped out all verses references, chapter headings, numbers and symbols (though leaving in punctuation marks). As Sinclair explains, there is an advantage in having the data in two forms: the annotated text allows you to search much more rapidly if you want to find things by lemma, POS, etc. This is much faster than searching plain, unmarked text, as anyone knows who has used Bible software with morphologically tagged Bible texts. However, any type of annotation is based on human decision, is usually made on the basis of an assumed lexicogrammatical system (for example, how to differentiate a comparative from a superlative on orthographic grounds) before the corpus is studied on its own, is prone to error, and once added to a text these errors can be seen as part and parcel of the text itself. The advantage of an unmarked plain text is that it lets the corpus speak for itself, in that there are no presupposed structures laid onto the text. This allows the human researchers to read the text as is and come to their own lexicogrammatical conclusions. Because there are advantages and disadvantages to annotated and un-annotated texts, best practice is to keep the same corpus in both forms (multiple data streams) to allow the researcher to search on one or the other, depending on the need at the time. 138 We have taken this approach by using the same corpus in an annotated format in Logos, and in an un-annotated format in WordSmith. Hoey and O’Donnell highlight the advantages of using an annotated text in order to allow searches based on various factors, 139 not just the orthography of a word but by POS, semantic domains, clause elements, 140 anaphora and kataphora, etc., 141 though Sinclair warns that this can often obscure or skew the data since we are imposing on the text several presuppositions, such as that all word forms of a given lemma have the same meaning, that the classification into noun, verb, adjective, etc. are correct classifications and that words must fall into one of those classes. He argues that many common words do not fit neatly into any one POS category and should be considered to be a different sort of word class. 142 (For example, of behaves differently than other prepositions and should be considered a word class all its own, ‘with a basic function of extending the nominal group to permit an alternative headword’. 143) Even with the power of Logos, it was found that a program written by a linguist specifically for CL was needed as well. For that reason, texts purchased in Logos were then copied and pasted into plain text files (.txt) and prepared for WordSmith. The 138 For details and examples of the shortcomings of annotated texts, see Sinclair, ‘Corpus Processing’. Sinclair has been the most outspoken about the dangers of annotated texts in corpus studies. 139 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, p. 79. 140 Hoey and O’Donnell, ‘Lexicography, Grammar, and Textual Position’, pp. 293–309. 141 O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 56. 142 Sinclair, ‘A Way with Common Words’, pp. 164–166. 143 Sinclair, ‘A Way with Common Words’, p. 165.

52

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Logos texts were purged of all non-Greek characters, versification, headings, and footnotes, so that the pure Greek text was left. Titles and subscriptions which were not part of the original texts were deleted. Since we were dealing only with Greek, any Latin or Hebrew interspersed in the text was deleted in order to make the word counts accurate. The textual apparatus was not included as this would have distorted the numbers. However, words in brackets were retained, including editorial reconstructions; in other words we retained what was in the printed text. For example, in Hist. Jos. square brackets (‘[’ and ‘]’) were retained when they were attached to words because it would not disturb the word count but deleted when they were separated from a word. Greek headings in the Shepherd of Hermes were retained, as well as the section titles of Appian’s Roman History. Greek letters used as numbers were deleted from the Psalms and Odes. The indication of the speakers in Ezekiel the Tragedian were deleted. The titles to the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs were retained as being part of the text. These cleansed texts were entered into WordSmith which was able to rapidly make word counts, sorts and comparisons, as well as determine frequent collocations (see 5.3 for statistical measurements used for collocations).

2.16 CONVENTIONS FOR INDICATING WORD POSITION When referring to concordance lines, the word under investigation is called the node. 144 A word’s position relative to the node can be indicated in two ways. One method is to use L# and R#. 145 L stands for the position to the left of the node so that L1 146 means one word to the left of the node, L2 two words to the left of the node, etc. Conversely, R stands for the position to the right of the node such that R1, R2 and R3 designate the words one word to the right of the node, two words to the right and three words to the right, respectively. The node itself is designated as 0. The method which is more common in the literature, however, is the use of +# and -# symbols so that N equals the node itself, N-1 the word one position before the node, N-2 for the word two positions before the node, N+1 for the word one position after the node, N+2 for the word two positions after the node, etc. 147 We will use this nomenclature since it is the more common of the two. There is debate over how long a span (string of words) should be considered when searching for collocations, but the span normally used is five words to the left and five words to the right of the node (that is, N-5 through N+5), 148 though some corpus 144 Sinclair, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, pp. 105, 115–116; Berry-Rogghe, ‘Computation of Collocations’, p. 103; Jackson, Words and Their Meaning, p. 100; Sinclair, Reading Concordances, p. 177; Stubbs, Words and Phrases, p. 29. 145 Scott, WordSmith Tools 5.0. 146 This should not be confused with another use of L1 in linguistics meaning a person’s first language, such as in Almela and Sánchez, ‘Words as “Lexical Units” in Learning/Teaching Vocabulary’, p. 27. 147 Sinclair, Reading Concordances, p. 12; Stubbs, Words and Phrases, p. xv. 148 Church and Hanks, ‘Word Association Norms, Mutual Information, and Lexicography’, p. 24.

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

53

linguists prefer N-4 through N+4). 149 KWIC lines may have eight or nine words on each side of a node, 150 but it is generally accepted among practitioners of CL that most if not all meaningful collocations (Martin et al. claim 95%) 151 will be found within four or five. 152

2.17 FUNCTION WORDS Lyons uses the terminology full word-form for those which intuitively seem to have full meaning (chair, spider, sleep, happily) and empty word-form for those that do not (the, a, in, at) and mentions that the latter are also called form words, function words or structural words. 153 In the CL literature they are most often called function words or even stop words since they are often included in a list which tells the computer algorithm to ‘stop’ (or better ‘skip’) these words when doing calculations. However, Sinclair would argue that even these words have meaning and should be studied. 154 We will not be able to fully discuss this issue due to lack of space. However, we do argue that the seemingly ‘empty’ words with (see 4.5) and σύν (see 5.5) often have ‘full’ meaning.

2.18 SINGLETONS IN THE CORPUS It should be pointed out that usages which appear only one time in a corpus, called hapax legomena or singletons, are normally not included in a lexicon on the principle that single appearances cannot be trusted as true meanings. They could be typographical errors or flukes. The COBUILD team rejected collocations which were hapax legomena, but had to manually examine those which occurred twice (sometimes called dis legomena) 155 since some seemed intuitively significant while others did not. For example, in considering the collocates which occurred twice each with take, some seemed intuitively unimportant: they’d (which occurred at N-4), prepared (N-2), boat (N+2), Canada (N+2), example (N+2) and nine (N+2). But some collocates which occurred only twice with car seemed intuitively important: sell (N-2), buy (N-2), turn (N-2), second (N-2), hand (N-1), Sinclair, Jones, and Daley, English Collocation Studies, p. 5. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, p. 105. 151 Martin, Al, and Sterkenburg, ‘Processing of a Text Corpus’, p. 84. 152 Jackson, Words and Their Meaning, p. 100; Oakes, Statistics for Corpus Linguistics, p. 164. O’Donnell’s cautions about limiting our analysis to four- or five-word windows are important (O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 335 n. 42, 365). 153 Lyons, Language, Meaning and Context, p. 48. Hunston calls the latter grammatical words, and the former lexical words or content words (Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, p. 149). Related to this distinction is what Kearns calls syncategorematic expressions (such as as, some, because, etc.) since ‘they do not have independent, easily paraphrasable meanings on their own, and we can only describe their meaning by placing them in a context’ as opposed to categorematic expressions (such as chimney, blue or domestic) (Kearns, Semantics, p. 5). 154 Sinclair, ‘A Way with Common Words’, pp. 157–166. 155 Cheng, Exploring Corpus Linguistics, p. 69. 149

150 Sinclair,

54

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

private (N-1) and front (N+2). 156 This is because as native speakers we see the potential for pattern in buy [a] car and sell [a] car, but not in take ___ Canada or take ____ nine. Of course, even these choices are subjective; they discarded prepared and example, yet we can see the potential importance of the idiomatic prepared [to] take and take [for] example. For the most part, wisdom dictates that at least two instances must be found to consider the example as possibly valid. Otherwise, if only attested in one place, it could easily be a personal idiosyncrasy and should not be counted as regular usage. 157 Mistakes happen and should not be considered representative of the language. 158 (See 2.18 for an examination of four singleton collocates with σύν.)

2.19 SUPERVISED METHOD VS. UNSUPERVISED METHOD In the CL literature it is often lamented that WSD is slow, labor-intensive work. Computational linguistics has produced numerous ways to save human time and effort by automating as much WSD as possible. The methods are described in various ways and one division is between methods described as supervised and others as unsupervised. Unsupervised (also called automatic or knowledge-free 159) means that, in general, the computer can do the (majority of) WSD alone without assistance from a human reader’s intuition, whereas supervised means that it must be helped by having a human read the KWIC lines in order to understand the line in context. Most methods are a combination of the two (perhaps better labeled partially supervised), where an unsupervised computer algorithm can disambiguate many or most of the polysemes or at least the homographs. In other words, it can disambiguate book as a noun, This book is very interesting, from book as a verb, I need to book a flight to Houston, but it would need a human reader to go back and disambiguate more subtle differences 160 in book as a verb, such as the difference between the sense of to reserve a seat on an airplane flight as in the example above as opposed to the criminal and legal sense, The defendant was booked on two counts of assault and battery. English in some ways is more amenable to corpus studies because of the requirement of a relatively fixed order of word classes. For example, adjectives very often appear at N-1 before the noun they modify so that by sorting KWIC lines by N1 we can relatively easily find a list of common adjective-noun collocates, such as Partington points out for stark collocating with contrast. 161 However, due to the relative freedom of word order in Greek, this does not work so well. 162 Sinclair, Jones, and Daley, English Collocation Studies, p. 73. Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 89. 158 My wife once referred to a lazy person as a ‘potato couch’, though she obviously meant ‘couch potato’! Just because ‘potato couch’ occurred in real, attested language usage, does not mean it should be included in a dictionary or grammar as an English idiom. 159 Stubbs, ‘Corpora and Texts: Lexis and Text Structure’, pp. 223–224. 160 O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 75. 161 Partington, Patterns and Meanings, pp. 9–10. 162 Some English studies limit the window to just two or three words on each side, but as Rydberg-Cox points out, this is too small for Hellenistic Greek because of the freer use of word 156 157

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

55

CL methods have been fruitful for modern language studies, especially English, and yet have had minimal success for Hellenistic Greek. In fact very few attempts have been made to use CL for WSD aside from the work of O’Donnell comparing and contrasting the near synonyms ἐγείρω and ἀνίστημι. 163 Part of the reason may be that it is normally best to use the supervised method for Hellenistic Greek and this is still very labor intensive. It is very difficult for human corpus users to retain in their heads at one time any more than roughly 100 KWIC lines (if that) when looking for broad patterns, and any more than roughly 30 lines when looking for detailed patterns. 164 Sinclair’s advice is quite practical wherein he suggests examining 25–30 random lines and searching for patterns, and then moving on to another 25–30 looking for new patterns, and continuing this process until the next 25–30 lines yield no significant new information. 165 My own experience is that human readers can do this for only one to three hours at a time before they reach the point of diminishing returns where they are no longer able to distinguish patterns or keep organized in their minds the different collocational patterns of more than two or three different senses. As Church and Hanks say, ‘In analyzing a complex word such as take, save, or from, the lexicographer is trying to pick out significant patterns and subtle distinctions that are buried in literally thousands of concordance lines … The unaided human mind simply cannot discover all the significant patterns, let alone group them and rank them in order of importance.’ 166 In this study we used a supervised method to examine σύν (see 5.5.1–5.5.7; 8.2– 8.4), ζάω (6.1), δύναμις (6.2.1–6.2.3), συνίστημι (7.1.1–7.1.8) and συνείδησις (7.2) which means we personally examined each verse where the lexeme appeared (thus it is quantitative and qualitative). For that reason the results are more strongly assured. For our comparison of πλοῖον vs. ναῦς (5.4.1) and ἀγαπάω vs. φιλέω (5.4.2) we used an unsupervised method in that we had the computer find the distinctions and we did not read through all of the usages of the lexeme. Therefore the results of those comparisons are more preliminary and less strongly assured.

2.20 INDUCTIVE AND DEDUCTIVE APPROACH The approach taken in this study is both bottom-up and top-down. 167 It is bottom-up in the sense that we chose lemmas such as σύν and συνίστημι and read through all the order, where for example, the verb may be farther removed than would be acceptable in English (Rydberg-Cox, ‘Co-Occurrence Patterns and Lexical Acquisition in Ancient Greek Texts’, p. 124). 163 O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 340–386. 164 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, p. 51–52. 165 Sinclair, ‘A Way with Common Words’, p. 166. 166 Church and Hanks, ‘Word Association Norms’, pp. 26–27. 167 These terms describe inductive and deductive approaches, respectively (Tognini-Bonelli, ‘Working with Corpora’, pp. 16–17; Clear, ‘From Firth Principles’, p. 27). Sinclair uses the terms somewhat differently in Reading Concordances, x, where top-down means starting with generalizations about the conduct of parts of speech as they have traditionally been labeled

56

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

occurrences in our primary corpus in order to observe their lexicogrammatical behavior. From this, principles were culled to show how phraseological observations aid us in our understanding of the semantics of this lexeme. For example, we had no preconceived notions that σὺν γυναιξὶ καὶ τέκνοις would reveal a negative semantic prosody (see note at 3.7.2) or that when συνίστημι is used with the meaning to gather it normally refers to people gathering together and usually in a military or conflict context (see 7.1.5). Yet the tedious and mundane discipline of reading through each and every usage of the word in our corpus led us to observe those tendencies. At the same time, the top-down approach was taken in that we learned from previous studies in the field in English lexicogrammar to alert us to potential areas which might also prove enlightening for Hellenistic Greek. For example, the numerous and varied senses of with raised the question of whether these sense differences were present with σύν, and the fuzzy boundary between boat and ship piqued our interest in the difference between πλοῖον and ναῦς. We found both the bottom-up and top-down approach appropriate for this lexicogrammatical study. The top-down approach has also been called corpus-based 168 in that it begins with a pre-existing theory and tests it against a corpus. It is ‘a methodology that avails itself of the corpus mainly to expound, test or exemplify theories and descriptions that were formulated before large corpora became available to inform language study’. 169 The bottom-up approach has been called corpus-driven 170 and has been explained as follows: In a corpus-driven approach the commitment of the linguist is to the integrity of the data as a whole, and descriptions aim to be comprehensive with respect to corpus evidence. The corpus, therefore, is seen as more than a repository of examples to back pre-existing theories or a probabilistic extension to an already well defined system. The theoretical statements are fully consistent with, and reflect directly, the (noun, adjective, preposition, etc.) and seeking to apply the category to specific usages (for example, word x is a preposition), whereas bottom-up means observing the word usage first and then drawing conclusions even if they fly in the face of traditional grammatical categories (for example, word y is a preposition in those usages, but a noun in these). 168 Francis, ‘A Corpus-Driven Approach to Grammar’, pp. 135–156; Hunston and Francis, Pattern Grammar; Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 11; McEnery, Xiao, and Tono, Corpus-Based Language Studies; Pedersen, ‘Unsupervised Corpus-Based Methods for WSD’, pp. 133–166. 169 Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 65. 170 Francis, ‘A Corpus-Driven Approach to Grammar’, pp. 135–156; Hunston and Francis, Pattern Grammar; Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 11; Pedersen, ‘Unsupervised Corpus-Based Methods for WSD’, pp. 133–166; Hoey, ‘Corpus-Driven Approaches to Grammar’, pp. 33–47. In the earlier days of CL, the distinction between corpus-based and corpus-driven was not always maintained in the literature, so it would be unfair and anachronistic to accuse writers before, say, the year 2000, of not being corpus-driven in their approach simply because they used the term corpus-based, which at that time was more of a general term for the entire CL approach, not a technical term for what we are calling a topdown approach.

CHAPTER 2: APPLYING CL TO GREEK NT LEXICAL SEMANTICS

57

evidence provided by the corpus. Indeed, many of the statements are of a kind that are not usually accessible by any other means than the inspection of corpus evidence. Examples are normally taken verbatim, in other words they are not adjusted in any way to fit the predefined categories of the analyst; recurrent patterns and frequency distributions are expected to form the basic evidence for linguistic categories; the absence of a pattern is considered potentially meaningful. 171

Those who hold to this approach say CL is more than a method for testing theories; it is a discipline in its own right, which should be used for discovering new theories. 172 As much as possible, the corpus-driven approach has no pre-existing theory and simply follows the corpus wherever the evidence leads.

2.21 CONCLUSION TO CHAPTER 2 In this chapter we have laid out the method we used in this study. In order to carry out our investigation of WSD in Greek New Testament lexical semantics, we developed our own corpora of 4,039,503 tokens. In keeping with our focus on the meaning of lexical items in the NT, we included texts dating from 200 BCE to CE 200 (plus the LXX), which were generically similar to the Greek New Testament and representative of the literature of that era, while we removed the more well-known Atticists. Because of the fact that languages change over time and lexemes change in meaning over periods of time, we emphasized a synchronic approach to lexical semantics. We chose to examine several lexemes which occurred 50 to 1,000 times. Due to the small size of our corpus (compared to third- or fourth-generation corpora used in modern language studies), we were unable to observe differences in meaning based on the writers’ age, educational background or geographical location, nor were we able to make clear cases for sense distinctions due to differences in dialect, variety or register, though we were able to identify some examples of different senses due to idiolect. It was of utmost importance that as the first step in this study we developed corpora which included texts which are chronologically and generically similar to the NT, which provided a representative sampling of Hellenistic Greek of the NT era, and which were large enough for us to find 50 or more uses of a given lexeme. This provided us with enough examples to see which meanings of a polyseme tended to occur with which collocations. We have listed the specific texts included in our corpora, and the specifics we used in the preparation of our text, in order to be transparent and to allow other scholars to reproduce the corpus and test our results, as well as build on them. We have explained the difference between supervised and unsupervised methods so that, again, our findings can be tested and reproduced by others, and also because we believe that both methods are of value. Yet we emphasize a supervised method because we feel it is necessary in order to adequately determine which collocations help disambiguate a polyseme. 171 Tognini-Bonelli, 172 Cheng,

Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 84. Exploring Corpus Linguistics, p. 6.

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING 3.1 THE PRIMACY OF MEANING FOR OUR STUDY Our primary goal throughout this study is to improve our understanding of the meaning of the Greek New Testament through understanding lexical items. We are seeking in each instance to answer the question, ‘What does this lexical item mean in this utterance 1?’ Lexical semantics is the priority, especially as it applies to polysemes. When we read a NT text and the word in question is polysemous we want to know how to determine its sense. Meaning or sense, 2 however, is not quite as straightforward as it at first might appear to be. After briefly reviewing the differences between referential theory, ideational or mentalistic theory, meaning-is-use theory and truth-conditional theory, Porter notes that ‘it should be clear that determining something as apparently simple as the meaning of a word requires a solid and conscious methodological basis’. 3 In this chapter and the next, we will do just that and will look at how to determine the meaning of a lexical item, how to describe that meaning in a lexical entry, and along the way we will deal with several perennial issues in lexicography which will help us better understand the challenge of making sense out of meaning.

3.2 METALINGUISTIC DIFFICULTIES A long-standing difficulty in linguistics is that our object of study—language—must be described using the same thing—language. Unlike other sciences where we have a separate means for describing our object (such as first order logic which uses symbols and algebraic notation), in linguistics we are using the thing (language) to describe the

1 By

utterance we mean a sentence as used in a specific instance, that is, the instantiation of a potentially multi-occurring sentence (Ellis, ‘On Contextual Meaning’, p. 82). The same sentence, He was here yesterday means very different things depending on who the subject of the sentence is and when and where it is spoken. 2 Instead of meaning or sense Atkins, Rundell and Sato prefer lexical unit (LU), but this seems to us to be an odd and ultimately unclear term to use in this way (Atkins, Rundell, and Sato, ‘The Contribution of FrameNet to Practical Lexicography’, p. 334). 3 Porter, ‘Greek Language and Linguistics’, p. 11.

59

60

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

thing (language). 4 This has led linguists to discuss the idea of metalanguage, which can be understood as a way of using language to refer to language (‘the ordinary language then is called object language’). 5 Technically speaking it could be said that we should not say Cat is a small, domesticated, carnivorous mammal, but rather Cat is a word which refers to a small, domesticated, carnivorous mammal. 6 The advantage of this approach is that it clearly distinguishes between the thing (significatum) and the word (sign) used to describe the thing. Nonmetalinguistic definitions are ‘syntactically substitutive’, 7 while metalinguistic definitions are not. By this we mean that one can substitute the definition (called the definiens) for the defined word (called the definiendum), 8 so that instead of saying, There is a cat in the barn, one could say, There is a small, domesticated, carnivorous mammal in the barn. 9 This cannot be done with a metalinguistic definition 10 since we would not say *There is a word that means a small, domesticated, carnivorous mammal in the barn. From a lexicographical viewpoint, the disadvantage of a metalinguistic definition is that in practice it can be quite cumbersome and redundant. For practical reasons, in this study we will use the standard practice of listing definitions as Cat is a small …, though we acknowledge at the outset that we are referring to the word (cat), not the animal (CAT). At the same time, the definitions which we suggest below are partially metalinguistic. On the one hand we are not repeating each time (x is a word that refers to …), yet we do seek to describe how the word is used (You say with when you are …) (see 4.5).

3.3 SENTENTIAL DEFINITIONS Until recently most dictionaries have used glosses or short phrases for definitions, such as this example of θύρα from BDAG: ‘a passage for entering a structure, entrance, doorway, gate’. More recent dictionaries designed especially for those learning English as a foreign language (EFL) use full sentences, such as this example of door from Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s English Dictionary (COB4): ‘A door is a piece of wood, glass, or metal, which is moved to open and close the entrance to a building, room, cupboard or vehicle.’ This type of definition is called sentential 11 since it uses full 4 Some linguists prefer to use algebraic symbols (for example, Lyons who uses ~ x ⊃ y and y ⊃ ~ x to explain complementarity) (Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, p. 461). See Cann on translating English into a logical language (Cann, Formal Semantics, pp. 27–31). 5 Reichenbach, Elements of Symbolic Logic, p. 9. 6 Geeraerts, ‘Meaning and Definition’, pp. 87–88. 7 Geeraerts, ‘Meaning and Definition’, p. 88. 8 Landau, Dictionaries, p. 153. 9 In actuality, though, this does change the meaning of the sentence. The connotative meaning (see 3.5) has now changed; the sentence now expresses a highfalutin, pseudo-scientific statement, probably said tongue in cheek. 10 Landau, Dictionaries, p. 165. 11 Geeraerts, ‘Meaning and Definition’, p. 91.

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING

61

sentences (also called discursive explanation). 12 Lexicographers debate the merits and shortcomings of various styles of definitions (the science of what to include in definitions and how is called metalexicography). 13 When space is at a premium, glosses are used; when the purpose is to show the user (normally a non-native speaker) how and when to use the lexeme (in what are often called dictionaries of collocations, usage guides or dictionaries of style), sentences are preferred. It is our contention that for those of us learning Hellenistic Greek as non-native speakers, sentential definitions are clearer, and we will use them throughout this study.

3.4 SEMASIOLOGICAL APPROACH The most common approach in lexicography to date has been semasiological, which means that we start with a specific lemma and give its definition. This is the approach taken with most, if not all, dictionaries which are arranged alphabetically. The other approach is onomasiological, 14 meaning that the dictionary is organized by related concepts or semantic domains and under each domain are listed various lexemes which have meanings that fall within those categories. 15 The most well-known example in biblical studies is L&N, which although it has an alphabetical index for those who want to use it semasiologically, is organized by semantic domain, such that, for example, 63.1–4 treats lemmas which deal with the concept WHOLE. The Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew is currently under development (www.sdbh.org) with a similar (though not identical) approach. 16 A thesaurus is a combination of the semasiological and onomasiological approach since it lists words alphabetically, but each entry lists other words which are conceptually similar. 17 In the proper sense of the word, a true thesaurus of biblical or Hellenistic Greek has not been attempted. 18 Thesauri are helpful resources for those composing in the language (encoding) who want to find a 12 Burkhanov explains how sentential definitions are helpful in providing the user with pragmatic information (Burkhanov, ‘Pragmatic Specifications’, pp. 102–103). 13 Burkhanov, ‘Pragmatic Specifications’, pp. 106–108. 14 McArthur calls it thematic (McArthur, ‘Thematic Lexicography’, pp. 149–159). 15 Geeraerts, ‘Meaning and Definition’, p. 84. In discussing synonyms, Sterkenburg states that the semasiological approach answers the question ‘[w]hat semantic differences are there between words that are given as names for one and the same concept?’ whereas the onomasiological approach answers the question ‘[w]hat names are there for concept “n”?’ (Sterkenburg, ‘Onomasiological Specifications and a Concise History of Onomasiological Dictionaries’, p. 133). 16 In addition to the onomasiological approach adopted by L&N, SDBH is also seeking to incorporate the findings of cognitive linguistics (Blois, ‘Lexicography and Cognitive Linguistics’). 17 Geeraerts, ‘Meaning and Definition’, p. 85. 18 Day’s work is closer to a topical Bible and is not lexicographical (Day, Collins Thesaurus of the Bible). For a thesaurus-type listing of biblical Hebrew and Aramaic lexemes, see Sailhamer, ‘Introduction’, pp. vii–ix.

62

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

different yet similar word to add variety to their composition, 19 yet it is questionable whether they are helpful when seeking the meaning of a lexical item (decoding). Few of us need to compose in Hellenistic Greek. We need to be clear on the purpose of our Hellenistic Greek lexica. Lexica designed to help us write in a language (encode) are often called active dictionaries. Examples would be English-Greek dictionaries which in older days were more common for students required to compose in Classical Greek (for example, Yonge, Hamilton, Woodhouse, Fradersdorff and Berry 20). Lexica designed to help us comprehend (decode) a language are called passive dictionaries. 21 Examples are GreekEnglish dictionaries such as those well known to NT students (BAGD, BDAG, L&N, EDNT, etc.). With the advent of electronic dictionaries where space is less of an issue, it is possible to have a dictionary which is both semasiological and onomasiological. Oppentocht and Schutz refer to this as a ‘reversed dictionary’ in the sense that one can adapt a semasiologically-designed dictionary in electronic form and can search it onomasiologically. 22 A simple search for a term like cat or dog would not be very profitable since it would return numerous false hits and noise by including cat or dog found anywhere in the definition. The dictionary would need to be tagged with fields. For example, users would need to be able to specify that they are searching for all words which are hyponyms of cat in order to find all terms that are onomasiologically related, such as lion, tiger or puma as part of the cat family, or for example searching terms labeled ‘euphemistic’ or ‘informal’, etc. or marked as synonyms or antonyms. 23

3.5 DENOTATIVE MEANING VS. CONNOTATIVE MEANING Definitions can be denotative or connotative. 24 Denotative (also called designative, 25 conceptual, cognitive, 26 or referential) meaning is what a lexical item denotes or that to which Sterkenburg, ‘Onomasiological Specifications’, pp. 129–130. An English-Greek Dictionary; Fradersdorff, A Copious Phraseological English-Greek Lexicon; Berry, The Classic Greek Dictionary in Two Parts: Greek-English and English-Greek; Hamilton, An English-Greek Lexicon Containing All the Words in General Use with Their Various Significations Classified; Woodhouse, English-Greek Dictionary. 21 Varantola, ‘Linguistic Corpora (Databases) and the Compilation of Dictionaries’, p. 231. 22 Oppentocht and Schutz, ‘Design of Dictionaries’, p. 222. 23 It is not our purpose to write a taxonomical structure of Hellenistic Greek in order to determine how Hellenistic Greek speakers conceptualized the relationships between different things. This falls less under lexical semantics and more under cognitive linguistics, a newer field which has attracted the attention of a few biblical scholars (see Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies; Blois, ‘Lexicography and Cognitive Linguistics’). 24 Murphy adds a third dimension, social meaning, which provides information about the speaker and the situation (for example, Howdy spoken by a southerner in an informal situation) or about the speakers and their attitudes or feelings (for example, He’s a drunk vs. He’s an alcoholic) (Murphy, Lexical Meaning, p. 33). 25 Lyons, Language, Meaning and Context, pp. 53–54. 19

20 Yonge,

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING

63

it refers. For example, table and τράπεζα can be used to refer to ‘a piece of furniture consisting of a smooth flat slab fixed on legs’ (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. [MW11]). Connotative (also called expressive 27 or associative) meaning is the emotional tone or ‘feeling’ of a word. 28 The same referent (automobile) is denoted in both Did you see Frank’s new car? and Did you see Frank’s new wheels?, but the latter is more colloquial and informal. There are various types of connotative meaning, including emotive, grammatical and pragmatic. 29 Emotive meaning can often be specified in a lexical entry with terms such as pejorative, derogatory, euphemistic, etc. Both dog and cur refer to a canine, but the latter is derogatory. To say that someone died is neutral, that he passed away is euphemistic and that he croaked is pejorative. 30 Emotive categories also include formality (formal, informal, ritual, casual), temporality (archaic, obsolete, neologism) and social class (highbrow, vulgar). 31 Ladies and gentleman is an appropriate greeting for a speech, whereas Hey, guys! is more appropriate when you see friends at a game. Abase is archaic whereas pwn or noob are new. 32 Grammatical meaning describes lexical items which have a grammatical function but would be difficult to pinpoint as an item or describe as a ‘thing’. Often called function words, these would include the definite and indefinite article (the, a, ὁ,), subordinating conjunctions (that, ὅτι, ἵνα), etc. Pragmatic meaning can be used to refer to the effect of a word. Hi!, for example, does not refer to the concept of greeting, but actually carries out the function by greeting someone; Thanks! does not refer to the idea of gratitude, but rather expresses gratitude to the hearer. 33 We can say that denotation is that to which a lexical item refers, while connotation goes beyond that and refers to the feeling or inferences which are 26 Murphy,

Lexical Meaning, p. 32. Language, Meaning and Context, pp. 53–54. 28 See the helpful explanation in Geeraerts, ‘Meaning and Definition’, p. 87. See also Lyons, Structural Semantics, p. 74; Nida, ‘Science of Translation’, p. 89; Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament, p. 7; Sinclair, Reading Concordances, p. 117. Ogden and Richards, writing earlier, use connotative and denotative differently, where denotative (which they also call extensive) means what we call a metalinguistic definition, and where connotative (which they also call intensive) means what we call a non-metalinguistic definition (Ogden and Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, pp. 111–112). Zipf, writing even earlier, uses connote to mean an extension of an original meaning to a new application, such as cat being extended from a feline to a type of woman, or kid being extended from a young goat to a human child (Zipf, Relative Frequency in Language, pp. 8–11). 29 Geeraerts, ‘Meaning and Definition’, p. 87. 30 Stubbs, Words and Phrases, pp. 34–35; Landau, Dictionaries, p. 156. 31 L&N, pp. xvii–xviii. 32 Current teen-speak meaning, respectively, to beat someone at a (video) game and a newcomer to online gaming. 33 Pragmatics, however, is usually used to describe another branch of linguistics (see Levinson, Pragmatics;. Mey, Pragmatics; Thomas, Meaning in Interaction; Grundy, Doing Pragmatics; Blutner, ‘Pragmatics and the Lexicon’; Huang, Pragmatics; Cruse, Meaning in Language. 27 Lyons,

64

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

communicated. For example, in his comment on the controversy between descriptive and theoretical linguists, C. Meyer shows his hand by his choice of words: ‘the descriptive linguist, who often uses a linguistic corpus to produce descriptions of linguistic constructions, and the theoretical linguist, who stereotypically sits in his or her office contriving the sentences upon which some new theoretical point about language will be based’. 34 In choosing the negatively-charged word contriving rather than a more neutral word such as inventing or creating, Meyer casts theoretical linguists in a negative light. In this example, although contriving, inventing and creating denote the same activity, they connote different senses. Contriving 35 often refers to something made up which really had no right to be made up. 36 Which aspects of the meaning of a lexical item are denotative and which are connotative are open for debate, as Ayto has shown. 37 Our point is not to define where denotation ends and connotation begins, but rather to emphasize that connotation is an essential aspect of meaning. It has often been overlooked in lexica, probably because it is difficult for a non-native speaker to define. One contribution of CL is to make us more aware of connotations when we pay attention to lexical items in multiple contexts.

3.6 DEFINING CONTEXT Most hermeneutics textbooks will mention the importance of context 38 and commentators will rightly argue that the best way to know the meaning of a word is the context. 39 This is undoubtedly true, yet it is interesting that few writers have taken the time to try to give an objective definition for context. 40 How do we know, for example, that hard in Getting up at five in the morning is hard means difficult to accomplish whereas hard in Tomorrow the road crew will paint the lines since the asphalt will be hard means firm, as opposed to soft and gooey? Most native speakers of English will know this 34 Meyer,

English Corpus Linguistics, p. xiv. COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners (2001) reflects this idea in its first definition: ‘If you contrive an event or situation, you succeed in making it happen, often by tricking someone.’ 36 The wording some new … point will be based also contributes to the negative connotation of the clause. 37 Ayto, ‘On Specifying Meaning, pp. 95–98. 38 For example, ‘Context profoundly influences the meaning of anything’ (Erickson, A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Exegesis, p. 62, emphasis his); ‘The one rule in doing word studies that overrules all other rules is this: Context determines word meaning’ (Duvall and Hays, Grasping God’s Word, p. 143 [see also 145, 152], emphasis theirs). See also D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, p. 71. 39 For example, ‘the context in which an expression is used always determines its meaning’ (Kistemaker, Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 169); ‘a cardinal principle of semantics: never give a word more meaning than the context requires’ (Moo, The Letter of James, p. 243). 40 ‘Context is one of those notions which is used very widely in the linguistics literature, but to which it is difficult to give a precise definition’ (Huang, Pragmatics, p. 13). 35 The

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING

65

intuitively. 41 But how do we learn this type of distinction for languages for which we are not native speakers, such as Hellenistic Greek? The answer, correct enough in itself, is that we see it used repeatedly in certain ways and certain situations and we ‘just know’ that that is what it means. This may work as an answer in the long run; for example, after living 16 years in Bosnia, I know that plava means blue when used for PAINT, but blonde when used for HAIR. The reason I know this is that I have seen or heard the words used repeatedly and in different contexts. However, it will be helpful to attempt to define context more objectively. What is context? A good place to start is with Austin who said that it is a sentence 42 which has meaning, rather than, strictly speaking, a word. 43 A word or phrase has meaning in the sense that there are sentences in which the word or phrase occurs, and these have meaning: ‘to know the meaning which the word or phrase has, is to know the meanings of sentences in which it occurs’. 44 Duvall and Hays point out that ‘[c]ontext determines word meaning just as word meaning helps form the context. When doing word studies, you can clearly see the dynamic interplay between the parts and the whole.’ 45 This is a helpful clarification, but we need to be more specific. Otherwise we run the risk of a very circular argument: we know the meaning of words by the sentences in which they occur and we know what the sentences mean because of the words of which they are made. So how does meaning work so that the argumentation is not circular? As I worked on this study in CL, I found myself reading many passages of text in an attempt to determine word meaning. I often found myself reading a passage (for example, in Josephus) and, as I read it, thinking that word x meant so-and-so because of the context; I then saw that it collocated with word y. Then when I compiled my list of collocations with the goal of demonstrating which structural markers indicated different senses, I saw that the y collocation was present when the word meant x. But is that circular? Have I determined a meaning, found the collocate, and then made the collocate an indication of the meaning? Two clarifications are necessary. First, no matter how we look at it, there is interplay between word and context. This should certainly not be circular, yet it can be spiral or helical. By that we mean that we spiral from the word to the context and back 41 Even ‘intuitively’ can be a slippery concept since native English speakers differ among themselves depending on factors of regional dialect (for examples of some of the issues, see Hoffmann and Siebers, World Englishes—Problems, Properties and Prospects; Kachru, Kachru, and Nelson, The Handbook of World Englishes. See also 2.9. 42 It is more accurate to speak of utterance than sentence, by which we mean a sentence used at a specific time and place to describe specific events or objects (see Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, pp. 22–23). 43 ‘[T]he meaning of a word is defined as the systematic contribution made by its interpretation within the sentences in which it occurs’ (Cann, Kempson, and Marten, The Dynamics of Language, p. 5). 44 Austin, ‘The Meaning of a Word’, p. 422. 45 Duvall and Hays, Grasping God’s Word, p. 152.

66

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

to the word as we read. The interplay of word and context—the helix—is unavoidable. But second, we can describe it in a more precise way, with two semantic theories which have been developed through CL: the idiom principle developed by Sinclair 46 and the theory of lexical priming developed by Hoey. 47 Though we will only lightly touch on them, two other theories are also helpful to clarify what we mean by context: the theory of scripts and themes developed by Schank and Abelson 48 and relevance theory developed by Sperber and Wilson. 49 We will deal with these in reverse order since when we do so they move logically from the macro-context to the micro-context. One aspect of relevance theory is the view that what is said is interpreted by what is happening in the general environment 50 of the speaker or writer. 51 For example, if you are in my home as a guest and I say, ‘Coffee?’, without saying anything else I have asked you if you would like some coffee, and by implication 52 that if you would, I will bring it to you. Relevance theory teaches that when an utterance is made, it will normally 1) refer to events and concepts which are accessible immediately and in close proximity (physically 53 or mentally), 2) be germane to the topic at hand, and 3) be 46 Sinclair, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, pp. 110–114; also explained in Hunston and Francis, Pattern Grammar, pp. 21–23. 47 Hoey, Patterns of Lexis in Text; Hoey, Lexical Priming; Hoey, ‘Corpus-Driven Approaches to Grammar’, p. 46. 48 Schank and Abelson, Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, pp. 36–37. 49 Sperber and Wilson, Relevance. For a more concise and more recent treatment, see Wilson and Sperber, ‘Relevance Theory’; see also Wilson and Carston, ‘A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts’. 50 Long before Sperber and Wilson discussed relevance, Lyons referred to ‘context of utterance’ which means not only the actions taking place around the speaker and hearer, but also ‘relevant external objects’ as well as the shared knowledge of speaker and hearer, the presuppositions they hold and the conventions of the society to which they belong (see Lyons, Structural Semantics, p. 83; Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, p. 413). 51 Relevance theory teaches that when humans communicate they assume that what is said is relevant to them and they seek to maximize this relevance: ‘to try to obtain from each new item of information as great a contextual effect as possible for as small as possible a processing effort’ (Sperber and Wilson, Relevance, pp. 141–142). Gutt has applied this to Bible translation (Gutt, Translation and Relevance, p. 27), Brown to hermeneutics (Brown, ‘Naturalizing Biblical Hermeneutics’) and Sim to Greek grammar (Sim, Marking Thought and Talk in NT Greek). 52 The concept of implicature was introduced by Grice (Grice, ‘Logic and Conversation’, pp. 31–32) and later developed by Strawson, ‘Intention and Convention in Speech Acts’, pp. 155– 157. For updated explanations, see Thomas, Meaning in Interaction, pp. 56–58, 61–62, 89 and Horn, ‘Implicature’, p. 3. 53 We regularly infer meaning from physical actions (see John 11:31), not just words. When someone says they are hungry and asks us to pass them the restaurant guide, we infer that they will use it to locate a place for lunch, not that they will eat the guide (Schank and Abelson, Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, pp. 70–72); if while gesturing at our child opening a box, we mention that he is excited to play with his new blocks, we can infer that the box contains the blocks (Winograd, ‘What Does It Mean to Understand Language?’, pp. 182, 184–185).

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING

67

intended to communicate something, as opposed to being random and unrelated. My postman’s name is Eric. When you read that last sentence, you paused and wondered where on earth it came from. It had no ‘relevance’ to the topic at hand. Relevance theory deals with coherence 54 and means that as listeners, we expect that the information given to us is necessary and beneficial. It is germane to the conversation, ‘fits’ the context, and coheres with what has just been said. 55 In application, our understanding of a Scripture passage is affected by what has gone on in the larger environment of the setting in which the passage takes place, 56 or as Sperber and Wilson state, ‘As a discourse proceeds the hearer retrieves or constructs and then processes a number of assumptions. These form a gradually changing background 57 against which new information is processed.’ 58 Related to this is the idea of scripts and themes. 59 There is, for example, a restaurant script, meaning that when we are in a restaurant, we have certain expectations such as that a reference to a tip refers to money given to the waiter rather than to a piece of advice. This cultural script (or simply script) or cultural routine 60 relates to the fact that if we have seen restaurant in a passage of written text and then we see menu, we will interpret it as the list of foods and drinks served at a restaurant, whereas if we have seen laptop in a context and see menu, we will understand it as a part of a computer program which lists the options of what the computer user can do at a given point in that program. As another example, our expectations of the meaning of court are different if we have been talking about basketball rather than law trials. 61 This frame of reference leads us to assume that certain concepts are under discussion and therefore the words used will have meanings which fit this. Themes also help us disambiguate. For example, the role theme is the general understanding of which activities normally accompany given roles, 54 Bublitz, ‘“I entirely dot dot dot”, pp. 28–29. For a helpful synopsis of relevance theory and its use in biblical studies, see Sim, Marking Thought and Talk in NT Greek, pp. 21–42. 55 Cann et al. speak of context as ‘a mental state of some sort, informed by the physical context in which a communicative act takes place, any preceding utterances and perhaps knowledge about the interlocutors engaged in that act’ (Cann, Kempson, and Marten, Dynamics of Language, p. 358). 56 Our understanding is ‘updated’ as we read (Cann, Kempson, and Marten, Dynamics of Language, p. 11). 57 Related to this are the concepts of coherence (Blakemore, Semantic Constraints on Relevance, pp. 105, 109–110, 112), topic or ‘aboutness’ (Lambrecht, Information Structure and Sentence Form, pp. 119–120, 150, 335), and cooperativity (Asher, Busquets, and Le Draoulec, ‘Cooperativity in Dialogue’, pp. 219–221). 58 Sperber and Wilson, Relevance, p. 118. 59 Schank and Abelson, Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, pp. 138–139, 144–145. 60 V. Evans, How Words Mean, p. 18. 61 Also, if a word has been used in a certain way in a discourse, it is reasonable to assume that it will have the same meaning later in the discourse, unless other factors come into play which demonstrate that the author had a different meaning in mind (see Krovetz, ‘Lexical Acquisition and Information Retrieval’, pp. 52–60).

68

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

so that when we hear shoot when discussing a photographer we interpret it differently than if we are discussing a marksman. 62 The theory of lexical priming argues that when we see a word x used, our minds are ‘primed’ to expect the words around it to be related. 63 This has also been called spreading activation from the perspective of psycholinguistics. When one word appears in a text, it ‘activates’ in the reader’s mind an association with words with which it frequently collocates. 64 A reader more quickly activates or understands the meaning of a word when it follows a term with which it frequently collocates in normal usage, such as doctor used alongside nurse, and bread used alongside butter, but not doctor used alongside butter, or nurse alongside bread. When used in an utterance, the meaning of the polyseme hold is almost always clear. In the phrase, I called the help line, but I’ve been on hold for an hour!, the words call and help line, as well as the preposition on, prime our minds to know that we are discussing a telephone call and thus we attribute to hold the meaning which is appropriate, namely, waiting for someone to talk to you on the other end of the telephone line. If I hear my brother-in-law, while watching (American) football, say I can’t believe they didn’t call a penalty; that was clearly a hold!, the word penalty primes me to think of hold in the sense of one football player illegally preventing another player from getting past him by grasping him with his hands. If I walk by a bank teller window and hear I need to put a hold on that check, the word check as well as the physical surroundings of a bank prime me to think of payment and that hold would mean for the bank to stop payment on a check which has been issued. These three priming situations can be illustrated as follows: FOOTBALL

⇒ penalty ⇒ hold (= ‘illegally using hands to stop opponent’)

TELEPHONE BANK

⇒ help line ⇒ hold (= ‘waiting for someone to get back on the phone’)

⇒ check ⇒ hold (= ‘to stop payment’)

We see that there is interplay or a helix between the various words; call is a polyseme but hold helps disambiguate it, just as call helps disambiguate hold. There is overlap here between the theories of relevance, scripts and themes, and lexical priming. At the macro-level, we are primed to understand specific meanings of words by: 1) physical surroundings (for example, at the bank vs. on the telephone vs. watching football) 2) preceding conversation (what has been being discussed up to this point) 3) topic of discussion (the general frame of reference).

This brings us to Sinclair and the micro-level. We are primed to understand specific meanings of words by: Schank and Abelson, Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, pp. 131–133. ‘Corpus Linguistics and Word Meaning’. 64 Ellis, Frey, and Jalkanen, ‘The Psycholinguistic Reality of Collocation and Semantic Prosody (1)’: Lexical Access, p. 94. 62

63 Hoey,

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING

69

4) collocation (words with which they immediately occur; see Chapters 5–7) 5) colligation (grammatical structure in which or with which the word occurs; also see Chapters 5–7)

Chapter 8)

6) semantic preference or sets (co-occurrence with words of similar meanings; see

7) knowledge of fixed expressions and idioms (see our brief discussion at 4.1).

When Sinclair developed the idiom principle he was taking issue with its opposite, the open choice principle, wherein we say that in forming a sentence there are grammatical slots, such as Subject-Verb-Object (SVO), and we have freedom to fill in, for example, the O with whatever word we want. In contrast, Sinclair argues, and CL has shown, that words are chosen together; for example, the speaker often chooses the verb and object together, since the meaning of one, or the appropriateness of one, is dependent on the other. 65 This is a helpful clarification when it comes to understanding context. Words are not picked out of the air and slotted in separately (paradigmatically); rather they are, in essence, chosen together and form a cluster or chunk of words 66 which together have meaning (syntagmatically). We rely on the concept of lexical items or multi-word units (MWUs; see Chapter 4) to disambiguate terms. Even our illustration above of hold relies on word combinations: on hold can refer to the telephone meaning but not to the football meaning; a hold can apply to the football meaning when it is a predicate nominative, It was a hold, but would not be used in the telephone setting. In summary, an important part of using context to disambiguate meanings is the lexical priming effect of the general frame of reference (assuming optimal relevance), the pre-understood scripts and themes of life settings, and the collocations, colligations and semantic preferences and sets in which the words in question occur.

3.7 POLYSEMY In 3.1 we stated that our goal is to understand the meaning of lexical items in the Greek New Testament and this is especially critical when dealing with polysemy. Polysemy refers to the phenomenon that a single lexeme can, and normally does, have more than one meaning. 67 It is a ‘vexing theoretical problem’ 68 and has attracted much attention in linguistics. 69 CL has been especially helpful in showing that structural 65 A collocational clash occurs when, for example, the verb and object do not ‘fit’. In American English we say I rode my bike to school but not *I rode my car to school (rather, I drove my car or I rode in my car). 66 Francis, ‘A Corpus-Driven Approach to Grammar’, p. 143. 67 See the explanation and examples in Cotterell and Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation, pp. 135–139; Turner, ‘Modern Linguistics and Word Study’, pp. 211–212). 68 Ravin and Leacock, ‘Preface’, pp. v–vi. 69 Using an approach he calls Lexical Concepts and Cognitive Models (LCCM), V. Evans calls these shifts in meaning protean. He says, ‘Not all of the cognitive models to which a word facilitates access are activated in any given utterance. Hence, the variability in word meaning

70

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

lexicology demonstrates that lexical items often have different senses with different collocations and colligations. 70 How and why lexical items are polysemous has been, and probably will be, debated for quite some time. 71 In CL terminology, the process of determining the meaning in context of a polyseme is called word sense disambiguation (WSD). The aim of this study is to explore how CL contributes to our understanding of polysemy, and more importantly, how lessons learned from CL help the NT exegete distinguish between competing word senses in a given passage, using structure as a key to WSD. We must however be cautious in our expectations. At this point, we would like to suggest a new concept, word sense possibility delimitation (WSPD), in place of WSD. At the current state of research and computational ability, it is not possible, in our opinion, to consistently and completely disambiguate polysemes solely through computer searches of collocations, colligations and semantic preferences. However, it is possible to delimit the possibilities. In other words, we can use CL to show which of the possible senses are more likely than others to be correct in a given context. Our goal, therefore, is modest. It is not to decide in every instance in the NT what a polyseme means. It is to narrow the possibilities so that the exegete can be more confident that a certain meaning, x, is more plausible or probable than another meaning, y. Before developing that more fully below (Chapter 4), we first need to clarify several issues surrounding polysemy; this is important so that the reader can understand the theoretical basis on which we have lumped or split 72 definitions in Chapters 5–8. 3.7.1 Polysemy, Ambiguity and Vagueness As Agirre and Edmonds explain, 73 polysemy is not the same as ambiguity. While polysemy 74 means that one word has many different meanings, ambiguity is when a word is used in a way in which it could mean more than one thing. 75 Ambiguity 76 is arises from the partial activation of the semantic potential to which a word facilitates access’ (Evans, How Words Mean, pp. xi-xii). 70 Ruhl rejects polysemy, holding to a fairly radical view of monosemy (Ruhl, On Monosemy). Monosemy has been called minimalistic since it understands the word to have a minimal number of meanings (one), which are actualized in different senses when instantiated in pragmatic usage. For example, strong has one meaning (intensification) which is applied differently in different instances (strong personality vs. strong coffee) (Almela and Sánchez, ‘Words as “Lexical Units”, p. 28). 71 Note the discussion in the field of cognitive semantics (Langacker, ‘Cognitive Grammar’, pp. 51–52). 72 These terms are explained in 3.7.5. 73 Agirre and Edmonds, ‘Introduction’, p. 8. 74 Also referred to as classical polysemy or polycentric categorization (Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, ‘Polysemy, Prototypes, and Radial Categories’, p. 160, n. 2). 75 In Halliday’s terminology, a blend is when a polyseme is used with two meanings at the same time, as is the case when should in The brake should be on means both ought to be on and probably is on (Halliday, ‘On Grammar and Grammatics’, p. 17).

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING

71

what can render poetry richer and more entertaining, and make many puns, jokes and riddles possible. But though words are polysemous, in normal usage their meaning is almost always clear, disambiguated by the context. 77 ‘So, polysemy indicates only potential ambiguity, and context works to remove ambiguity.’ 78 Ambiguity should also be distinguished from vagueness. 79 Dunbar gives the example of ball as ambiguous in the sense that it cannot refer at the same time to a spherical toy and to a formal event where people dance. Without context, it is ambiguous. It can mean one or the other, but not both at the same time, and context usually makes it quite clear, for example, Throw the ball to me vs. Cinderella met the handsome prince at the ball. The word aunt, on the other hand, is vague. In usage, it can refer to a sister or sister-in-law of one’s parents, but it does not by itself clarify whether she is married to the father’s brother or mother’s brother. It is not ambiguous—it is restricted in meaning—but it is vague in that it does not make clear the specific relationship. 80 Doctor in English is vague in that it does not specify gender, 81 whereas other languages do (for example, Bosnian liječnik vs. liječnica; German Arzt vs. Ärztin). Tuggy remarks that a term is ambiguous if it can refer to two different things (bank as a financial institution or as land at the edge of a river), but vague if it can subsume two things with a single, general meaning (aunt as father’s sister and mother’s sister). 82 In this example it is true of English aunt, but not necessarily of this kinship term in other 76 We are referring here to lexical ambiguity and not referential or scopal ambiguity. Referential ambiguity means that the grammatical reference (for example, in anaphora) is unclear, such as ‘which’ in Phil 1:28: ‘which is a sign of destruction for them, but of salvation for you’ (NASB, emphasis mine). Scopal ambiguity means that the scope of the word is unclear. I am looking for a piece of paper could mean a particular piece of paper which I need, or any scrap of paper at all (Poesio, ‘Semantic Analysis’, p. 93–94). 77 An example which even context does not disambiguate is The pharmacists dispense with accuracy (Hirst, ‘Foreword’, p. xvii). 78 Agirre and Edmonds, ‘Introduction’, p. 8. 79 Vagueness can also be referred to as natural polysemy, systematic polysemy, complementary polysemy, partial segment profiling, allosemy or indeterminacy, such as when window is used for both the pane of glass and the wooden frame in which it sits, or the word student which refers to both genders. For an insightful discussion of ambiguity vs. vagueness in the use of adverbs, see Katz, Leacock, and Ravin, ‘A Decompositional Approach to Modification’, pp. 216–219). Kilgarriff sometimes uses the terms general or unspecified (Kilgarriff, ‘“I don’t believe in word senses”’, pp. 367, 375). 80 Dunbar, ‘A Computational Model of the Ambiguity-Vagueness Spectrum’, p. 16. We find this much more helpful than his claim that tree is vague because it does not specify how many leaves are on the tree in question. This is not a valid use of vague; tree is clear enough in what it signifies and it is unrealistic to expect this lexeme to tell us the number of leaves of each instantiation. 81 Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, ‘Polysemy, Prototypes, and Radial Categories’, p. 160 n. 2. 82 Tuggy, ‘Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness’, p. 167. Murphy calls this the definition test, where for example, both male friends and female friends are covered by one definition: ‘a person with whom one has a relationship of mutual affection’. (Murphy, Lexical Meaning, p. 85)

72

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

languages. In Bosnian, my father’s sister (English aunt) would be my strina, but my mother’s sister (English aunt) would be my tetka. Specificity differs for terms in different languages. Exegetes need to acknowledge the presence of vagueness in the biblical text as well. For example, commentators debate what age range is intended by such terms as τέκνον, τεκνίον, παῖς and παιδίον. It would be wiser to acknowledge that these terms are vague and do not specify age, just as aunt does not specify which parent’s sister (see 5.4.1 for our discussion of the somewhat fuzzy boundaries between πλοῖον and ναῦς). Kearns speaks of vague predicates such as bald and crowd: ‘How many hairs can a bald man have and still be bald? How small can a group of people be and still be a crowd?’ 83 One test for determining whether a word is ambiguous or vague is to use it in a semantic zeugma (also called a syllepsis). This is where a word is used with two different meanings in the same sentence, either a noun used twice with different meanings though accompanying the same verb, or a verb used twice with two different meanings. We can read the word in a zeugma and then determine whether or not it is non-sensical. Dunbar illustrates as follows: 1) John would like to kick a ball and take his wife to one. 2) John would like to meet one aunt [his father’s sister] and talk to the other [his mother’s sister].

Ball is ambiguous and so, though awkward, (1) is possible. Aunt is vague, so (2) is possible. 3) The ball that John kicked is not a ball. 4) *My aunt is not an aunt.

Ball is ambiguous and so, though again awkward, (3) is possible. Aunt is vague but not ambiguous, so (4) is not possible. 84 Interacting with the findings of Geeraerts 85 and Tuggy, 86 Dunbar found that the distinction between ambiguity and vagueness is not absolute, but is rather a spectrum or cline. 87 Paint is a good example of this. One can paint a picture, a ceiling or wall, Kearns, Semantics, p. 12. Dunbar, ‘Ambiguity-Vagueness Spectrum’, p. 17. 85 Geeraerts, ‘Vagueness’s Puzzles, Polysemy’s Vagaries’. 86 Tuggy, ‘Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness’. 87 Dunbar uses Adaptive Resonance Theory (ART) as ‘a computational implementation of Tuggy’s model of the ambiguity spectrum’ (Dunbar, ‘Ambiguity-Vagueness Spectrum’, p. 19). In essence, this is an adaptation of componential analysis in which an algorithm applies positive and negative numbers to a word based on whether it contains certain components of meaning. Dunbar claims that this gives objectivity to the question of how many senses a word has. When the ART test is applied to a given word, if a large number of components of meaning (for example, for bird: flies, has wings, has a beak, lays eggs, etc.) are true for a given word, it is more apt to fall on the vague end of the spectrum. If a smaller number of components of meaning 83 84

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING

73

one’s face with makeup, etc., and when we use the semantic zeugma test, we find different results. Take Dunbar’s sentence: I have been painting and so has Jane. If I was painting a portrait and Jane was painting a landscape, then the use of painting would be basically the same. But if I was painting stripes down the center of a road, and Jane was painting a picture of a landscape, then the meaning is slightly different. 88 In this instance is paint ambiguous or vague? Perhaps it is safest to say that it is on a cline between the two. This has been explained using prototype theory 89 and the concept of schematicity 90 which we discuss next.

3.7.2 Prototype Theory and Schematicity One way to handle the cline between ambiguity, polysemy and vagueness is to posit an overall schema. 91 A schema is a superordinate concept which encompasses numerous more specific concepts which in the nomenclature of cognitive linguistics are called elaborations or instantiations. 92 Thus ball is a schema of which football, baseball, golf ball, and volleyball are elaborations. Lakoff spoke of ‘a new theory of categorization, called prototype theory’. 93 V. Evans, B. Bergan and J. Zinken elaborate: This approach is especially prominent in cognitive lexical semantics. A word is understood as having a prototypical (central) meaning and then less prototypical (peripheral) meanings. These meanings are called radial categories and they form a network of meaning. A very common example is over for which … ‘above’ is the prototypical meaning, as in The picture is over the mantelpiece from which other meanings have developed, such as ‘control’ as in Jane has a strange power over him. 94

Thus we could argue that the prototypical meaning of paint (also called the unmarked meaning, that is, the meaning which most often comes to mind when the word is used without a context to clarify the specific meaning) 95 is the idea of applying a colored substance to a surface. This would fit for painting a portrait on canvas, painting the walls of a house, putting makeup on one’s face, or construction workers adding stripes to a newly-asphalted road. This basic schema has application to each of the four mentioned examples, or instantiations. So if we asked a friend, ‘What do you do for a living?’ and are true for some senses of a word (for example, for ball: round, bounces, used in sports, formal event, involves dancing), it is more likely to fall on the ambiguous end of the spectrum. 88 Dunbar, ‘Ambiguity-Vagueness Spectrum’, p. 18. Cann et al. speak of ‘the impossibility of finding a definition that covers all the essential components’ when paint is used in these various ways (Cann, Kempson, and Gregoromichelaki, Semantics, p. 249, see also p. 5). 89 Tuggy, ‘Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness’. 90 Tuggy, ‘Schematicity’. 91 Tuggy, ‘Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness’. 92 Tuggy, ‘Schematicity‘, pp. 83–84. See also Langacker, ‘Cognitive Grammar’, pp. 51–52. 93 Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, p. 5. 94 Evans, Bergan, and Zinken, ‘The Cognitive Linguistics Enterprise: An Overview’, p. 15. 95 In the newer nomenclature of cognitive linguistics, this is called the sanctioning sense (V. Evans, The Structure of Time, p. 80).

74

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

he replied, ‘I’m a painter’, we would not necessarily know if he was an artist or a house painter. We would need to ask a second question to clarify what kind of painter he is. While the different uses such as paint a portrait and paint your face with makeup both share a common schema, some uses are more prototypical than others, such as paint to speak of painting your house as opposed to using paint to refer to putting iodine on a cut. Both fall under the schema of applying a colored substance but we would consider the former more prototypical (semantically closer) than the latter (which involves more semantic distance). 96 We can also use the example of bird. In cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology it is argued that when we hear the word bird we envision a prototype, that is, of a winged creature which flies, has a beak, lays eggs and builds nests. In your mind’s eye, you might see a sparrow, and I might see a robin. ‘Birdness’ is a overarching schema that applies to ‘any of a class (Aves) of warm-blooded vertebrates distinguished by having the body more or less completely covered with feathers and the forelimbs modified as wings’ (MW11), yet we tend to think of certain birds as more prototypical than others. 97 A robin or sparrow comes to mind more rapidly when I hear bird than does an ostrich or penguin; they are ‘better examples’ of the category. 98 Prototypicality may be culturally or geographically conditioned; for an Australian, a kookaburra or cockatoo may come to mind before a robin 99 whereas those in Amsterdam might more quickly envision a duck. 100 ‘Better example’ should be qualified. Continuing with the illustration bird, we could say that there are usually several features which obtain for a bird: 1) has feathers; 2) has wings; 3) lays eggs; 4) has a beak or bill; 5) is able to fly, etc. A robin or sparrow is prototypical since all five features apply, whereas an ostrich or penguin, though still a bird, is less ‘birdlike’ since it cannot fly. When we use bird to describe a clay disk thrown as a flying target (clay pigeon) or the cone-shaped object used in badminton (shuttlecock), only one feature applies (flies) so it is less prototypical. 101 (It is in fact a meaning extension [see 3.7.3].) Here we are dealing with the issue of what is essential. What features have to be present for something to be a bird? 102 One might say that has feathers, has wings, and lays eggs are core features of ‘birdness’ 103 whereas other features (able to fly, able to sing, lives in trees) are peripheral. 104 Some would prefer not to call them essential but rather preferential (or P) features. By this they mean that when we move from the more general type (bird) Tuggy, ‘Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness’, pp. 170–171, 176. Semantics, p. 12. 98 Taylor, Linguistic Categorization. 99 Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies, p. 26. 100 Rademaker, Sophrosyne, p. 25. 101 Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, ‘Polysemy, Prototypes, and Radial Categories’, pp. 154–157. 102 Murphy, Lexical Meaning, p. 38. 103 A. Tyler and V. Evans use bird as an example of a word which provides only a ‘sketch’ or ‘skeletal prompt, which subsumes little more than the scaffolding for the construction of meaning’ (Tyler and Evans, Semantics of English Prepositions, pp. 20–21). 104 Murphy, Lexical Meaning, pp. 52–55. 96

97 Kearns,

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING

75

down to the more specific instance (robin), 105 it is legitimate to assume that all the preferential features of the type (bird) apply to the instance (robin), unless specifically annulled. Thus robin has the P-feature of flight (+able to fly), while the instance ostrich does not (-able to fly), yet both are instances of the type bird. 106 There are, of course, borderline cases such as the classic example of referential indeterminacy used by Labov of drawings of receptacles where oddly-shaped containers seem to be on the borderline between cup and bowl. 107 Lakoff speaks of degrees of membership or cue validity, acknowledging fuzzy boundaries yet also seeking to classify members on a scale from 0.0 to 1.0, the central members being ranked as 1.0, since they have all the cues required to validate the category (for example, anything with the feature or cue gills belongs in the category fish). 108 Prototypicality is also called family resemblance since one could say that all the members of the set, so to speak, do not share all the attributes of all the other members, but there is a definite similarity. 109 It should be pointed out that even though a schema exists for some lexemes, it seems to apply more appropriately to concrete nouns than to abstract concepts. 110 Bird can be seen as an overarching schema which encompasses many specific types of flying things (robins, clay pigeons, airplanes), yet this is not true with charge as a verb. There is no schema that embodies the ‘basic meaning’ of charge in charge his account, charge the enemy, charge the battery, and charge him with murder. 111 It is perhaps better to distinguish a ‘tripartite classification of semantic features’ as Almela and Sánchez have suggested. 105 Words which are more general are used more often than more specific words. We would expect that the general word car would be used more often than the more specific words sedan or hatchback. In fact a check of COCA revealed this to be true, listing the following hits: car (112,673); sedan (2,679); hatchback (262 [hatch-back (4)]) (http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/, accessed 29 November 2012). ‘The relative frequency of the occurrence of words within a semantic domain is meaningful in determining semantic relationships because the more frequently a given word is used in comparison to other words in its semantic domain, the more general and inclusive its meaning tends to be’ (Jobes, ‘Greek Verbs in the Semantic Domain of Worship’, p. 203) 106 Murphy, Lexical Meaning, p. 65. 107 Labov, ‘The Boundaries of Words and Their Meanings’. See discussion in Goddard, Semantic Analysis, pp. 222–237 and the CL collocational study in Laybutt, ‘A Corpus Study of “Cup of [Tea]” and “Mug of [Tea]”’, n.p. (accessed 19 August 2011), http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/ Documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/corpuslinguistics/A CorpusStudyofCupofteaandMugoftea.pdf. 108 Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, pp. 52–53, 60. 109 Rademaker, Sophrosyne, pp. 16, 21, 25. However, Kearns differentiates prototype from family resemblance and gives the classic example game: ‘The activities which are called games do not have any features common to all, but a number of different features occur in certain clusters of games …’ (Kearns, Semantics, p. 13). 110 However, Rademaker’s study of Plato’s use of σώφρων, σωφροσύνη and σωφρονεῖν argues that it can be used for abstracts as well and he thus applies Langacker’s prototype/schema theory to these terms (Rademaker, Sophrosyne, pp. 26, 35, 349–356). 111 Nida, ‘Implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship’, p. 84.

76

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

First, there is the lexemic feature which is often present, such as strong as an indication of intensification, which would apply to strong coffee and to strong personality. This could perhaps be called the prototypical meaning, but it is only one aspect. There are also, second, specialized features which are activated by a collocation and thus change with usage. This is a very important distinction and most of our effort will be spent in exploring it (see Chapter 5). And third, a word has prosodic features ‘carried by the collocations, not by the words’. 112 Due to space constraints we will not be able to discuss prosodic features except in passing below (Chapter 4 on naked eye, 5.5.4 on σύν + τούτοις, 7.1.4 when συνίστημι describes events + WARFARE and MISFORTUNE, and 7.1.5 when συνίστημι describes people + ROBBERY and PLOTS), though it is a fascinating feature uncovered by CL. 113 3.7.3 Meaning Extension Meaning extension occurs when a ‘more literal’ sense is applied figuratively, such as when foot (terminal part of the leg) is extended to refer to the lowest part of a mountain, 114 or when mouse (animal) is extended to a computer pointing device (because the elongated body and wire ‘tail’ remind us of a mouse; this has also been called conceptual shift). 115 Page (what is written on a sheet of paper) is an extension of page (the physical sheet of paper). 116 Extensions are often used figuratively, as in eye to describe the center of a storm, 117 and are sometimes used as euphemisms, such as συνέρχομαι (to come together) used in Mt 1:18 for sexual intercourse (‘when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together’ [NASB]). Figurative language as meaning extension is very common. L&N, for example, point out the use of συγκλείω (to enclose) when used with the meaning to restrict in Rom 11:32 (‘for God caused all to be guilty of disobedience’ [L&N] = ‘shut up all in disobedience’ [NASB]) and Nida speaks of RUN

112 Almela

and Sánchez, ‘Words as “Lexical Units”’, pp. 29–30. concept of semantic prosody (also called semantic association) was introduced in Louw, ‘The Diagnostic Potential of Semantic Prosodies’, though it was noticed earlier in Hanks, ‘Definitions and Explanations’, p. 134. It was discussed in depth by Sinclair who defines it as ‘special meanings that relate not so much to [the words’] dictionary meanings as to the reasons why they were chosen together … it has been recognised in part as connotation, pragmatic meaning and attitudinal meaning’ (Sinclair, Reading Concordances, p. 178). See the discussion in Philip, Colouring Meaning, pp. 59–72 and the full-length monograph, Stewart, Semantic Prosody. 114 Lyons, Language, Meaning and Context, p. 47. Lakoff and Johnson call this example (foot of a mountain) idiosyncratic and unsystematic because we only use some parts of the body as a metaphor for parts of the mountain, not all; we do not normally speak of the trunk or leg of a mountain, only the foot, so the body part metaphor is only partial (Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By, pp. 54–55). 115 Almela and Sánchez, ‘Words as “Lexical Units”’, p. 28. 116 Moon, ‘The Analysis of Meaning’, p. 87. 117 Sinclair, Reading Concordances, p. 174. 113 The

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING

77

in such uses as The grain of the wood runs crossways, Time is running out, The manuscript runs to eight pages, 118 and The vine runs over the door. 119 In his study of percussion and impact words in English and Warlpiri, Riemer claims that polysemy can be explained by four meaning extensions: 1) A metaphorical extension of the core verbal meaning 2) A metonymic extension that extends the meaning to the effect of the verb 3) A metonymic extension where the action of the verbs is extended to the context 4) A metonymic extension where a constituent of the verbal event is extended. 120

He acknowledges that the dividing line between metonymy and metaphor is far from clear since in both instances the properties of one idea or linguistic sign are attributed to another idea or sign. He states that some meaning extensions seem to be neither true metonymy or true metaphor, but rather postmetonymy or postmetaphor. By this he means a metonymy or metaphor whose original transparency has been lost or replaced, 121 sometimes called a dead metaphor. 3.7.4 Homonymy Before moving on we need to distinguish between polysemy and homonymy. As we have seen, polysemy refers to one word which has multiple meanings. Homonymy, on the other hand, refers to two (or more) words which are written or spoken the same way, but are actually unrelated. By ‘unrelated’ we usually mean that they arose from different etymologies, such as bass (type of fish) which came from Old English barse (perch), and bass (voice) from Italian basso. 122 As mentioned in 2.4, a word is a string of letters, somewhat arbitrarily set off by spaces so it is not surprising that lexicographers have debated how to divide the words into separate dictionary entries. Normally, words have been considered homonyms (and thus given their own separate dictionary entries) if they are different parts of speech 123 or else have different etymologies. 124 Some linguists do not use homonym 125 to mean different words that sound or are written the same way. Rather they use contrastive polysemy (for example, match as a stick which ignites vs. match as a contest in sports) to mean what we are calling homonymy, Nida, Componential Analysis of Meaning, p.141. ‘Science of Translation’, p. 87. 120 Riemer, The Semantics of Polysemy, p. 182. 121 Riemer, The Semantics of Polysemy, pp. 186–188, 197–200. 122 Ravin and Leacock, ‘Polysemy’, p. 2. 123 Heterosemy is the term for words with the same meaning from different parts of speech, such as visit as a verb and as a noun (Lichtenberk, ‘Semantic Change and Heterosemy in Grammaticalization’, p. 476). 124 Sinclair, Jones, and Daley, English Collocation Studies, p. 5. 125 A. Tyler and V. Evans use homonymy to refer to different meanings of the same word (our polysemy), whereas we use it for two separate words (Tyler and Evans, Semantics of English Prepositions, pp. 6–7). 118

119 Nida,

78

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

and they use complementary polysemy for what we are calling polysemy (for example, record to refer to both the physical object and the music). 126 What we are calling homonyms are broken down even more specifically into homographs, referring to two unrelated words which are written the same way (for example, lead as in to guide and lead as in a heavy metallic element) and homophones, referring to two unrelated words which are pronounced the same way (for example, the perennially problematic there and their). (A heteronym is a non-homophonic homograph such as lead in He will lead [future tense] the troops into battle vs. This weight is made of lead.) Homographs are lexemes that have the same spelling (orthography), but as far as we can tell, are completely unrelated semantically. Dictionaries handle the distinction in various ways. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (MW9) lists the homographs 1lead (‘to guide on a way, esp. by going in advance’) and 4lead (‘a heavy soft malleable plastic’) and notes that though they are spelled the same, they were previously separate words (from Middle English leden and leed respectively). The same orthographic string of letters can exist as both a polyseme and a homonym, such as right with different senses like to be correct vs. to be just (polyseme) or the direction opposite of left (homonym). 127 Homonyms can be broken down in another way. Some pairs express absolute homonymy, as in sole (bottom of the foot or shoe) and sole (a type of fish). Lead and lead mentioned above are an example of partial homonymy in that the heavy metallic element lead is a homonym of the verb lead only in some lexical forms, but not in others (for example, leads, leading, etc.); 128 mug (a type of cup) is only a partial homonym to mug (to attack and rob someone) since there is no homonymic noun form that matches the 3rd person past tense, mugged. Hirst calls this categorical ambiguity when homonymous words are in different syntactical categories (for example, led as in the past tense of to guide and lead as in a heavy metallic element). 129 Linguists debate the relationship between polysemy and homonymy and the terminology of granularity can be quite confusing when different authors use it in different ways. Most use polysemy to describe words with various meanings which are related to each other, homonymy to refer to those that are unrelated, 130 and granularity to refer to specificity within definitions of a polyseme. Yet sometimes the relationship is in the eye of the beholder. Agirre and Edmonds, representing a less common approach, refer to homographs as coarse-grained sense distinctions (such as 1bank 126 Nerlich and Clark propose that what are normally called homonyms may have at one time been polysemes, but over time developed different meanings so that many homonyms today are dead polysemes. This fits with their view of prototype theory (see 3.7.2): ‘This means that there is not so much a dichotomy between polysemy and homonymy, but rather a synchronic and diachronic gradient based on complex networks of meaning relations, of which the most basic ones are radial networks surrounding one prototype, and family resemblances, based on several linked prototypes or subnetworks’ (Nerlich and Clark, ‘Polysemy and Flexibility’, p. 10). 127 Hirst, Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity, pp. 5–6. 128 Lyons, Language, Meaning and Context, p. 43. 129 Hirst, Semantic Interpretation, p. 6. 130 Hirst, Semantic Interpretation, pp. 5–6.

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING

79

when referring to a financial institution and 2bank referring to the sloping side of a river). Polysemy, they say, is finer-grained, and deals with distinctions, such as 1abank when referring to the institution and 1bbank to the physical building where that institution is housed. 131 However, this seems to us to be an unhelpful way to distinguish homonymy and polysemy, muddying the waters by bringing in the concept of granularity (fine-grained and coarse-grained distinctions) at too high a level. In our way of thinking it is better to reserve the terms fine-grained and coarse-grained for polysemes such as 1bank in their various senses, and not to use them to distinguish between homographs (for example, 1bank and 2bank). 3.7.5 Granularity Granularity refers to the level of specificity expressed in a definition. A coarse-grained approach to lexicography lists meanings which are more general, whereas a finegrained approach breaks these down into more minute differences. Lexicographers differ in their opinions of how to apply granularity and even in the use of the terms themselves. As mentioned above (3.7.4), some would treat 1bank (a financial institution) and 2bank (the side of the river) as coarse-grained distinctions of the polysemous word bank. Most, however, would consider 1bank and 2bank homonyms and reserve the term granularity for the various distinctions within 1bank. For example, one approach to 1bank would divide it into four senses, as in MW11: 1abank (financial establishment); 1bbank (person handling money for a game or gambling house); 1cbank (supply of something held in reserve [chips, dominoes]); and 1dbank (place where something is held [memory, blood]). A more fine-grained approach could sub-divide 1abank further into 1a(i.)bank (the financial institution or company) and 1a(ii.)bank (the physical building where that company transacts business), etc. 132 Even though it is readily agreed that most words have more than one meaning, it is much more difficult to determine how many meanings they have and how to express the differences. 133 It is a subjective call (what Wilks calls the arbitrariness factor) 134 to determine when a second sense shades off from the first one, when sense x is in reality just a sub-sense of y, etc., and this ‘will ultimately rest on an individual judgement of semantic plausibility which cannot be made objective’. 135 It is frequently difficult to know when to lump (join senses together as one meaning) and when to split (divide into separate meanings). 136 There is often no objective way to determine where one sense ends and a separate one begins. 137 For example, the noun light can mean a physical phenomenon which makes things visible, a physical 131 Agirre

and Edmonds, ‘Introduction’, p. 8. Agirre and Edmonds, ‘Introduction’, p. 8. 133 Ravin and Leacock, ‘Polysemy: An Overview’, p. 1. 134 Wilks, ‘Foreword’, p. vii. 135 Riemer, The Semantics of Polysemy, pp. 174–175. 136 Horsley and Lee, ‘A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels: Some Interim Entries, 1’, pp. 61–62. 137 Kilgarriff, ‘Word Senses’, pp. 29, 43. 132

80

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

object which produces light, a cause of light, or a glistening reflection and at times the boundaries are fuzzy. 138 Louw mentions three reasons why the debate over lumping and splitting is impossible to fully resolve. First, people ‘do differ, and will always differ, in their psychological experience of what is the same and what is different’. 139 BDAG, for example, distinguish between σύν when the focus is on being, remaining or standing with someone (association), and when the focus is on going or traveling with someone (accompaniment), but L&N keep these two senses together under one meaning (association). Second, at times it is difficult to tell when a component of meaning is being supplied by the lexeme itself and when it is coming from the context in which that lexeme is found. 140 Some lexicographers tend to specificity and seek to list as part of the meaning of a word a component which is actually coming from the greater context. An example would be when BDAG gloss σύν as follow in Lk 7:12, ‘Now as He approached the gate of the city, a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and a sizeable crowd from the city was with her’ (NASB, emphasis mine). The idea of follow, though acceptable as far as it goes, comes not so much from σύν (the word under which BDAG give this gloss), but from the context of the dead man being carried out of the gate of the city, and real-world knowledge (explained below) 141 that the mother would probably be close to the bier and others would, out of respect, follow her. (Because we are seeking to always define a lexeme in its context, this is normally not a problem. The problem comes when we assume that the meaning in a given context always applies to the word, and we commit what Barr called illegitimate totality transfer by reading that meaning into all other texts where the same word is used. 142) Third, when seeking to define near synonyms, some lexicographers 143 tend to emphasize the similarities between them and would thus prefer to be more general in their categorization (lumping), while others emphasize the differences, and therefore desire to make their definitions more precise (splitting), 144 in Landau’s words ‘a more discriminating breakdown of sense’. 145

Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament, p. 61. Louw, ‘The Analysis of Meaning in Lexicography’, p. 140. 140 Louw, ‘The Analysis of Meaning in Lexicography’, pp. 141, 143. Silva voices the same concern (Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, pp. 198–200). 141 Murphy, Lexical Meaning, p. 31. 142 Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, pp. 216–219. 143 Ayto, ‘On Specifying Meaning’. 144 Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament, p. 61. See also their explanation in L&N, p. x. 145 Landau, Dictionaries, p. 154. 138 139

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING

81

Related to this is the issue of synonymy. There are probably no such things as exact synonyms; 146 even close synonyms have a few differences in usage and meaning, at least in connotation if not in denotation. 147 Otherwise, it is argued, why would they both remain in the language if they were entirely interchangeable? 148 Slim and skinny, for example, differ; they denote the same thing, yet slim has a positive connotation and skinny a negative. 149 House and residence can be coreferential, 150 yet the latter represents a more elevated style. 151 Some near synonyms are nearer than others. They display semantic distance, with some being more closely related than others. Freedom and liberty are very near, yet freedom and autonomy are farther apart. Near synonyms exist in fuzzy sets, rather than discrete sets. 152 There is debate about when different senses need to be distinguished. For example, V. Evans lists examples of the use of France: 1) France is a country of outstanding natural beauty; 2) France is one of the leading nations in the European Union; 3) France beat New Zealand in the 2007 Rugby World Cup; and 4) France voted against the EU constitution in the 2005 referendum. He states that in (1) France refers to the ‘geographical landmass’, in (2) to the ‘political national state … and its citizens, including those in French overseas territories’, in (3) to ‘the 15 players on the rugby team which represents France’, and in (4) to ‘part of the electorate which voted against proceeding with the ratification of a proposed EU constitution’. 153 He also refers to Searle’s analysis of open in its various uses: 1) John opened the window; 2) John opened his mouth; 3) John opened the book; 4) John opened his briefcase; 5) John opened the curtains; 6) The carpenter opened the wall; 7) The surgeon opened the wound; and 8) The sapper opened the dam. V. Evans notes that background (also called encyclopedic, real-world, or general world knowledge) 154 is critical in understanding the differences in these sentences: 146 For a more detailed and nuanced approach, see Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, pp. 446–453. He distinguishes between synonyms which are fully synonymous (identical in all their meanings), totally synonymous (identical in all contexts) and completely synonymous (identical on all [relevant]) dimensions of meaning). It is perhaps better to refer to two terms as descriptively synonymous such as big/large in He lives in a big house and He lives in a large house, though big and large have different collocational patterns; the meaning is different if we say Tell your big sister than when we say Tell your large sister (Lyons, Language, Meaning and Context, pp. 50–53). 147 Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 50–51. 148 Turner, ‘Modern Linguistics and Word Study’, pp. 202–203. We are speaking about interchangeableness in the same dialect. Speakers raised in different countries often do use different words for the same thing (British bonnet vs. American hood; Serbian hleb vs. Bosnian hljeb vs. Croatian kruh [bread]), but that is another issue. 149 Lehrer, Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure, pp. 1–2. 150 See M. Turner’s distinction between coreferentiality and synonymy (Turner, ‘Modern Linguistics and Word Study’, pp. 213–214). 151 Jackson, Words and Their Meaning, p. 104. 152 Wu, ‘From “the Same Form” to “the Same Meaning”’, p. 9. 153 V. Evans, How Words Mean, pp. 3–4. 154 Murphy, Lexical Meaning, p. 31; A. Tyler and V. Evans, Semantics of English Prepositions, pp. 14–16; Kilgarriff, ‘“I don’t believe in word senses”’, p. 378. Fuchs calls it order-of-things knowledge

82

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT opening a wound involves … the skilled use of a scalpel on flesh, to create an aperture … to clean the wound and/or remove potentially damaged or diseased tissue. The opening of a wall involves different sorts of tools, typically carpentry tools of a particular kind … resulting in an aperture of a certain size and shape for a very different sort of purpose: for instance to create or insert a doorway. Both of these operations differ from opening a mouth which involves muscle gestures on a pre-existing aperture, or opening curtains, which doesn’t involve an aperture at all, both of which serve very different functions. Finally, opening a dam by a sapper involves knowledge relating to warfare—a sapper is a military explosives expert— and destroying the dam in question as part of a military action. 155

From our encyclopedic knowledge, Searle said, ‘we know that the actual act of opening a wound (using a scalpel) is not the same as opening the door (we do not take out a scalpel and start carving on a door when someone says “Open the door”)’. 156 Searle maintained that open in these instances has the same ‘literal’ meaning; otherwise, it is ‘infinitely ambiguous’ since we can produce many more examples. But he did acknowledge another sense of open in examples such as: 9) The chairman opened the meeting; 10) The artillery opened fire; and 11) Bill opened a restaurant. 157 There will always be debate over how finely to split definitions and sooner or later we must ask, as Silva does, 158 to what extent a word gives meaning to a context and to what extent a context gives meaning to a word. The lexeme can only contribute so much. If we list the context of every sentence or paragraph in which the word is used, we would proliferate the dictionary to an unmanageable size and in essence would no longer have a lexicon on words, but a commentary on all their usages. Kilgarriff points out that dictionaries lump or split differently because they are intended for different audiences. A dictionary written for the general public will be content with more lumping, whereas in a specialty dictionary such as a musicjournalism dictionary, it would be worthwhile to list very specific meanings. 159 We must realize that a NT Greek-English lexicon is a specialty dictionary and will and should be motivated by making NT usages clear. The purpose is to help the reader of the Greek New Testament understand what x word means in y context. As Kilgarriff says, ‘The implication for WSD is that word senses are only ever defined relative to a set of interests.’ 160 In the suggestions which we offer below for Greek New Testament lexical entries (in Chapters 5–8), we will seek to steer a middle course between lumping and splitting, and between word and context, with the expressed goals of 1) making the meaning of a lexical item clear in each Greek New Testament usage and 2) keeping the (Fuchs, ‘Deixis, Relevance, and Tense/Aspect’, p. 106) while Evans states that it has also been called common-sense knowledge or sociocultural knowledge (V. Evans, How Words Mean, p. 17). 155 V. Evans, How Words Mean, p. 9. 156 Searle, Intentionality, p. 146. 157 Searle, Intentionality, pp. 145–146. 158 Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning, pp. 198–200. 159 Kilgarriff, ‘“I don’t believe in word senses”’, pp. 372, 382. 160 Kilgarriff, ‘“I don’t believe in word senses”’, p. 383.

CHAPTER 3: MAKING SENSE OUT OF MEANING

83

lexical entry small enough to be manageable and user-friendly for exegetes who are used to using Greek New Testament English-Greek lexica and English dictionaries. ‘Beyond that, we might be in danger of splitting hairs. In the end, we must admit that boundaries between senses are often fuzzy.’ 161

3.8 DEFAULT (TYPICAL OR COMMON) MEANING One important advantage of CL is the opportunity it affords the exegete to observe a large number of usages of a word. By reading through a substantial number of examples (for example, 50–100, or even more), we can discern, to some degree, which senses of a polyseme are frequent and which are rare. 162 For example, throat can mean both ‘the part of the neck in front of the spinal column’ or ‘the curved part of an anchor’s arm where it joins the shank’ (MW11), yet the former is much more frequent and typical than the latter, so that it is wise to assume the former rather than the latter if the context does not clearly indicate otherwise. 163 Understanding the meaning of a polyseme is sometimes based on statistical probability, in that we should assume the more common or frequent meaning as the default meaning in the absence of collocations or other factors which would indicate a less-common meaning. 164 Scholars need to pay attention to the relative frequency of meanings of a polyseme. Simply because a lexicon lists several possible meanings of a word, exegetes are not free to pick anyone they want. They need to know which is most common and, in the absence of contra-indications, be ready to at least tentatively accept the most common or typical meaning. CL cannot tell us all the meanings that are possible (since it only lists what has been written or spoken in a given corpus, not what could be written or spoken), but it does tell us what is most frequent, common or typical. 165 Partington comments: Most of the linguistic analysis performed using computerized corpora is born out of a statistical methodological philosophy, the search for—and belief in the importance of—recurring patterns. It is based on the twin concepts of frequency (a factor of (past) observation) and probability (a factor of (future) predictability). In other words, if something is seen to happen frequently in a language, then it is significant. It is significant precisely because this frequent occurrence, or regularity, can be used as the Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament, p. 61. Hunston and Francis, Pattern Grammar, p. 17. 163 Related to this are O’Donnell’s comments on Wallace: ‘Though he presents many usage categories for forms, he has not extended his quantitative analysis to provide an indication of, say, whether the Genitive of Means is more frequent than a Genitive of Agency [Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 125–26] … It is still of value, and consistent with Wallace’s approach, to attempt to quantify these categories … Otherwise the interpreter, faced with a genitive form, is left with 33 possible choices and little idea of the most frequent possibilities’ (O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 59–60). 164 Oakes, Statistics for Corpus Linguistics, pp. 76–78. 165 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, pp. 42–43. 161 162

84

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT basis for predicting how other, as yet unanalyzed, chunks of language will behave … 166

To illustrate our point, in the following sections we will show the comparative frequency of the various senses of σύν (5.5.1–5.5.7, 8.2-8.4) and συνίστημι (7.1.1–7.1.6) which we found by reading all their usages in context in our primary corpus. We will give a sentential definition, followed by the percentage of times and number of times it had this meaning in our primary corpus, as well as several sample KWIC lines.

3.9 CONCLUSION TO CHAPTER 3 In this chapter we have emphasized the importance of meaning since our goal is to apply CL to the Greek New Testament in order to better understand the sense of lexical items in NT passages. For our explanations in the remainder of the study, we will use sentential definitions to indicate when a lexical unit is most often used, and we will use a semasiological approach, showing the various senses of a given lexeme. Our approach is that of a passive dictionary, with the goal of helping the NT student decode the meaning of a lexical unit, rather than the active approach of preparing a student for encoding Hellenistic Greek. Where possible we will spell out the connotation of the lexical unit, rather than limiting ourselves to its denotation. Our decisions on what a lexical unit means in a given passage are based on an understanding of context in which the emphasis is on a word in an utterance rather than in isolation. Context is here understood in light of several principles: the idiom principle teaches that words are most often co-selected with other words; lexical priming says that lexical units most often prime the auditor or reader to anticipate certain other words; scripts and themes show that physical surroundings and the event in progress affect our interpretation of word usage; relevance theory teaches that we assume that the speaker or writer is seeking to communicate clearly and that much is understood by implication without being spelled out; and the principle that collocational indicators are key in determining how a polyseme is being used in a given utterance. On the basis of this, we have disambiguated the meaning of lexical units in our corpora. Our view is that most words are polysemous and we will seek to express the various meanings at a fairly fine level of granularity to bring out the various shades of meaning. We will also seek to show the relative frequency of the various meanings of a lexeme and will seek to default to the typical meaning where collocations do not indicate a different sense. We will then apply this to several Greek New Testament passages where WSD of these polysemes makes a difference in the exegesis.

166

Partington, Patterns and Meanings, p. 9.

CHAPTER 4: DEFINING UNITS OF MEANING Different meanings of a polyseme are often associated with how the word is combined with other words to form a unit of meaning. In this chapter we will discuss the terminology used when discussing units of meaning, the process we used in deciding the sense of units of meaning, our approach to writing lexical definitions and will give an extended English example (with).

4.1 TERMINOLOGY FOR UNITS OF MEANING Tognini-Bonelli addresses the ‘systematic interconnections between an item and its environment’ and notes that ‘the formal co-textual features surrounding a word determine its meaning and its function in a specific discourse’. 1 By environment, we mean the cotext surrounding the lexeme. Naturally, specific lexemes occur more frequently with some words than others. For example, vacuum will occur more frequently with cleaner than with candy, and the use of vacuum and cleaner (at N+1) has a specific meaning, that is, an appliance we use to suck up dirt, normally from an indoor, carpeted area, as opposed to vacuum in the sense of an area of space containing no matter. The effect of the cotext on the meaning of a lexeme was called by Sinclair co-selection. 2 By this he meant that when speakers choose to use a word they are limited in which words and grammatical constructions they can use with it; words are selected together and the combination influences the meaning. We could say that vacuum and cleaner select each other and form a new meaning. Clear refers to this as stereotyping in the sense that words have distinct meanings when found in distinct combinations. He refers to keep and illustrates how the meaning changes considerably depending on the word(s) with which it is used:

1 Tognini-Bonelli, 2 Sinclair,

Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 101. Reading Concordances, pp. 57, 174; Sinclair, Trust the Text, p. 39.

85

86

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Table 4: Keep and its Collocations

They keep their discoveries to themselves. … she had to hurry to keep up with me. Keep to the path. Keep going! … keep watch … Private property.Keep out! … keep a look-out for him. I did not keep any notes. Fish doesn’t keep very well. We must keep to the deadlines. 3

Keep has an amazing array of meanings and these can be seen when we observe how distinct meanings occur with different words. COB4 illustrates how keep means to remain when joined with words describing a STATE (keep warm, keep awake, keep in touch) or a PLACE or POSITION (keep your head down, keep her in the hospital). When preceding an -ing verb, it often means to continue or repeat (keep forgetting, keep walking). When referring to a promise or an appointment, it means to do what you said you would do (keep your promise, keep your doctor’s appointment). We see from COB4 that when keep collocates with other words to form verbal phrases the sense is further delimited. For example, if you keep from doing something, you prevent yourself from doing it (She bit her lip to keep from crying.). When you keep information from someone, you are not telling them about it (How could you keep this from me for so long!). When keep collocates with on, it can mean to continue when followed by an -ing verb (Did he give up or keep on trying?), but when there is a stated direct object, it means to continue to wear (When you ride the motorcycle, you must keep your helmet on at all times.) Sinclair gave the example of naked eye which he examined in detail. 4 His analysis found that the phrase naked eye most often has the at N-1, a preposition at N-2 (to/with the naked eye), and a semantic prosody (see note at 3.7.2) of difficulty (used often with difficult, faint, invisible, barely, just) meaning that something is difficult to see. These features are co-selected with naked eye to form a unit of meaning that goes beyond the individual lexemes. 5 As Cheng says, ‘meaning is created not by meaning residing in single words, but by patterns of word co-selections’ and ‘collocation is a good guide to meaning and … combinations of words generate context-specific meanings’. 6 In CL there has been an emphasis away from the perspective which sees meaning residing in an individual word (‘self-contained receptacles of meaning’), 7 and toward the perspective that meaning is found in collocations, which can be understood as 3 Clear,

‘From Firth Principles’, p. 272. Trust the Text, pp. 24–48, first printed as Sinclair, ‘The Search for Units of Meaning’, pp. 76–106. 5 Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 104. 6 Cheng, Exploring Corpus Linguistics, pp. 7–8. 7 Almela and Sánchez, ‘Words as ‘Lexical Units’, p. 21. 4 Sinclair,

CHAPTER 4: DEFINING UNITS OF MEANING

87

semantic units. 8 This approach places emphasis on collocations as lexical units 9 or extended lexical units, 10 sometimes called extended lexical items (ELIs). 11 Other terms have been used to refer to various aspects of collocations, such as word combinations, 12 lexical phrases, 13 multi-word units (MWUs), 14 complexes, 15 chunks, 16 ready-made chunks, formulaic sequences, 17 formulae or routine formulae, formulaic language, prefabricated routines, sentence stems, 18 clusters, 19 lexical bundles, 20 stabilized expressions, 21 recurrent continuous sequences 22 or simply ‘recurrent linear strings of word-forms’. 23 Phraseology is a broad term encompassing the wide scope of collocation. 24 There is in reality a continuum, so that if we start at one end with free-word combinations 25 we then move up the cline to extended lexical units, then to stabilized expressions, on to fixed expressions (FEs) and then finally to idioms on the other end. McKeown and Radev illustrate as follows: to buy a house (free-word combination); table of contents (collocation); dead end (idiom). 26 Moon uses FE to refer to a range of word combinations including idioms, phrasal lexemes, phraseological units, or multi-word lexical items, frozen collocations, 27 similes, sayings, proverbs and routine formulae. FEs, then, are holistic units where a two- or more-word unit has a single meaning. 28 8 Almela

and Sánchez, ‘Words as ‘Lexical Units’, p. 21. Halliday, Functional Grammar, p. 334. 10 Stubbs, Words and Phrases, p. 147. 11 Almela and Sánchez, ‘Words as “Lexical Units”’, p. 25. 12 Benson, Benson, and Ilson, The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English, p. vii. 13 Hunston and Francis, Pattern Grammar, pp. 7–10. 14 Hunston, Corpus Approaches to Evaluation, p. 5. 15 Callow, Man and Message, p. 83. 16 Wu, ‘From “Same Form” to “Same Meaning”’, p. 1. 17 Kirk and Carter, ‘Fluency and Spoken English’, p. 29. 18 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, p. 138. 19 Pedersen, ‘Unsupervised Corpus-Based Methods’, pp. 133–166; Tucker, ‘Cultural Classification and System Networks’, pp. 560–563. 20 North, ‘Glossary’, p. xvi. 21 Lenk, ‘Stabilized Expressions in Spoken Discourse’. 22 Adolphs, Introducing Electronic Text Analysis, p. 43. 23 Stubbs, ‘An Example of Frequent English Phraseology’, p. 101. 24 Hunston, Corpus Approaches to Evaluation, p. 5. 25 Also called free choice. A word of this nature is called a free form (Sinclair, Reading Concordances, p. 174) and a phrase is called a free combination (Benson, Benson, and Ilson, The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations, p. xv) or, more recently, a free word combination (McKeown and Radev, ‘Collocations’, p. 507). 26 McKeown and Radev, ‘Collocations’, p. 509. 27 According to Amosova, frozen collocations or compounds are ‘where one element has a meaning unique to the combination’ (Moon, Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English, p. 13). 28 Moon, Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English, p. 2. 9

88

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Hunston points out the difference between fixedness and regularity. Fixedness refers to a phrase which occurs only (or almost always) in a specific, unchangeable wording. Regularity refers to a phrase such as where there’s smoke, there’s fire which can be modified and used in various ways creatively such as ‘many Americans came to believe that where there was smoke there must be fire or Sometimes there is smoke without fire.’ These later phrases are ‘more or less fixed’. 29 In contrast, idioms are sometimes referred to as frozen 30 or fossilized 31 since they cannot normally be altered without changing their meaning. Kick the bucket is frozen; it cannot be pluralized to *kick the buckets and still retain the idiom. 32 Linguists often disagree over the precise delimitation of each of these terms and the boundaries are indeed fuzzy. However there is general consensus among corpus linguists that meaning is expressed in units of words rather than in individual words only. Another way to look at this phenomenon is to understand with Sinclair that grammar can be open, restricted or closed. An example of open grammar would be when we have freedom to use either a definite or an indefinite article, such as I see the cat or I see a cat. An example of closed grammar, on the other end of the cline, is a phrase where the indefinite article cannot be replaced, such as come to a head (since we do not say *come to the head). In between the two ends of the spectrum is restricted or reserved grammar. We can return to our example from above for an instance of restricted grammar: seen with the naked eye, where it is not completely closed since we can also say seen by the naked eye or visible to the naked eye and yet it is not entirely open since we do not say *by a naked eye. 33 It must be admitted that it is often difficult to determine whether a given string of words is a regular collocation for a specific lexeme or whether it is a set phrase. 34 Lexicographers debate where one ends and the other begins and also whether collocations should have their own lexical entry. For example, should put off be listed as a separate headword or should it be listed as a specialized meaning of the ‘main’ word, put? In fact, what constitutes the ‘main’ word is debated in MWUs, some preferring to list them under the nominal, and others under the verb. Should commit suicide be grouped under the verb commit or under the noun suicide? 35 It is our contention that future lexica should be digital, where space constraints are much less of an issue, and that in order to make them maximally user-friendly, MWUs should be listed as separate entries with hyperlinks from the entries containing the constituent parts, so that in this 29 Hunston,

Corpora in Applied Linguistics, pp. 137–138. Descriptions include frozen expressions (Benson, Benson, and Ilson, BBI Dictionary, p. xxxiv) or frozen metaphors (Clear, ‘From Firth Principles’, p. 291; Hunston and Francis, Pattern Grammar, p. 8). Enkvist uses frozen language differently, referring to stereotypical language such as greetings, military commands, and legal or ritual language (Enkvist, Linguistic Stylistics, 22). 31 Hunston and Francis, Pattern Grammar, p. 8. 32 Hunston and Francis, Pattern Grammar, p. 8. 33 Sinclair, ‘A Way with Common Words’, pp. 161–162. 34 Krishnamurthy, ‘Process of Compilation’, p. 75. 35 Burkhanov, ‘Pragmatic Specifications’, p. 110. 30

CHAPTER 4: DEFINING UNITS OF MEANING

89

case, the entries for both commit and suicide should be flagged to provide information on the MWU to commit suicide. Lexicon users may not be aware of the presence of an MWU and part of the purpose of a corpus-driven lexicon is to bring this to their attention.

4.2 COMPUTATIONAL TERMINOLOGY From a computational perspective, units of meaning are called n-grams, defined as ‘a recurrent string of uninterrupted word-forms’. 36 This is an important clarification since we need to be clear in communicating to the computer what it is for which we are searching. We can think of it as running our finger along a given text, stopping at each word and recording the words with which it is combined in a window of four or five words on either side. Using this method the computer can record when, where and how often these groups of words occur. A related concept is a frame 37 or a phrase-frame (also called a P-frame) which Stubbs defines as ‘an n-gram with one variable slot, such as the phrase plays a * part in.’ Searching with the * slot (called a wild card) we find that this slot is frequently filled with words such as big, major, vital, central, significant, large, etc. We can then say that these words form a collocational framework for this phase. 38 Another related concept is a PoSgram which refers to ‘a string of POS categories’, such as preposition + determiner + singular noun + of + determiner, which would include phrases such as at the end of the or in the middle of the. 39 Software can search for more than one-word variations, looking for conceptual frames, such as ‘[negative] [clear] answer as to [wh-word]’. 40 P-frames and PoS-grams are important tools in CL for examining in detail the collocational patterns of MWUs, especially since searches can be written to find these frames automatically, without the investigator guessing in advance which specific words would be included. 41

4.3 DISAMBIGUATION THROUGH STRUCTURE A lexicon, to be complete, should list not only the various sense definitions of a lexeme but should also, as much as possible, give structural indications for when the different senses are used, that is, with what kind of cotext and in which syntactical situations. Though a lexicon cannot decide for the interpreter, it should provide pointers to when, ceteris paribus, a certain sense tends to occur (for example, with known collocations and colligations), and, when those types of structural indicators are absent, which senses are in general more frequently used. 42 36 Stubbs,

‘An Example of Frequent English Phraseology’, p. 90. Corpora in Applied Linguistics, p. 49. 38 Stubbs, ‘An Example of Frequent English Phraseology’, pp. 90–91. 39 Stubbs, ‘An Example of Frequent English Phraseology’, p. 91. 40 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, p. 51. 41 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, p. 50. 42 In general, the sense which occurs most frequently should be toward the beginning of the entry in the lexicon. 37 Hunston,

90

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Sinclair points out the tendency for different structures to express different senses, both lexical and grammatical. 43 Lexical structure speaks to the fact that when a lexeme collocates with certain words, it has a tendency to have a certain meaning, whereas when it collocates with other words, it has a tendency to have a different meaning. Grammatical structure relates to the observation that when a lexeme is used alongside specific grammatical forms or POSs (referred to as colligation), it tends to have a specific sense. Colligation has also been called pattern grammar since ‘words sharing a pattern tend also to share aspects of meaning’. 44 Sinclair’s statement that ‘[t]here is ultimately no distinction between form and meaning’ 45 is surely going too far. It would be better to speak of a tendency in this direction, or as he also wrote in a more nuanced and balanced way in the same publication, to speak of ‘regular and typical associations, leading to the identification of one or more “citation forms” for each distinct sense’. 46

4.4 DETERMINING USAGE AND COMPOSING DEFINITIONS Through this study we endeavor to show how structural lexicology improves our ability to disambiguate potential senses 47 of a polyseme (word sense possibility delimitation, [WSPD]) by paying attention to collocational patterns. How did we carry this out? We first chose an area of investigation, namely σύν as a stand-alone preposition and as a verbal and nominal prefix. We then searched our corpora and identified lemmas which occurred 50 or more times of which at least one occurrence was in the Greek New Testament. As the study progressed we included other lemmas not related to σύν yet of interest to NT exegetes (for example, ζάω, δύναμις). We then examined the definitions of these lemmas as given in L&N and chose those which were polysemous to the point where they could be understood in more than one way in the Greek New Testament passage(s) in which they occurred. We then found every use of these lemmas in our primary corpus (for example, the 1,045 occurrences of σύν and the 330 occurrences of συνίστημι, etc.). We then read each usage in the context of the sentence in which it occurred, and made a preliminary judgment as to its specific meaning in each one of those contexts (see our discussion of context at 3.6). By working through all the occurrences we identified repetitions of the same meaning and grouped these together as examples of a given sense. In this process we recorded the collocations and colligations which occurred with each usage in order to see if there were patterns, such as whether sense x occurred most frequently when lexeme y followed a certain verb, or when its object was a certain noun. We noted the structural indicators found with that sense (such as the presence of words in the same 43 Sinclair,

Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, pp. 65, 104, 108. Hunston and Francis, Pattern Grammar, pp. 20–21; Hunston, ‘Colligation, Lexis, Pattern, and Text’, pp. 14–16. 45 Sinclair, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, p. 7. 46 Sinclair, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, p. 105. 47 Sinclair, Jones, and Daley, English Collocation Studies, p. 1. 44

CHAPTER 4: DEFINING UNITS OF MEANING

91

semantic domain (also called semantic class 48). We also noted, when appropriate, where there was a pronounced semantic prosody to the lemma (see note at 3.7.2). We then counted the usages to determine which percent of usages were found with which senses in order to determine the relative frequency of each sense (see 3.8). Due to space limitations we cannot print all 1,375 KWIC lines for σύν and συνίστημι, but they are listed on the website which accompanies this book: http://structural lexicology.wordpress.com. There the reader is provided with spreadsheets which list all the KWIC lines grouped by the sense which we judged the most probable for each of the usages. We then wrote our own sentential definitions in imitation of those used in COB4, though substituting the Greek lexeme as the node word, in order to demonstrate in the definition itself how the word is being used (for example, ‘When someone is σύν another person …’). Next we compared the glosses and definitions given in 10 GreekEnglish dictionaries and lexica: Newman, BAGD, BDAG, L&N, LEH, EDNT, LSJ, MM, Thayer and TDNT. 49 We compared our working definitions with theirs and noted what, if any, structural markers they indicated for their suggested definitions. In general the lexica used in NT studies do not offer a thorough explanation of structural indicators (such as collocation or colligation). 50 We then revised our working definitions and listed them in COBUILD-like definitions and wrote out structural indicators which we believe should be included in future NT Greek-English lexica. We then examined the specific NT verses in which these lexemes occurred and assigned the verse to the sense we felt was the most probable (see 3.7 for WSPD). We compared our findings with the 10 NT lexica mentioned above, then examined numerous Bible translations, commentaries and journal articles as well as several older Greek-English lexica in order to evaluate their arguments and conclusions regarding the meaning of the lexeme in the Greek New Testament usages. We sought to provide evidence supporting our interpretation in each Greek New Testament usage and suggested how these lexica and commentaries could be improved in their evaluation of these word meanings.

4.5 EXAMPLE OF WITH Silva observes:

If we were asked, for example, what is the meaning of with, we would possibly first think of ‘association’ or ‘companionship’, as in The American soldier spent time with his friends. But then we might think of a quite different, almost opposite, idea, ‘against’: The American soldier fought with the Japanese. Or we are reminded of ‘instrument’: The

Krovetz, ‘Lexical Acquisition and Information Retrieval’, pp. 52–60. The newly revised NIDNTE (Silva, Moisés, ed. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2014) was pubished too late to be used in this study. 50 Though Lee does not use a CL approach, he does make reference to BDAG’s ‘frequent disregard of collocations and contextual “fit”’ (Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography, p. 169). 48 49

92

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT American soldier struck the enemy with his rifle. Or something close to ‘responsibility’: The general left the orders with the soldier. Or ‘manner’: The soldier discharged his mission with grace. We can list more than two dozen ideas, some of them quite disparate from the others, that can be expressed with this preposition! 51

With is a frequently used word and apart from of is probably the most polysemous word in English. 52 OED (2nd ed.; 1989) lists 43 meanings with 78 sub-meanings for with; MW11 lists 11 meanings with 29 sub-meanings; LDCE (4th ed.; 2005) lists 20 meanings plus three phrases; Concise OED (11th ed.; 2004) lists 10 meanings and five phrases. COB4 documents 21 senses and in the following section we list several of these examples since they give helpful indications of when with is used with which sense. As noted in 3.3 and below, several trends in today’s learners’ dictionaries (specifically written for those learning a second language) would be helpful if applied to our Greek-English lexica. These have been pointed out by Swanepoel 53 in his discussion of the ‘big four’: Cambridge International Dictionary of English, Collins COBUILD English Dictionary (COB2), Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDCE) and Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (all 1995). Especially in COBUILD the definitions are given in normal English not dictionarese which can sometimes be stilted and often circular. The COBUILD editors were quite deliberate in their wording of the entries, using full sentences. They purposely avoided lexicographese, the tendency for dictionaries to use abbreviations, parentheses and brackets to such an extent that they often obscure the meaning for the average reader. 54 In deliberate contrast to this, COBUILD structured its dictionary entries as normal prose, giving the advantage of clarity, but also illustrating, in the definition itself, structural (both grammatical and lexical) clues to how the words are used. An example of grammatical structure is that if it is a count noun, the entry will start with an indefinite article (‘A brick is …’) whereas a non-count noun will not (‘Calligraphy is …’). By lexical structure we mean that the definition seeks, where possible, to include some of the main collocations (at least at the conceptual level, since there would not be room to list all the lexemes with which it may collocate). The entries also seek to include other indications of usage. For example, though the LDCE (1978 ed.) defines kill as ‘to cause to die’, and the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (1974 ed.) as ‘put to death; cause the death of’, because kill is most often used when referring to causing the death of an animate object, this was spelled out in the COBUILD definition: ‘To kill a person, animal, plant, or other living thing means …’ 55 Though admittedly more wordy, and though perhaps open to the charge of being too informal, this approach has the decided advantage of being much clearer. Silva, God, Language and Scripture, pp. 255–256. ‘To Choose or not to Choose the Prototypical Equivalent’, p. 208. 53 Swanepoel, ‘Dictionary Typologies’, p. 57. 54 Hanks, ‘Definitions and Explanations’, pp. 116–117. 55 Hanks, ‘Definitions and Explanations’, p. 121. 51

52 Schmied,

CHAPTER 4: DEFINING UNITS OF MEANING

93

Learners’ dictionaries often also include usage notes to explain when and how the word is used as well as in which settings it is appropriate (for example, formal, informal, slang or technical). This is one way to add a small amount of onomasiological information to a semasiological entry; for example, by mentioning that a term is usually used in medicine or mathematics, we are specifying that it belongs in a certain ‘conceptual domain’. 56 Another benefit is that COBUILD dictionary entries are always illustrated with examples taken from actual usage, rather than invented by the lexicographer. Although intuition and introspection have their place (see 2.1), 57 CL has shown that the intuition of native speakers, when specifically turned inward to describe word usage, is often incorrect. By looking at large numbers of examples in actual usage—when people were using the language without consciously thinking about how they should or could use it— we get a much more accurate picture of words senses. 58 Tognini-Bonelli states regarding CL, ‘Unlike researchers from the past, this new methodology does not rely on native-speaker intuition but is equally available to anyone with an attentive eye for detail.’ 59 Following are quotations 60 of several COB4 entries for with, interspersed with our comments. They provide an excellent background for our CL study in the Greek New Testament since some of the definitions are helpful explanations of the senses of σύν, and we will refer to them in 5.5.1–5.5.7. Sense 1: ‘If one person is with another, they are together in one place. With her were her son and daughter-in-law … She is currently staying with her father at his home.’ This sense of with often occurs with a noun indicating PLACE. It also occurs regularly with verbs of BEING or RESIDING, such as They (are, stay, live) with their parents. It is very frequently used with animate objects, especially people. Sense 2: ‘If something is put with or is with something else, they are used at the same time. Serve hot, with pasta or rice and French beans … Cookies are just the thing to serve 56 Geeraerts,

‘Meaning and Definition’, p. 84. Native-speaker intuition and CL provide necessary checks and balances (Murphy, Lexical Meaning, pp. 22–23). Sinclair is probably correct that intuition should be used as a check later in the lexicological process, after the initial analysis has been performed by the computer corpus (Krishnamurthy, ‘Corpus-Driven Lexicography’, pp. 231, 237–238). 58 Sinclair, Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, p. 4; Jackson, Words and Their Meaning, p. 99; Hunston and Francis, Pattern Grammar, pp. 14–15; Sinclair, Reading Concordances, pp. ix–x; Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 91. For arguments against corpus use and for intuition, see Ruhl’s summary of the Chomskyan tradition, in Ruhl, On Monosemy, p. 13. A balanced approach sees the value of both corpus-based actual usage and the intuitions of native speakers (Stubbs, Words and Phrases, p. 71; Stubbs, Text and Corpus Analysis, pp. 38, 40, 48; Tognini-Bonelli, Corpus Linguistics at Work, p. 91; Stubbs, ‘Technology and Phraseology’, pp. 21– 22. 59 Tognini-Bonelli, ‘Working with Corpora’, p. 11. 60 We have not included all their definitions and so have renumbered them to keep ours in order. Everything in quotation marks below is taken directly from COB4. 57

94

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

with tall glasses of real lemonade.’ This is often used with verbs like SERVE, USE, or PUT where one or more objects are involved passively. Sense 3: ‘If you do something with someone else, you both do it together or are both involved in it. Parents will be able to discuss their child's progress with their teacher … He walked with her to the front door.’ This contains a verb that can be applied to both parties and is a very common usage. Sense 4: ‘If you fight, argue, or compete with someone, you oppose them. About a thousand students fought with riot police in the capital … He was in an argument with his landlord downstairs.’ The structural clue is that the verb indicates FIGHTING, ARGUING, COMPETING or a similar concept. Real-world knowledge (see under 3.7.5) is often necessary to know whether with in a context of fighting is being used in this sense of opposition, rather than the more rare use of cooperation. In other words, we need to know at least the basics of World War II to know that The Americans fought with the Japanese on Iwo Jima means that they were fighting against each other, but The Americans fought with the Canadians at Normandy means they were fighting on the same side. L&N point out that though σύν [with] and μετά [with] overlap in many areas, only μετά can be used to express fighting against, whereas σύν would indicate fighting on the same side (89.107, note 21). Sense 5: ‘If you do something with a particular tool, object, or substance, you do it using that tool, object, or substance. Remove the meat with a fork and divide it among four plates … Doctors are treating him with the drug AZT.’ This sense is used with an entity or PHYSICAL OBJECT which lends itself to being employed as an instrument, but is not used with a person (which would indicate Sense 3, above). It requires an action verb (DO, MAKE, etc.). To determine if this is the usage in a given sentence, we can substitute using to see if the meaning is the same (Remove the meat using a fork). Sense 6: ‘If someone stands or goes somewhere with something, they are carrying it. A man came round with a tray of chocolates …’ This is used with an object which can be carried or brought by a PERSON, ANIMAL or some MODE OF TRANSPORTATION. It can also be used in this way when people are being ‘brought’, when a mode of transportation is the subject (The train pulled into the station with the weary but joyful soldiers). When the mode of transportation is used instrumentally as in Sense 5 above, the thing transported becomes the subject and we use by instead of with (The weary yet joyful soldiers arrived by train). Sense 7: ‘Someone or something with a particular feature or possession has that feature or possession. He was in his early forties, tall and blond with bright blue eyes. Someone with an income of $34,895 can afford this loan.’ This can be used when you can substitute HAVE, for example, He has blue eyes or He has an income of $34,895. Sense 8: ‘You use with when indicating the way that something is done or the feeling that a person has when they do something … teaching her to read music with skill and sensitivity … He agreed, but with reluctance.’ In the study of biblical languages this is normally referred to as manner. It indicates how something is done, specifying EMOTIONS, ATTITUDES or ACTIONS which accompany the main verb, and can often be transformed into an adverb (with reluctance = reluctantly; with skill = skillfully). As an illustration of the difference between instrument (Sense 5) and manner (Sense 12), Luraghi gives these two examples: I cut the salami with a knife (instrument); I cut the salami with care (manner) and mentions that an abstract object (here care) shows that with is

CHAPTER 4: DEFINING UNITS OF MEANING

95

being used as manner. He says that these two examples ‘illustrate an important and frequent feature of meaning abstraction: the occurrence of an abstract noun triggers a more abstract meaning of the preposition with.’ 61

4.6 CONCLUSION TO CHAPTER 4 In this chapter we introduced the various terminology used in the literature to describe units of words which express distinct meanings, as well as the nomenclature common in computational studies. We explained the method we used in determining the meaning of lexical items in our study and in comparing our findings with the standard NT Greek-English lexica, various Bible translations and commentaries. We cited several English examples from the literature and discussed the analysis of with found in COB4. In the following chapter we will apply this approach to the Greek New Testament beginning with σύν.

61 Luraghi,

On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases, p. 25.

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1) Our goal in this study is to show how the application of CL to NT Greek lexical semantics can assist us in disambiguating polysemes and in differentiating near synonyms. It is our argument that specific senses can often be disambiguated by noting the collocations of the lexical item in question. We are not free to look up a word in a NT Greek-English lexicon and choose any of the listed definitions as applicable to a given NT verse. We must rather seek to determine which collocations are normally used with which meanings.

5.1 COLLOCATION Firth was the first to propose the term collocation 1 and he explained it by saying, ‘The placing of a text as a constituent in a context of situation contributes to the statement of meaning since situations are set up to recognize use … You shall know a word by the company it keeps!’ 2 He recognized the importance of a word’s collocations as an essential step in determining meaning. 3 Collocations are helpful in two specific areas: 1) differentiating between two near synonyms (we will deal with this aspect less thoroughly in this study, but see 5.4.1 and 5.4.2); and 2) disambiguating the various senses of a polyseme (most of the discussion in this study centers on this principle; see 5.5.1–5.5.7). As an example of differentiating near synonyms, we can say that strong and powerful share components of meaning, yet they behave somewhat differently. We can say, The senator presented some strong arguments for his case, as well as The senator presented some powerful arguments for his case; in other words, both strong and powerful collocate naturally with arguments. However, we would say, I like my coffee strong, but probably not *I like my coffee powerful. We would say, The testimony I heard in church this morning was powerful, but probably not *The testimony I heard in church this morning was strong. In other words, though they share components of meaning in that they have a very similar sense when Firth, ‘Modes of Meaning’, pp. 194–196. ‘A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, 1930–55’, p. 179 (emphasis his). Bublitz credits Hans Sperber with an even earlier recognition of collocation though he used a different label, Konsoziation (‘consociation’) (Bublitz, ‘“I entirely dot dot dot’”, p. 12). 3 Firth, ‘Linguistic Analysis’, pp. 20–24. 1

2 Firth,

97

98

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

modifying arguments, they also differ. Part of the meaning of strong is that it collocates with coffee, but not testimony; part of the meaning of powerful is that it collocates with testimony, but not coffee. 4 An example of disambiguating two different senses of a lexical item would be the two-word collocation bang up which can mean opposite things. If you bang up your car, it means you had an accident and damaged it—a bad thing; but if you did a bang up job, it means you did the task very well—a good thing. 5 Here the POS and the collocate make all the difference in the world. When bang up is collocated with car, it is a verb and means to damage. When bang up is collocated with job, it is an adjective and means very good. Two-word collocations (called bi-grams) usually disambiguate senses, but not always. The meaning of rock as in stone is clear in the collocation rock quarry, whereas the meaning of rock as a type of music is the clear meaning of the collocation rock band, but the combination rock idol or hard rock could go either way. 6 Plastic plants is ambiguous and needs a fuller context for disambiguation: 1) Plastic plants can fool you if really well made [= organic]. 2) Plastic plants can contaminate whole regions [= factory]. 7

The collocate contaminate in (2) disambiguates plant, showing that it has the sense of factory. In their earliest study Sinclair et al. set out to disambiguate two senses of like, using a corpus of 90,000 tokens of spoken English in which like occurred 290 times. To the human reader there were two clearly distinguishable meanings for like: 1) as a verb meaning to derive pleasure from, to find agreeable, to feel attracted to; and 2) as an adjective or adverb meaning similar to, resembling, having the same characteristics. Their experiment found that when like collocated with I’d, to, go or would, it had meaning (1) and when it collocated with or, something, that, yes, things, and, but or anything, it had meaning (2). 8 This matches our intuition since we can easily imagine phrases for meaning (1) such as I’d like to go, I would like, and for meaning (2) it is like something, something like that, things like that, it hurt like anything. It is important to understand that we are not saying that in every utterance where like means (1) that the collocates we listed for (1) will be present. We are saying that where the collocates we listed for (1) are present in an utterance, like will usually (or at 4 We have adapted this from Halliday, ‘Lexis as a Linguistic Level’, p. 150 who, in place of our illustration of testimony, used engine, and claimed that we say The car’s engine is powerful but not ?The car’s engine is strong. O’Donnell uses the example of strong and weak with tea vs. beer (O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 391). 5 Thanks are due to my son, Timothy Price, for noticing this. 6 Nerlich and Clark, ‘Polysemy and Flexibility’, p. 16. 7 Wilks, ‘Senses and Texts’, p. 405. 8 Sinclair, Jones, and Daley, English Collocation Studies, pp. 100–103. This method is not foolproof. Sinclair reports that the computer misclassified or left unclassified 70 to 71 of the 290 occurrences.

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

99

least often) have meaning (1). There is a difference between these two claims. A lexical item can have a certain meaning in an utterance even when specific collocates are not present in that utterance, but in the utterances where the collocate is present, the lexical item will often have that meaning. To use our example of like: like can mean to find agreeable in an utterance even when that utterance does not contain the collocation like + to go; but if an utterance does contain the collocation like + to go, then like in that utterance has a high probability of meaning to find agreeable. Additionally, we are not saying that like always means (1) when it collocates with the words we have listed, but rather but that it has that meaning significantly often (that is, more than mere chance; see 5.3 for statistical criteria). These are significant clarifications. In the early stages of this study, our working hypothesis was that we would be able to classify all the various senses of a polyseme by finding the collocates which accompanied each sense. We expected to be able to write a full dictionary entry for each lemma in which we would list the collocates which would be present for each of the various senses. However, as the study progressed this was clearly seen not to be the case. For example, we were often able to determine what the most likely sense of σύν was when it was used with certain collocates. But the converse was not true; σύν was not required to appear with that collocation in order to have that meaning in that utterance. As an illustration, σύν + δύναμις usually means with an/the army (6.2.1) but δύναμις can mean army even if σύν is not present (for example, in 2 Chr 24:24; Ezek 38:15; see 6.2.2; 6.2.3). We are not claiming that we can disambiguate every use of a polyseme by knowing ahead of time which collocates will be present with each sense. Our claim is that when certain collocates are present, the polyseme is more often than not being used with a certain sense. Thus our goal is a modest one: it is not to argue that collocations always disambiguate, but that they are a very helpful factor for WSD, or as we prefer, WSPD (explained at 3.7). As another example, critical is a polyseme and two of its most common meanings are to be important and to have a negative opinion of. These are very different meanings, but one way to disambiguate is by noticing the preposition with which it collocates. When collocated with of at N+1, it means to give a negative opinion, but when it is collocated with to at N+1, it means to be important: Table 5: Critical of vs. Critical to

within Afghan society, Arney is critical of the lack of political THE DAILY TELEGRAPH remains critical of Syria and Iran. It says as on But a more considered view, highly critical of Eden, was expressed among both attack on ground targets will be critical to success in any Gulf conflict, of a mental health professional is critical to the success of the therapy. 9 entitlement reform, which is critical to getting this debt crisis averted, to winning Alabama and Mississippi critical to his candidacy but came in second. 10 9 Samples are from the 1999 BoE and discussed in Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, 39–41.

100

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

This is the type of collocational information which should be listed in our lexica.

5.2 COLLIGATION The term collocation is often used as a hypernym which encompasses the more specific terms colligation (with which we will deal in this section) and semantic preference (see 8.1). Colligation is similar to collocation except that the collocating item is a grammatical feature. 11 For example, Hunston suggests that MAINTAIN has three different senses depending on the accompanying grammatical pattern: 1) to not allow to weaken usually has the pattern VERB + NOUN (They have maintained their relationship); 2) to say something strongly usually follows the pattern VERB + that-CLAUSE or VERB + quote (He always maintained that her death was a homicide and not an accident); and 3) to keep at a certain level has the pattern VERB + NOUN + at + NOUN (Shell has been maintaining gas prices at $3.50 per gallon). Thus a dictionary could list three phraseologies with three different meanings: maintain something, maintain that something is true, and maintain something at a level. 12 We maintain that colligational information should be included in our NT lexica. In Lee’s evaluation of Vollständiges Griechish-Deutsches Handwörterbuch (1910) he criticized Erwin Preuschen since Preuschen ‘mixed semantic and syntactic criteria, and a bad entry is the result’. 13 Lee seems to be criticizing Preuschen for repeating himself in the entry by first giving the gloss ask and listing the syntactical situations in which it occurs (for example, with inf. following, with acc. of the thing), and then listing a second gloss, ‘Esp. of prayer’ followed by a list of syntactical situations in which it occurs (for example, with genitive, with following ὑπέρ τινος and ὅπως). To the extent that Lee is criticizing Preuschen for being unclear by listing a general meaning to ask and then a more specific sub-entry when applied to prayer, perhaps his criticisms are justified. But if Preuschen, or anyone for that matter, is seeking to make a distinction (that is, WSD) based on colligations, they should be applauded because that is exactly what we need. Whether or not Preuschen did a good job at it is a different question. 14 Lee also praises L&N when comparing them to Bauer since in L&N ‘all the distracting syntactic 10 In order to show that success which was in both of the BoE examples was not necessary to the meaning to be important, we added two examples from COCA (accessed 28 August 2012) for critical to to Hunston’s list. 11 See O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 355–358. 12 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, p. 139. 13 Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography, p. 146. 14 Lee states, ‘We are still given “ask” (bitten) as the overall meaning but also “pray” (beten): apparently all the examples might mean either. And all the examples are said to have a genitive with them—except when they don’t’ (Lee, History of NT Lexicography, p. 149). His tongue-incheek criticisms are well taken since lexicographers need to be cautious when offering colligational information for WSD (‘they have a genitive—except when they don’t’). As is often the case when dealing with languages (as opposed, say, to mathematics), the rules do not apply 100% of the time and we acknowledge throughout this study that collocations indicate probabilities and frequent occurrences, not hard-and-fast rules (see 3.7).

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

101

information is simply omitted’. 15 Yet we do not consider it a distraction if it helps disambiguate. Perhaps the overly condensed format in printed lexica is partly to blame but with lexica going digital, space is less of an issue and colligational information should be included where possible (see 5.5.6).

5.3 STATISTICAL MEASUREMENTS OF COLLOCATIONS Firth was correct that we will know a word by the company it keeps, yet we need an objective means of measuring the strength of collocation. The is going to collocate with many words simply because it is so frequent in the language and yet collocation with the is rarely significant. A helpful definition of collocations is ‘lexical items occurring within five words either way of the headword with a greater frequency than the law of averages would lead you to expect’, 16 yet we need to know how to measure what is ‘greater frequency than the law of averages’. We will discuss three measurements below: mutual information (MI), 17 t-score and z-score. 18 Church and Hanks explain that MI ‘compares the probability of observing x and y together (the joint probability) with the probabilities of observing x and y independently (chance)’ 19 and Oakes says it is the ‘probability of two things happening together compared with the probability of their occurring independently; it is thus a statistical measure of the degree of relatedness of two elements.’ 20 The example above from Halliday (strong vs. powerful; 5.1) lines up with our intuition, yet we need an objective way to determine the significance of these collocations. Church et al. did this by computing the most common collocates for strong and powerful in the 1988 Associated Press newswire corpus which was composed of 44.3 million tokens. They used the formula I(x;y) = log2((P(x,y)/P(x)P(y)) where I is Information (that is, MI), P is the number of occurrences of a word, and x and y are the collocations being examined. In the AP corpus, the strongest collocate for strong is northerly. Strong occurs 7,809 times, and northerly 28 times. They occur together (that is, within a four-word span, such as there was a strong northerly breeze) 7 times which gives an MI score of 10.47 since log2((7 x 44,300,000)/(7,809 x 28)) = 10.47. 21 The study by Church et al. calculated the highest MI scores for strong as strong northerly (10.47), strong showings (9.76) and strong believer (9.30), but for powerful as powerful legacy (8.66), powerful tool Lee, A History of New Testament Lexicography, p. 157. Krishnamurthy, ‘Process of Compilation’, p. 70. 17 The theory called average mutual information was developed in Fano, Transmission of Information, pp. 46–57. Following normal CL practice, we use a modification called specific mutual information. 18 Other measurements for collocational significance include log-likelihood ratio and chisquare (χ2) (Pedersen, ‘Unsupervised Corpus-Based Methods’, pp. 143, 152; McEnery and Wilson, Corpus Linguistics, pp. 84–85) as well as dice coefficient (Scott, WordSmith Tools 5.0). 19 Church and Hanks, ‘Word Association Norms’, p. 23. 20 Oakes, Statistics for Corpus Linguistics, p. 253. 21 Church, et al., ‘Using Statistics in Lexical Analysis’, pp. 120–121. 15 16

102

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

(8.58) and powerful storms (8.35). 22 The collocates with the highest numbers show the strongest associations between the two words. 23 MI shows the difference between the number of occurrences in a corpus (observed frequency) and the number which would be expected to occur simply by chance (expected frequency). 24 An MI-score of 3 or higher indicates that the collocation is significant (that is, meaningful). Significant collocations in the BoE with their MI scores, for example, include ballpoint + pen (11.6), distinctly + unrealistic (12.7), kith + kin (18.1) and hardly + surprising (7.8). 25 Technically speaking, Church and Hanks are referring to association ratio which is not identical to MI. 26 MI measures collocation when the order of the words is not significant so that the number of occurrences of x and y are the same regardless of which one precedes the other. However, in languages order often matters, so they calculated association ratio where it does consider the order so that x occurring after y has a different association ratio than y occurring after x. 27 T-score is similar to MI except that it ‘uses a calculation of standard deviation, which takes into account the probability of co-occurrence of the node and its collocate and the number of tokens in the designated span in all lines’. 28 Scott gives the formula t = ((x/n)-x)/√ j where n is the total number of tokens, j is the joint frequency, F1 is the frequency of word 1, F2 is the frequency of word 2, and x is F1xF2. 29 Church et al. used the t-score of collocations to help disambiguate two meanings of bank. The collocates with the highest t-scores for the river sense of bank were river, River, water, feet, miles, near, boat, south and fisherman, whereas for the money sense of bank they were money, Bank, funds, billion, Washington, Federal, cash, interest, financial, Corp and loans. 30 Collocations with a t-score of 2 or higher are usually significant. 31 A third measurement is the z-score 32 which Berry-Rogghe explains as follows: Z: total number of words in the text A: a given node occurring in the text Fn times B: a collocate of A occurring in the text Fc times

22 The specifics of the formulae used are given in Church and Hanks, ‘Word Association Norms’, pp. 23–24, Church, et al., ‘Using Statistics’, p. 120 and Oakes, Statistics for Corpus Linguistics, pp. 64–65. 23 Oakes, Statistics for Corpus Linguistics, p. 89. 24 McEnery and Wilson, Corpus Linguistics, p. 84–85. 25 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, pp. 71–72. 26 There are several different MI measurements including specific MI (as opposed to average MI; Oakes, Statistics for Corpus Linguistics, p. 65), MI3 (Scott, WordSmith Tools 5.0) and pointwise MI (Pedersen, ‘Unsupervised Corpus-Based Methods’, p. 152). 27 Church and Hanks, ‘Word Association Norms’, p. 24. 28 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, p. 71. 29 Scott, WordSmith Tools 5.0. 30 Church, et al., ‘Using Statistics’, p. 156, Table 6.14. 31 Hunston, Corpora in Applied Linguistics, p. 72. 32 See O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 232–237.

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

103

K: number of co-occurrences of B and A S: span size, that is, the number of items on either side of the node considered as its environment. First must be computed the probability of B co-occurring K times with A, if B were distributed randomly in the text. Next, the difference between the expected number of cooccurrences and the observed number of occurrences must be evaluated. The probability of B occurring at any place where A does not occur is expressed by: p = Fc/(Z-Fn) The expected number of co-occurrences is given by: E = p.Fn.S The problem is to decide whether the difference between observed and expected frequencies is statistically significant. This can be done by means of computation of the ‘zscore’ as a normal approximation to the binomial distribution (Hoel 1962) using the formula: (q = 1-p) 33 z = (K-E)/√ Eq

Berry-Rogghe’s pilot study of 71,595 tokens from Dickens, Lessing and Cooper found a number of significant collates for house, given here with their z-scores: sold (24.05), commons (21.24), decorate (19.90), this (13.39) and empty (11.90). 34 Collocations with a zscore of 3 or higher are usually significant. 35

5.4 DIFFERENTIATING NEAR SYNONYMS The majority of our discussion in this study will focus on the use of collocational indicators for disambiguating possible meanings of a polyseme, and we will do this below, using a supervised method (see 2.19). But before we do so, we will first show how collocations are also useful for differentiating meanings of words which share a common sense component (near synonyms or similonyms). In the following two sections, we will use an unsupervised method 36 (see 2.19) to examine two sets of near synonyms, πλοῖον vs. ναῦς, and ἀγαπάω vs. φιλέω. 5.4.1 Boat vs. Ship, Πλοῖον vs. Ναῦς Beginning first with an English example, we ask the question, ‘What is the difference between boat and ship?’ A dictionary will not tell you that, for example, a boat refers to a vessel which is only up to ten feet long and that a vessel longer than that is a ship. 33 Berry-Rogghe, ‘Computation of Collocations’, p. 104. See Oakes’ summary and comments in Statistics for Corpus Linguistics, pp. 158–167. 34 Berry-Rogghe, ‘Computation of Collocations’, pp. 104–109. 35 Barnbrook, Language and Computers, pp. 95–96 who explains the formula as z = O-E/σ where O is the observed frequency of the node within the chosen span, E is the expected frequency of that node word, and σ is the standard deviation of the occurrence of that node word in the entire text under consideration. σ is calculated with the formula σ = N(p(1-p)) where p is the probability of the co-occurring node word occurring in the whole text, and N is the number of tokens in the set of lines of the concordance. 36 Pedersen, ‘Unsupervised Corpus-Based Methods’, pp. 133–166.

104

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

However CL can be helpful in giving at least rough criteria. Church et al. in their study of the 1988 AP corpus (44.3 million tokens) found that boat collocated with RIVERS or LAKES, but ships with Mediterranean Sea and Iran. Boats are also used for small jobs and thus collocated with FISHING, POLICE, PLEASURE, whereas ships are used for ‘serious business’ and thus collocate with hauling VALUABLE CARGO and fighting WARS. To be more specific, the 20 words with the highest t-score (see 5.3) with ship were USS, Navy, sailors, Pentagon, carrier, Washington, turret, battleship, tanker, ships, Iowa (the name of a US battleship), explosion, gallons, aground, aircraft, crude, Adm., spill, guns and Fleet, but the 20 words with the highest t-score for boat were Vietnamese (as in Vietnamese boat people), refugees, boats, fishing, Kong, Hong, persecution, repatriation, refugee, HONG, KONG, Vietnam, people, camps, colony, drowned, Refugees, homeland, fishermen and rivers. 37 Similarly, it would be difficult for Greek New Testament lexica to tell us where πλοῖον stops and ναῦς begins, but CL can offer guidelines. Πλοῖον apparently includes small and large vessels. 38 It occurs 512 times in our primary and secondary corpora combined. Its range of meaning can be seen in that it occurs 22 times in the Gospels in which we assume that it was a smaller boat, since it would be speaking of boats which travel on lakes (for example, Lake Galilee). But it is also used nine times in Acts 20, 21, and 27 which is speaking of Paul’s sea voyage and we see that it is referring to a much bigger, ocean-going vessel. In comparison, ναῦς seems to be restricted to larger vessels, including cargo ships. It occurs 511 times in our combined primary and secondary corpora. It collocates 5x with Καρχηδόνιος (Carthaginian), 5x with πέλαγος (open sea, high sea) and 5x with Θαρσείς (Tarshish) which would lead us to assume that these are ocean-going vessels. It is often collocated with large numbers, such as τριάκοντα (11x), τεσσαράκοντα (7x), διακόσιοι (8x), πεντήκοντα (9x), ἑξήκοντα (7x) and ἑβδομήκοντα (5x), which could refer to the number of passengers or to a quantity of cargo. More helpful still is observing the large number of collocations dealing with warfare: πολέμιος (9x), πόλεμος (5x), στρατός (9x), ἵππος (5x) and αἰχμάλωτος (5x, captive, prisoner). Ναῦς is found only in Acts 27:41 in the NT and is used for the same vessel which was called πλοῖον 14x in Acts 27:2–28:11. Several interpreters (BDF, §47, 27; MHT1, §7, 25; MHT2, 8 n. 3; Robertson, 145; Bruce; 39 Barrett; 40 Witherington 41) point out that this could be an echo of Homer’s use in Odyssey 9.148, 546 where we also find ἐπικέλλω + νηάς (= ναῦς), though Hemer 42 is not fully convinced. Even if Luke was not consciously imitating Homer, it is possible ναῦς naturally collocated with ἐπικέλλω Church, et al., ‘Using Statistics’, pp. 121, 153, 154, Table 6.13. It collocates 33 times with θάλασσα but this is not very helpful for WSD since θάλασσα is used for both lakes and seas and therefore does not help us delimit the meaning since it could collocate with both smaller and larger vessels. 39 Bruce, The Book of the Acts, p. 493. 40 Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, p. 2:1213. 41 Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 764. 42 Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, p. 151 n. 147. 37 38

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

105

because it was widely known through Homer. BDAG (s.v. πλοῖον) note that ναῦς became rare in Koinē Greek, being replaced by πλοῖον. From this unsupervised study of their collocations it would appear that πλοῖον can refer to both small and large vessels, whereas ναῦς refers only to larger, sea-faring vessels. This would fit with the observation in BDAG if πλοῖον encroached upon the meaning of ναῦς and eventually subsumed it. 5.4.2 Ἀγαπάω and Φιλέω The lemmas ἀγαπάω and φιλέω occur 660x and 297x respectively in our combined primary and secondary corpora and we examined 574 and 288 examples respectively using an unsupervised method. As is well known, both terms can be glossed to love and commentators debate their similarities and differences, especially in the exchange between Jesus and Peter in John 21:15–17. Alford, 43 Westcott, 44 Zerwick and Grosvenor 45 and Hendriksen 46 see a distinction, calling φιλέω a natural love or affection and ἀγαπάω the higher Christian love. Plummer agrees though adds, interestingly, that the former is ‘warmer’ and the latter expresses ‘calm discrimination’. 47 Haenchen, on the other hand, sees no difference in the meaning, but rather calls it literary artistry in which John avoids repetition, 48 and with this most modern commentators agree (Dods, 49 Brown, 50 Michaels, 51 Carson, 52 Morris, 53 Culpepper, 54 Burge, 55 Kruse, 56 Wright, 57 Lincoln, 58 Brant 59 and Moloney, who says, ‘Almost all modern scholars regard this suggestion as a misunderstanding of the Johannine practice of using synonymous verbs for stylistic variety’ 60). Beasley-Murray Alford, Part I: Matthew-Mark; Part II: Luke-John, p. 918. The Gospel According to St. John, p. 367. 45 Zerwick and Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. 347. 46 Hendriksen, Commentary on Chapters 7–21, pp. 486–487. 47 Plummer, The Gospel According to S. John, p. 352. 48 Haenchen, John 2, p. 225. 49 Dods, ‘The Gospel of St. John’, p. 870. 50 Brown, The Gospel according to John (xii–xxi), pp. 1102–1103. 51 Michaels, John, p. 346. 52 Carson, Showing the Spirit, p. 64; The Gospel according to John, pp. 676–678; Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 28–29, 51–53. 53 Morris, The Gospel According to John, pp. 768–771, who argues that the conversation would have been in Aramaic anyway which has one word for love, so the point is moot. 54 Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John, p. 248. 55 Burge, John, pp. 587–588. 56 Kruse, The Gospel According to John, p. 391. 57 Wright, Part 2: Chapters 11–21, p. 164. 58 Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, pp. 517–518. 59 Brant, John, pp. 283–284. 60 Moloney, The Gospel of John, p. 559. 43

44 Westcott,

106

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

also sees no difference between the two words 61 and part of his argument rests on Bernard’s findings of how ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are used interchangeably in Greek literature and especially in the Gospel of John where they are both used for God’s love for people and Jesus, Jesus’ love for people, and people’s love for other people and for Jesus. 62 Köstenberger agrees that they are interchangeable and part of his argument is the presence of other synonyms in the same passage: to know, γινώσκω/οἶδα; to take care of, βόσκω/ποιμαίνω; and sheep, ἀρνία/πρόβατα. 63 Wahlde agrees that the only difference is style and that they are ‘true synonyms’ pointing out that the interchangeability is found not only in John’s Gospel but also in his epistles (citing 3 John 15 compared with 3 John 2, 5, 11). 64 There are two opposing factors at work. First, John tends to use a great deal of synonyms and there does not always seem to be rhyme or reason for why he uses one rather than the other. 65 But second, he is not at all averse to repeating the same word 66 and being fairly repetitious (such as the repetition of ἀπεκρίθη four times in four verses [John 18:34–37] 67 and using the same word for sheep 15x times in John 10 [as opposed to two or three different nouns here]). 68 So how do we know when he switched for a reason or when he switched for mere variety? McKay’s is a bit of a dissenting voice in the argument and he points out that ‘the patterns of variation of forms of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω in this passage are not pointless, but constitute a contextual distinction which is not blatant, but gently significant’. 69 When dealing with synonyms, interpreters often ask what the difference is, if any, between the meanings of the two words in context. But another way to form the question is to ask what the difference is in how the two words behave, by which we mean with which collocations, colligations and semantic preferences they appear. For example, what is the difference between liberty and freedom? As a native speaker of American English my intuition says that there is no difference in meaning, except that liberty is more formal. However they do behave differently. Many examples come to mind: we refer to the Statue of Liberty, not the *Statue of Freedom; part of the American pledge of allegiance says and liberty and justice for all, not *freedom and justice for all; we

61 62

704.

Beasley-Murray, John, pp. 394, 405. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, pp. 2:702–

Köstenberger, John, p. 596. Wahlde, Commentary on the Gospel of John, pp. 230–231, 892. 65 Morris and Brodie draw attention to the inability of commentators to find a consensus on the difference between the two, Morris commenting that this was proof that the two were synonymous, while Brodie says the effort to find the distinction should not on that account be abandoned (Brodie, The Gospel According to John, p. 591; Morris, John, p. 770). 66 McKay, ‘Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15–17’, p. 324. 67 McKay, ‘Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15–17’, p. 331. 68 Brown, John, p. 1102. 69 McKay, ‘Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15–17, p. 333. 63 64

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

107

speak of freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but not *liberty of the press or *liberty of speech. L&N use ἀγαπάω and φιλέω as one of their examples in discussing words they list under the same heading: ‘[T]his does not mean that the terms are completely synonymous. It simply means that on the basis of the data available in the New Testament or in supplementary Greek literature, one cannot define the differences of meaning, either on the level of denotation or connotation’ (xvi). However, we can ask whether there is a difference in the collocations of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω. To answer that question we examined their uses in our primary and secondary corpora. Because they are active in John 21:15–17 we included only those forms which were active voice and we excluded all participles since our non-annotated (see 2.15) text was not able to exclude nominal and adjectival participles. This gave us 574 examples of ἀγαπάω and 288 examples of φιλέω. Our unsupervised method found that the most common collocates at five words on either side of the node (N-5 to N+5) were as follows. For ἀγαπάω the most common accusative collocates were θεόν 20x, ἀλλήλους 18x, ὑμᾶς 16x, κύριον 14x and με 13x, and the most common nominatives were κύριος 16x, ἐγώ 15x and θεός 13x. By way of contrast, for φιλέω none of these collocates were found to be common. In order to determine how many of these accusatives were actually the direct object of ἀγαπάω and how many of the nominatives were subjects, we would either need to use a corpus annotated to indicate the clause structure, or else we would need to read through all the examples. This is what we mean by labor-intensive (see 2.19). It would take a long time to read through the 862 examples we used in order to confirm the specifics. This we did for several terms in our study (namely σύν, συνίστημι and συνείδησις), but for ἀγαπάω and φιλέω we did not since we used an unsupervised method. However, even with an unsupervised method we can find common subjects and objects by observing word patterns in n-grams (see 4.2). Among the most common two-word patterns (bi-grams) for ἀγαπάω were ἀγαπᾶν κύριον (9x), ἀγαπᾷ κύριος (5x), ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους (8x); among the most common three-word patterns (tri-grams) were ἀγαπᾶν κύριον τὸν (7x), τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν (7x), κύριον τὸν θεόν (6x), τὸν θεόν σου (6x), and θεὸς τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν (5x); and among the most common five-word patterns was ἀγαπᾶν κύριον τὸν θεόν σου (6x). None of these clusters occurred with φιλέω; rather for φιλέω the one bi-gram which clearly showed subject and object is ἐφίλησεν αὐτόν (5x). Frequency of occurrence, however, can be misleading, especially since ἀγαπάω is twice as common in our corpora as φιλέω, so we needed to supplement our observations with MI (see 5.3). Significant MI scores for ἀγαπάω were ἀλλήλους (10.271), θεόν (8.950), κρίσιν (9.833), κύριον (8.691), θεός (8.342), κύριος (7.356) and ἐγώ (6.541). This also confirms what we found above since significant MI scores are found for the accusatives ἀλλήλους, θεόν, κύριον and the nominatives θεός and κύριος. It was much different for φιλέω whose significant MI scores were with μισεῖν (12.590), συμβαίνειν (11.578), ὄχλος (10.848), αὐτόν (9.491), and γίνεσθαι (9.224). We can venture a hypothesis that άγαπάω is commonly used when Lord, God, or I is the subject, that the one to be loved is often God, you, Lord, me and one another and that common expressions are love the Lord, to those who love him, (love) the Lord God, and

108

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

(love) your God. From our CL analysis it appears that these things cannot be said for φιλέω. Part of the argument surrounding ἀγαπάω and φιλέω is that they are used interchangeably in Greek literature and even in John. Commentators debate whether the two words have different meanings or whether the change is stylistic, but McKay points out that these are not necessarily mutually exclusive; in other words, just because authors vary their use of words for the sake of style (so as not to be boring due to repetition), it does not necessarily follow that there is no difference in meaning. He surmises that in John 21:15–17 ‘[t]his is no … mere variety’. 70 In other words, there can be stylistic variation which has a gentle difference in meaning. It is true that ἀγαπάω and φιλέω are often interchangeable and therefore perhaps John was not presenting Jesus as making a separate point such as, Peter, I know you do not really love me with the higher love, but just the lower affection. However it is also true that ἀγαπάω is more frequently used in to-love-the-Lord-your-God-phrases and that there is perhaps an echo of the OT commands from the LXX. Could it be that McKay is correct that it is ‘gently significant’? Perhaps John presents this conversation in such a way that auditors could hear an echo of the OT. Perhaps John presents Jesus as challenging Peter with an OT allusion, to love him, just as he was to love the Lord his God. 71 From this perspective, perhaps Peter, in light of his recent denials, could not bring himself to say that he loved Jesus the way he was supposed to love the Lord his God. As an American when I hear for liberty and justice for all, I know emotionally that this is a significant phrase. Likewise, perhaps Peter as an Israelite familiar with the Shema and the central commands of the Law in Exodus and Deuteronomy was affected this way by Jesus’ use of ἀγαπάω. John presents the conversation in such a way that Jesus’ two questions might have reminded the auditor of the command καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν (Deut 6:5) and that Peter’s shame over his denials of Jesus prevented him from saying that he loved him that way. Best points out the frequent use of commands to love the Lord in Exod 20:6 and Deut 5:10 (ἀγαπῶσίν με), Deut 7:9 (ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν), Jdg 5:31 (ἀγαπῶντες αὐτόν), Ps 96:10 (ἀγαπῶντες τὸν κύριον), 2 Esd 11:5 (ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν), Tob 13:14 (ἀγαπῶντές σε), Sir 1:10 (ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν), Pss. Sol. 4:25 (ἀγαπῶντάς σε), T. Sim. 3:6 (ἀγαπώντων αὐτόν), T. Ab. 3:3 (ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν), etc., and comments that it ‘may almost be termed a formula’. 72 We are not arguing that McKay, ‘Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15–17’, p. 329. Without pushing this too far, could we even argue that this is a subtle argument in the Gospel of John for the deity of Christ, a very common theme in this Gospel (Burge, John, pp. 31–32)? Just as Israelites in the OT were to love the Lord their God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength, Peter was to love Jesus in that way. 72 Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, p. 619. Interestingly, 1 Cor 16:22 uses φιλέω but with a negative, εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον, ἤτω ἀνάθεμα. Barrett and Best say that it may be part of a liturgical formula (Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 396; Best, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians, p. 619). Some think it was used synonymously with ἀγαπάω and was chosen because he had just used φίλημα two verses earlier (Findlay, ‘St. 70 71

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

109

ἀγαπάω and φιλέω do not overlap significantly in their range of meanings and uses, but rather that ἀγαπάω collocated more naturally with Lord and/or God, and that that was part of its gently significant connotation. 73

5.5 ΣΎΝ AND ITS COLLOCATIONS 74 In the previous chapter we discussed principles for WSPD using CL and applied this to with (see 4.5). We will now turn to the Greek New Testament and apply these principles to σύν, and in the process we will demonstrate how this approach assists us in the exegesis of several Greek New Testament verses. As mentioned in 4.4, to carry out our investigation we first found every use of σύν in our primary corpus which gave us 1,045 usages. In our section on method we said that 50 or more uses are needed (2.3; 2.11), yet it was felt that for this first example, since σύν is very frequent and highly polysemous, a full investigation was warranted. Our study of the data revealed 14 senses for σύν, a number of which are similar to the COB4 senses of with mentioned above (4.5). In the remainder of this study we will give examples of several of these senses and list the structural actors which seem to be clues to these meanings. 75 These meanings are original with us; using a CL approach, and modeling our definitions on COB4, we formulated the sentential definitions which appear in the remainder of this study.

Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians’, p. 952; Ellingworth and Hatton, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 382). 73 There is also the possibility that John presents Peter as feeling unworthy and wanting to distance himself from Jesus a bit. Thomas gives the illustration found by Trudgill of ‘“h”dropping among working-class males in Norwich. There are times when the pronunciation can be explained not in terms of sociolinguistic variables (age, gender, social setting) but by pragmatic factors—the desire of one particular male on one particular occasion to distance himself from or align himself with another person by consciously choosing not to pronounce /h/’ (Thomas, Meaning in Interaction, pp. 184–185). It is possible that John presents Peter as feeling like he could not put himself on the same level as Jesus. 74 Σύν is always followed by a dative in our primary corpus, though in some mss. cited in the Göttingen LXX when it is used to translate the direct object marker ‫את‬, ֶ it is followed by an accusative; for example, ms 912 for Gen 1:1 σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ [σὺν] τὴν γῆν (Ziegler, Genesis, p. 75). Jannaris points out that it occurred with a genitive or accusative when it was misunderstood and equated with μετά (Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, p. 396 (§1670). In Eccl. 1:14, 3:10, 8:17 it is followed by an accusative, though we do not deal with that usage in this study. Bortone discusses the relationship between σύν and μετά, and the former’s eventual replacement by the latter (Bortone, Greek Prepositions, pp. 152, 154–155, 166–167, 184). 75 Space does not allow us to list every one of the 1,045 examples yet they are given in full KWIC lines on the website which accompanies this work: http://structurallexicology.wordpress.com.

110

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Some might argue that since σύν is a preposition it is a function word (see 2.17) and therefore does not have semantic content. 76 While this is true of some function words, ‘other prepositions, like above or outside, have more semantic content and can be used to describe various kinds of relations between two things.’ 77 The following examples will show that this is true of σύν. 5.5.1 Indicating Two or More Entities Involved in the Same Activity The most common construction (60.9%, 636/1,045 in our primary corpus) is when σύν accompanies a nominal which it joins in an activity with an entity described as taking part in an action indicated by a verbal. A sentential definition could be When someone or something is involved in an activity σύν someone or something else, they are both involved in the same activity. This includes active and passive verbs; 78 the passive is used when something is done to more than one person. The first nine examples below occur with an active verb, and the last three with a passive. At first glance this might seem like stating the obvious, yet it is important to specify since some commentators have apparently overlooked this and it does affect the exegesis of at least two verses, 1 Cor 10:13 and 2 Cor 13:4, which we will discuss below.

76 See the detailed discussion of the ‘meaning(lessness)’ of cases and prepositions in Bortone, Greek Prepositions, pp. 33–53. Some linguistics argue that prepositions are semantically empty and simply indicate a relationship between words, while others argue that they themselves have meaning, one indication being the sheer number of prepositions; otherwise, why would a language not just have one ‘relation marker’ (Bortone, Greek Prepositions, p. 39). 77 Murphy, Lexical Meaning, p. 15. 78 Thayer separates actives and passives in his entry as his sense 1 and sense 2 but this seems unnecessary since the meaning of σύν is the same in both, joining the entities in an activity.

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

111

Table 6: Σύν Indicating Entities Involved in Same Activity

ἡμεῖς ἀσθενοῦμεν ἐν αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ ζήσομεν σὺν αὐτῷ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς. (2 Cor 13:4) 79 ὁ δὲ Λάζαρος εἷς ἦν ἐκ τῶν ἀνακειμένων σὺν αὐτῷ. (John 12:2) Πέτρος δὲ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν· τὸ ἀργύριόν σου σὺν σοὶ εἴη εἰς ἀπώλειαν 80 (Acts 8:20) ἐπέστησαν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς σὺν τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις (Lk 20:1) ὄντα πραγμάτων σὺν αὐτῷ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ἀποκτείναντες (Ant. 5.239) πρὸς τὸν τῶν Αἰθιόπων βασιλέα μάχεσθαι σὺν Ψαμμιτίχῳ (Let. Aris. 13) (217) σὺν δ’ ἔβαλεν νεφέλας, κρύψεν δὲ πυραυγέα δίσκον, (218) σὺν δ’ ἄστροις μήνην καὶ οὐράνιον στεφάνωμα (Sib. Or. 1.217–218) 81 πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε ἀλλὰ ποιήσει σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ καὶ τὴν ἔκβασιν (1 Cor 10:13) Τότε σταυροῦνται σὺν αὐτῷ δύο λῃσταί, εἷς ἐκ δεξιῶν καὶ (Mt 27:38) παραλαβὼν τοὺς ἄνδρας τῇ ἐχομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁγνισθείς, (Acts 21:26) καὶ αὐτὸς μὲν σὺν ἅπαντι διεφθάρη τῷ στρατῷ, (Ant. 14.119) 82 θάμβος γὰρ περιέσχεν αὐτὸν καὶ πάντας τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τῇ ἄγρᾳ τῶν ἰχθύων ὧν (Lk 5:9) ὁ δὲ Πέτρος καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ ἦσαν βεβαρημένοι ὕπνῳ· (Lk 9:32) Παραγενόμενος δὲ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ συνεκάλεσαν τὸ συνέδριον (Acts 5:21) ὡς οὖν ταῦθ’ οὕτως ἔχοντα ἔμαθον οἱ σὺν Γοργίᾳ καὶ τοὺς μετὰ Ἰούδου πρὸς (Ant.12.311) 83 τὰ παρὰ τοῦ Σισίννου καὶ τῶ σὺν αὐτῷ (Ant. 11.98) τῶν ἐχθρῶν, αὐτὸς δὲ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ προσέταξεν φραξαμένους τοῖς (Ant. 13.95) ὲν τὸν Ἰούδαν ἐπανελέσθαι, τοὺς δὲ σὺν αὐτῷ σκορπίσαι (2 Macc 14:13) αὐτός τε καταβαίνει καὶ τοὺς σὺν αὐτῷ τῶν ἱππέων ἀπέβησεν (J.W. 3.449) διέμειναν δὲ οἱ σὺν τῷ Δαυίδῃ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀναιροῦντες (Ant. 6.364) δοὺς ἐφόδια αὐτῷ καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ παραπέμψειν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα (Life 330) 84

This verse will also be investigated in 6.1 under our discussion of ζάω. this occurs with εἰμί, it does not appear to function the same way as εἰμί in 5.5.2. Here it is an optative, expressing a wish, and collocated with εἰς άπόλειαν to express goal or movement, so that the idea is not to be (present) with you, but rather may (it) perish with you. 81 The first σύν (in v. 217) seems superfluous. Unlike σὺν δ’ ἄστροις in v. 218, it has no following dative. Collins translates the passage, ‘He threw clouds together and hid the brightly gleaming disk. Having covered the moon, together with the stars, and the crown of heaven’ (Collins, ‘Sibylline Oracles’, p. 1:340). Perhaps due to the poetic nature of the passage, Collins understood the first σύν as having an unexpressed dative object: ‘[God] threw together clouds [with clouds]’. However another possible translation understands the second σύν to be repeating the first σύν after a break in thought: ‘(217) with—and he threw up clouds, he hid the radiant disk, (218)—with the stars—the moon and the heavenly crown’ (TLP). 82 Seven of the examples above have αὐτῷ, τῷ or τοῖς at N+1 and illustrate a very common collocation: 49.8% of all occurrences of σύν (520/1,045) have a 3rd person pronoun or the article at N+1, and this rises to 53.7% (561/1,045) if we include 1st and 2nd person pronouns. However, this collocate does not seem to be significant in regard to meaning since it occurs with a number of different senses. 83 In this example σύν is used in the same way as μετά (‘those [soldiers] with Gorgias perceived that those [soldiers] with Judah [were ready to fight them]’). 79

80 Though

112

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

We consider this the default sense and thus the one we should normally assume to be the meaning in a text in the absence of collocational indicators to the contrary (see 3.8). It is unnecessary to postulate, as Nolland and Grosheide do, that it indicates subordination. Nolland states that when Luke says ‘with the elders’ in 20:1 (as opposed to Mk 8:27 ‘and the elders’) he subordinates them to the other two groups, the chief priests and scribes. 85 It is better, however, with Reiling and Swellengrebel to understand it here as equivalent to καί. 86 On 1 Cor 5:4, Grosheide states that in the phrase συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, the fact that καί is used to join the Corinthians and Paul, yet σύν to join them with the ‘power’ 87 of the Lord Jesus, indicates that they are not equals. 88 Though one might argue theologically that the Corinthians and Paul are not ‘among an equal’ when compared with Jesus, this is not a point being made by σύν itself. We have identified 636 times in our primary corpus when σύν is used to indicate two (or more) groups being involved in the same activity with no need to postulate that one group is subordinated to another. 5.5.2 With Verbs of BEING, etc. to Indicate Presence in Same Location Σύν is often used with verbs of BEING, REMAINING, STAYING and DWELLING such as εἰμί (Ant. 9.224; Acts 27:2), πάρειμι (Ant. 13.11), ἔχω (Ant. 9.46), μένω (Lk 24:29), ὑπομένω (J.W. 5.368), καθίζω (Acts 8:1) and οἰκέω (2 Macc 12:3) and indicates accompaniment. A sentential definition could be When people or things are described as being or dwelling σύν other people or things, they are located in the same place as those people or things. This applies not only to people but also to animals, inanimate objects and abstract nouns. Table 7: Σύν with Verbs of BEING τὴν φωνὴν ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐνεχθεῖσαν σὺν αὐτῷ ὄντες ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ ὄρει. (2 Pet 1:18) ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα. (1 Thess 4:17) τοῦ δ’ ἀρχιερέως Ἀζαρία ὄντων σὺν αὐτῷ ἱερέων ὀγδοήκοντα (Ant. 9.224) καὶ ὄχλος τῆς πόλεως ἱκανὸς ἦν σὺν αὐτῇ. (Lk 7:12) δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀφ’ οὗ ἐξεληλύθει τὰ δαιμόνια εἶναι σὺν αὐτῷ· (Lk 8:38) ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν; (Mk 2:26) From our reading of the 1,045 uses in context we conclude that this is a very common usage (19.7%, 206/1,045 in our primary corpus). This and the previous sense (5.5.1.) have a high probability of being the meaning of σύν in many Hellenistic Greek texts. 84 Whiston’s translation completely leaves this out, ‘… and withal would give him provisions for his journey thither’, though it is rightly picked up by Mason, ‘After giving travel money to him and those with him …’ (Masona, emphasis mine). 85 Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, p. 943. 86 Reiling and Swellengrebel, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Luke, p. 638. 87 See our detailed discussion of this v. at 6.2.4. 88 Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 122.

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

113

The boundaries between the meanings described in 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 are fuzzy and they could be lumped together into one sense since some would argue that the meaning of σύν is the same in both (accompaniment). There are a number of texts which can be understood as fitting with either sense 5.5.1 or 5.5.2. 89 As mentioned in 5.1, collocations often help disambiguate meaning, but they do not always do so. We cannot state categorically which verbs will always occur with σύν in a specific sense. An example would be ποιέω + σύν in T. Jud. 10.4 where it is used to mean spend time with which seems to have an emphasis on being physically in the same location (sense 5.5.2). But ποιέω + σύν in 1 Cor 10:13 (see 5.5.3) is used in sense 5.5.2 with the idea of God making (or doing) two things. 5.5.3 Default Meaning of σύν, 1 Cor 10:13 and 2 Cor 4:14 If we were to lump together senses 5.5.1 and 5.5.2, we would have accounted for the overwhelming majority of the uses of σύν in our primary corpus (80.6%; 842/1,045). When reading a Greek New Testament verse with σύν, we should normally assume one of these senses unless we have convincing reasons for another meaning. Sense 5.5.1 (being involved in an activity with someone or something) is the unmarked or default (see 3.8) meaning of σύν. If joined with a verb of BEING or DWELLING, then the meaning is normally 5.5.2 (being with someone or something in the same place). In the absence of indicators that would argue otherwise, when we see σύν in a text, we can, at least preliminarily, assume sense 5.5.1 or 5.5.2. This is significant exegetically because some scholars argue for less common meanings without giving structural support. For example, Fee in his discussion of 1 Cor 10:13 (see below) seems to argue that σύν there expresses contemporaneity, yet he offers no structural reasons to understand it that way. From the standpoint of probability or of WSPD, it would be better to take σύν in 1 Cor 10:13 as sense 5.5.1 or 5.5.2 because those are its most common meanings. Wendland and Nida caution that ‘the literal, or unmarked meaning of a lexical unit should be assumed as correct unless the context points to some other meaning. This principle should act as a brake on the tendency for some people to always look for hidden meanings in a text. It is simply too easy for one to be deceived by one’s own desire for novelty.’ 90 First Corinthians 10:13 deserves comment since it is the subject of debate: πειρασμὸς ὑμᾶς οὐκ εἴληφεν εἰ μὴ ἀνθρώπινος· πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός, ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει ὑμᾶς πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε ἀλλὰ ποιήσει σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ καὶ τὴν ἔκβασιν τοῦ δύνασθαι ὑπενεγκεῖν. What is the sense contributed by σύν in this verse? It seems clear enough that the verse is stating that ‘[God] makes … a way of escape’, but is the first part saying that he also makes the πειρασμός? Do we have one verb (ποιέω) accompanying both πειρασμός and ἔκβασις? And if so is the verse saying that God makes both the test/temptation and the escape, or that God makes the escape at the 89 We understand Ant. 7.215; 9.23; 10.168, 173; 12.365, 393, 420; 13.23; 16.284; 19.254 as sense 5.5.1 but they could also be understood as sense 5.5.2. 90 Wendland and Nida, ‘Lexicography and Bible Translating’, p. 28.

114

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

same time that the test/temptation is present and does not comment on whether he makes the test/temptation, permits it or does some third option? Part of the difficulty with this verse is the well-known issue that πειρασμός can mean either temptation to sin (as in Jas 1:13) or a trial to test one’s faith. Some commentators have probably been influenced by the possible meaning temptation and have been hesitant to understand ποιέω as accompanying πειρασμός, lest this verse end up stating that God sends temptation, in clear contradiction of Jas 1:13. Ciocchi argues that it means both in 1 Cor 10:13 (as does Kistemaker 91) and gives two arguments, one logical and one lexical. His logical argument is undoubtedly correct when he states that anything that can be a temptation can also be a test and vice versa since we have the option of sinning (giving into the temptation) or obeying (and passing the test). However his lexical argument is questionable: ‘Unless a passage makes one particular sense of peirasmos so clear as to exclude the other, as in Jas 1:13 … then the most sensible thing to do is to take the term in its double meaning.’ 92 Our discussion of polysemy (see 3.7) would argue against this; just because catching flies can describe what is done when a frog catches its dinner and when an outfield snags baseballs, it is not ‘the most sensible thing to do to take the term in its double meaning’ as if someone referring to catching flies could mean both at the same time. Perhaps this is a bit unfair to Ciocchi. One could appeal to schematicity (see 3.7.2) and say that πειρασμός means something like a general testing or trial and the fact that it can lead to sin or strength is an issue outside the scope of the meaning of the word itself. However the argument for a schema seems to fit much better with concrete terms such as bird than with abstracts such as temptation or test. It seems rather that Ciocchi has committed the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer when he says, This is nothing more than a recognition of the logic of the concept that the Greek conveniently expresses with the single word peirasmos rather than with two different words. Any trial of faith functions as a temptation to sin—since there is always the temptation to fail the test—and any temptation to sin functions as a trial of faith. 93

This would seem to be the error of equating concept with word, a theory which Barr successfully tore down 50 years ago. 94 Wendland and Nida comment that ‘a lexical unit in a specific context is much more likely to have one meaning rather than multiple meanings unless the context clearly marks a lexical unit as a double entendre’. 95 It could be that πειρασμός in this context means test or trial (BBE, NET, NJB, NRSV, WGM), and yet even if it meant temptation (ASV, CEB, CJB, HCSB, ESV, NASB, Meyer, 96 91 Kistemaker,

Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 335. ‘Understanding Our Ability to Endure Temptation’, p. 470. 93 Ciocchi, ‘Understanding Our Ability to Endure Temptation’, p. 470. 94 Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, pp. 216–219. See, for example, M. Turner’s warnings against importing senses from χάρις into χάρισμα (Turner, ‘Modern Linguistics and Word Study’, pp. 196–200). 95 Wendland and Nida, ‘Lexicography and Bible Translating, p. 28. 96 H. A. W. Meyer, First Epistle Ch. I.-XIII., pp. 292–293. 92 Ciocchi,

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

115

Conzelmann, 97 Blomberg, 98 Witherington, 99 Thiselton, 100 Ciampa and Rosner 101) or even both (Ciocchi, Barrett, 102 Garland, 103 Wright 104) it would not undo the validity of the following argument for the use of σύν τῷ πειρασμῷ. For that reason we will leave πειρασμός untranslated when making our comments below, though we must include the translation when discussing the views of the various commentators in our following discussion. Most commentators do not directly discuss the use of σύν and its relationship with πειρασμός though their translations 105 or exegeses would seem to indicate how they understand it when dealing with the question of whether God does or does not send the πειρασμός. 1) Some leave the question unanswered but comment that in God’s permissive will, he allows the πειρασμός to come; 2) some specifically deny that God sends the πειρασμός; 3) some say or imply that God makes the escape but was not the sender of the πειρασμός which apparently was present rather from some other cause, which seems to imply that σύν expresses temporality or contemporaneity; and 4) some say that God sends both the πειρασμός and the way of escape, which implies that σύν is used in sense 5.5.1 to express that both πειρασμός and ἔκβασις accompany the same verb, ποιέω. Representing (1), Malina and Pilch state that God allows our loyalty to be tested 106 and Kling understands the phrase to mean that God makes the πειρασμός in the sense that he allows it and that ‘even the tempting cause stands under the Divine sovereignty, and in its action is dependent on God.’ 107 Seesemann and Popkes say that the text does not specify the author of the test. 108 Representing (2), Findlay specifically states that it could not be God who sends the πειρασμός: ‘Paul ascribes to God not the origination, but the control of temptation … the πειροσμὸς is inevitable; God limits it, and supplies along with it the ἔκβασις.’ 109 Horsley sees the πειρασμός as the Corinthians’ eating of idol food from which they need to quickly flee, and seems to imply that it was the Corinthians who created this test, not God. 110 In specific contrast to testing that God would allow, Hays says that it 97 Conzelmann,

A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 168–169. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, p. 193. 99 Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, p. 224. 100 Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 747–748. 101 Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, pp. 467–468. 102 Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 228–229. 103 Garland, 1 Corinthians, pp. 447, 467. 104 Wright, 1 Corinthians, pp. 126, 129. 105 Barrett’s translation is ambiguous and could be understood as (3) or (4), ‘along with the trial he will provide also the way out’ (Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 219). 106 Malina and Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul, p. 102. 107 Kling, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, p. 201 108 Seesemann, ‘πειράζω, πειρασμός et al.’, p. 6:29; Popkes, ‘πειράζω’, p. 3:67. 109 Findlay, ‘St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians’, p. 862. 110 Horsley, 1 Corinthians, p. 139. 98

116

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

was the Corinthians putting God to the test. 111 Fee suggests both (2) and (3). For (2) he argues that this verse only makes sense if it is understood in its context of idol worship and that the Corinthians cannot be guaranteed an escape if they purposefully put themselves in harm’s way by attending idol worshiping feasts. He claims that εἴληφεν refers to temptations that come ‘outside of their willing or doing’ which would not apply to willfully attending an idol feast. 112 He quotes Godet with approval, ‘[T]hey have no pledge of victory whatever in the case of temptations into which they throw themselves with light-heartedness’ 113 (though we understand Godet to be a better representative of [4]). Representing (3), Thiselton, though he does not directly comment on the sense of σύν, seems by his translation to support the view that God sends only the way of escape, not the πειρασμός: ‘but he will make an exit path alongside the temptation’. 114 The wording of R. Collins’ translation, ‘With the temptation God will also create a way out, so that you can survive’, seems to drive a wedge between the ‘making’ of the πειρασμός and the way of escape; namely, since ποιέω is translated create, it would not appear to apply to πειρασμός, since in English we do not normally say *create a test/temptation. 115 Willis says that it is not explicitly stated whether or not God is behind the testing: ‘The testing, whatever its nature, is obvious—it is the ἔκβασιν which must be established.’ 116 Kuhn is more definitive. He rejects the idea that God could send πειρασμός since from his comparison with the Qumran writings, he concludes that πειρασμός is always negative, a temptation to sin. Since God cannot be the one who sends it, then σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ must be temporal, ‘at the same time as’. 117 Fee says that σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ can be taken with the verb (make) or temporally (‘at the time of the temptation’) as expressed in the NIV. He says that with the former it does not mean that God ‘is the author of it, but that he is there with a way out along with the test itself’. He then states that both of these options ‘come out at the same point’. 118 For the former, he is distinguishing between God initiating and God allowing πειρασμός, which is an issue beyond the scope of this study. For the latter, he offers no real support. Our investigation of 1,045 uses of σύν argues against Fee’s conclusion. Fee says that σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ can mean at the time of temptation, but the way in which Fee applies at the same time is not how σύν is used in our primary corpus. When σύν joins two (or more) entities together to express that they are involved in the same activity (sense 5.5.1), the same verb accompanies both entities. In other words, to apply that meaning here means that the verse is saying that God made the way of escape at the same time that he made the πειρασμός, but that leads to view (4). It cannot be used Hays, First Corinthians, p. 166. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 460–462. 113 Godet, 1 Corinthians Chapter 9-End, p. 70. 114 Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, p. 719. 115 Collins, First Corinthians, p. 363. 116 Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth, p. 158. 117 Kuhn, ‘New Light on Temptation, Sin, and Flesh in the New Testament’, p. 109. 118 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 461 n. 56. 111

112 Fee,

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

117

for view (3); there would have to be another verb which σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ is accompanying, but there is not. One cannot say that it happens at the same time as the way of escape unless one understands that it is linked to the same verb, which leads to the conclusion that God made both the πειρασμός and the escape. This is a specific example of the importance of using CL to see how lexemes are used, rather than importing an idea (‘happens at the same time but not accompanied by the same verb’) which is found in English with but not with σύν. 119 Most EVV translate the verse ‘with the temptation’ though a few do translate it as contemporaneous: ‘when you are tempted’ (NIV, NIVU, NIrV, TNIV, NLT, GWN), ‘simultaneously with the test’ (WGM), ‘in the myddes of the temptacion’ (Tyndale), or very explicitly, ‘when the test comes he will at the same time provide a way out’ (REB). However our investigation of 1,045 examples in our primary corpus demonstrated that σύν is never used that way and it would appear that the translators’ theology 120 overrode the syntax in order to protect God from the claim that he ‘makes temptation’ (ποιήσει πειρασμόν). In support of (4) H. A. W. Meyer explicitly states that God both makes the temptation/test and allows it. 121 Thayer understands it to mean that God sent not just the escape, but also sent the test. Under πειράζω he says, ‘of God; to inflict evils upon one in order to prove his character and the steadfastness of his faith: 1 Co. 10:13’. His explanation of 1 Cor 10:13 under his entry for σύν is less clear, simply stating it as the thing added to the accusative, yet one would normally understand this to mean sense 5.5.1 and thus that the escape was made as well as the test. Under πειράζω BAGD say, ‘in a good sense of God or Christ, who put men to the test … 1 Cor 10:13’. Alford says something similar: ‘Then God makes the temptation, too: arranges it in His providence, and in His mercy will ever set open a door for escape.’ 122 Newman and Stine specifically state that God makes both the trial and the escape; 123 Loh and Hatton 124 and Calvin 125 agree. Godet points to Gen 22:1 (‘Some time later God tested [ἐπείραζεν from ‫]נסה‬ Abraham’ [NIV]) and Deut 13:3 (‘you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD is testing [πειράζει from ‫ ]מנסה‬you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul’ [NIV]). 126 He states that this applies to 67F

119 Kling rightly claims that it cannot mean contemporaneity, but he offers no grammatical or syntactical proof (Kling, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, p. 201). 120 See O’Donnell’s similar concerns regarding theology driving lexicography (O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 323–324, 326–327). 121 Meyer, First Epistle Ch. I.-XIII., p. 293. 122 Alford, The Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, p. 557. 123 Newman and Stine, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew, p. 172. 124 Loh and Hatton, A Translator’s Handbook on the Letter from James, p. 33. 125 Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 407. 126 Godet, 1 Corinthians Chapter 9-End, p. 70.

118

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

‘temptation which God sends you’, yet adds that there are ‘those which He does not send’. 127 Robertson and Plummer stop short of saying that God makes the temptation, though that does not seem incompatible with their comments that ‘σύν and the articles imply that temptations and possibilities of escape always go in pairs … for these pairs are arranged by God, who permits no unfairness’. 128 Understanding this as (4), Conzelmann gives cross references to the verses below as ‘passages in which σύν, “with,” links up with the object’. 129 The accompanying verbal and the two entities involved in the same activity (one of which is sometimes indicated by the person embedded in the verb) are underlined in the examples below: Table 8: Σύν with Entities Involved in Same Activity

ἡμῶν πάντων παρέδωκεν αὐτόν, πῶς οὐχὶ καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ἡμῖν χαρίσεται; (Rom 8:32) δὲ ὑπὸ [τοῦ] κυρίου παιδευόμεθα, ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακριθῶμεν. (1 Cor 11:32) δὲ βεβαιῶν ἡμᾶς σὺν ὑμῖν εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ χρίσας (2 Cor 1:21) ὅτι ὁ ἐγείρας τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἡμᾶς σὺν 130 Ἰησοῦ ἐγερεῖ καὶ παραστήσει σὺν ὑμῖν (2 Cor 4:14) ὥστε οἱ ἐκ πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Ἀβραάμ. (Gal 3:9) τῆς σαρκὸς ὑμῶν, συνεζωοποίησεν ὑμᾶς σὺν αὐτῷ, χαρισάμενος ἡμῖν πάντα τὰ (Col 2:13) Χριστὸς φανερωθῇ, ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν, τότε καὶ ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷ φανερωθήσεσθε ἐν δόξῃ. (Col 3:4) αὶ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς κοιμηθέντας διὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἄξει σὺν αὐτῷ. (1 Thess 4:14)

In these passages, the noun or pronoun following σύν participates in the action of the verbal along with the other entity named: God will give us both Christ and all things (Rom 8:32); we and the world will not be condemned (1 Cor 11:32); both we and you are established (2 Cor 1:21); both we and Jesus will be raised (2 Cor 4:14); both those ‘of faith’ and Abraham will be blessed (Gal 3:9); both you and Christ will be made alive (Col 2:13); both you and Christ will be manifested (Col 3:4); and God will bring both Christ and those who sleep (1 Thess 4:14). We argue that σύν is being used in the same way in 1 Cor 10:13: God makes both the πειρασμός and ἔκβασις. It is beyond the scope of this study to argue whether 1 Cor 10:13 proves whether God sends tests/temptations. But it is our point that this verse at least lends support to this view when σύν is understood in its most natural sense, or at least that the normal use of σύν across 1,045 uses shows that it is not used to express contemporaneity unless that contemporaneity applies to both objects governed by the same verb. Godet, 1 Corinthians Chapter 9-End, p. 73. Robertson and Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p. 209. 129 Conzelmann, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 169. He also lists Gal 5:24 and Col 3:9 which we understand to be better explained by sense 8.4 and 1 Thess 4:17 which we dealt with under 5.5.2. 130 Here we follow Nestle-Aland27/28 with txt p46 ‫ *א‬B C D* F G P 0243. 6. 33. 81. 104. 365. 1175. 1739. 1881. 2464 latt co; Tert, as opposed to the alternative, διὰ found in ‫א‬2 D2 K L Ψ 630. 1241. 1505 M sy. 127 128

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

119

The next passage we will look at is 2 Cor 4:14 where Paul says, ‘he who raised the Lord Jesus will also raise us with (σύν) him’. What is the meaning of σύν in this verse? When he wrote this, Jesus’ resurrection was past but that of Paul and the Corinthians was still future. Harris says it ‘does not mean “at the same time as” or even “in the same way as,” but rather “along with” in the sense of “in the wake of”. 131 This idea was also expressed by Plummer who says, ‘σύν does not mean “at the same time with,” but … “in virtue of his resurrection”’, 132 and Omanson and Ellington, ‘in virtue of our union with Jesus’. 133 The meaning then would be cause (telic) or perhaps result (ecbatic), and yet we found no other instances of telic or ecbatic usages among the 1,045 uses of σύν in our primary corpus. Rather the sense seems to be that both Jesus and believers are raised (involved in the same activity). The time gap between Christ’s and their resurrection is immaterial to the meaning of the phrase. 134 As Thrall states, the point is that the same God who raised Jesus will also raise up Paul to join Jesus. 135 It is unnecessary to postulate a telic or ecbatic sense here. Σύν simply means that the resurrection happens to both Jesus and believers, and the timing is beside the point as far as σύν is concerned. The details of the timing have to come from other passages (for example, 1 Cor 15:20, 23). 136 In this study we sometimes argue for a given interpretation based on the fact that x word is ‘not used that way’ or is ‘rarely used that way’ in our corpora. This is based on two assumptions: 1) polysemes often have certain senses which are more frequent or typical than their other senses (such as the assumption that throat is used more frequently to refer to the front of the neck than to a part of an anchor; and 2) by reading through all (or many) of the usages of a lexical item in context in our corpus we can accurately understand which sense of a polyseme is most frequent or typical, and is thus the default (see 3.8). 5.5.4 Σύν + τούτοις Someone can say σύν + τούτοις toward the beginning of a clause (sometimes collocated with other emphasis words such as ἀλλά γε καὶ, πᾶσιν, ἔτι or τε) in order to give emphasis or express surprise. There is a tendency for this to occur when more than one unexpected thing is happening (see note on semantic prosody at 3.7.2), as if to say, ‘Not only did this happen, but also this!’ As always, wider context must be borne in mind; the presence of 131 Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 353; repeated in Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament, p. 201. 132 Plummer, The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, p. 79; echoed in Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, pp. 133– 134. 133 Omanson and Ellington, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians, p. 84. 134 Alford, The Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, pp. 654–655. 135 Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 343. 136 H. A. W. Meyer, First Epistle, Ch. XIV.-XVI.; Second Epistle, pp. 242–243.

120

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

σὺν τούτοις does not automatically mean we are dealing with this sense, but it tends to have this sense when found at the beginning of a clause. Table 9: Σύν + τούτοις

ἀλλά γε καὶ σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν ἄγει ἀφ’ οὗ ταῦτα ἐγένετο (Lk 24:21) σύν τε τούτοις οἱ περὶ τῶν πολιτῶν θρασυνθέντες οὐκ ἠνείχοντο (3 Macc 1:22) ἔτι σὺν τούτοις ἐξαποστείλατε κάμπην καὶ βροῦχον καὶ ἐρυσίβην καὶ (3 Bar. 16:3) ἐξελθὼν σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις ἐμπίπρησιν τάς τε Γαδαρηνῶν καὶ Ἱππηνῶν κώμας (Life 42) 137 καὶ ἔπεσαν ἐκ τοῦ Βενιαμιν ὀκτωκαίδεκα χιλιάδες ἀνδρῶν σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις ἄνδρες δυνατοί (Judg 20:44)

This is a very rare usage (0.5%, 5/1,045). BDAG list it as sense 3.a.β.b., ‘when a new factor is introduced besides , in addition to.’ Although they cite Ant. 17.171, it lacks σὺν [πᾶσιν] τούτοις and seems to fit better under sense 5.5.1. Muraoka translates the phrase in 3 Macc 1:22 as ‘on top of all that’ and points out the τε, although he categorizes this usage under his definition 2, ‘along with, including’ 138 which would be our sense 5.5.1. For Lk 24:21 the sense is that not only has the one we had hoped was the Messiah been killed, but 139 it is already the third day. ANLEX sees this as ‘introducing a new factor to be reckoned in, besides, in addition to’ (as do Newman, BDAG, Thayer and Robertson). Johnson misses this when he translates, ‘But also, together with all this, it is the third day …’ 140 He mistakenly says, ‘the phrase “with all this” (syn pasin toutois) is awkwardly placed but has something of a summary effect’. 141 Elliger calls it a ‘summarizing element’ and includes Eph 4:31 (‘with all malice’) 142 as if malice includes the other five evils just mentioned, 143 but that seems off base. The point is not that it

137 Mason takes σὺν πᾶσιν τούτοις to refer to the men forced to take arms: ‘Iustus came out with all of these men and set fire to the villages of the Gadarenes …’ (Masona, emphasis mine). We understand it rather that Josephus is giving emphasis to the audacity of Justus’ behavior by saying that he not only compelled many of the citizens to take up arms but, in addition to all that, he went and burned the villages of the Gadarenes and Hippenes. 138 Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, p. 650. He understands καὶ σὺν τούτοις ἄρτους τῆς βίας οὐκ ἐζήτησα in Neh 5:8 to mean ‘in spite of’, perhaps as a Hebraism, translating ‫( ִﬠם‬p. 650), though we take this in our sense 5.5.2 expressing accompaniment, as Brenton translates: ‘yet with these I required not the bread of extortion’ (emphasis mine). 139 As Godet says, ‘in spite of the extraordinary qualities described’ (Godet, A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, p. 354). 140 Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, p. 392. Winer makes the same mistake: ‘with all this, i.e. joined with all this there is the fact that etc.’ (p. 488). 141 Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, p. 394. 142 Elliger, ‘σύν’, p. 3:291. 143 Barth, Ephesians: Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4–6, p. 522–523.

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

121

summarizes what went before, but that it is emphasizing something in addition to what has already been stated. 144 Judges 20:44 in Codex Alexandrinus (shown above) could simply be saying that 18,000 died including all the mighty men, which would fit with sense 8.2 below. But it is also possible to understand it not as giving more information but rather as emphasizing: ‘And not only that, but these were men of valor.’ It was not just average soldiers who were killed but mighty warriors who should have been able to defend themselves and who are a great loss to the tribe of Benjamin. Perhaps this was how the scribe of Vaticanus understood the sense and then sought to make the idea clearer 145 by writing οἱ πάντες οὗτοι ἄνδρες δυνάμεως which Brenton translates as ‘all these [were] men of might’. 5.5.5 Σύν to Express Means or Instrumentality On rare occasions an action is described as taking place σύν something to explain the means or instrument by which it is done. Examples include actions accomplished by (σύν) air and light, by virtues of truth and clearness, by God’s help, by perfect prayer, by God’s guidance, and with their fingernails. 146 Table 10: Σύν as Means

ἀντιλαμβανόμεθα πῶς; ἆρ’ οὐ σὺν ἀέρι καὶ φωτί, τοῖς (Drunkenness 190) ἓν γάρ ἐστι δυνάμει τὰ τρία, λόγος σὺν ἀρεταῖς ἀληθότητι καὶ σαφηνείᾳ (Alleg. Interp. 3.124) εἴληφε γὰρ καὶ τὸ εὐλογιστεῖν σὺν εὐχαῖς τελείαις μάταιος δὲ καὶ (Alleg. Interp. 3.192) ἢ καὶ πᾶσιν ὑμῖν τὸ ἀνεπηρέαστον, οἶμαι σὺν τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ βουλήσει πρὸς (Ant. 15.383) πρὸς τὰ τῶν καιρῶν ἂν ἀντιπράσσηται, σὺν χειραγωγίᾳ θεοῦ· τοῦτο δ’ ἐστίν, (Let. Arist. 239) αὐτὸν ἄγξαι περιλύσαντες τὰ ὄργανα σὺν ἄκραις ταῖς τῶν δακτύλων κορυφαῖς ἀπεσκύθιζον (4 Macc 10:7) ἄρχοντα καὶ λυτρωτὴν ἀπέσταλκεν σὺν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου τοῦ ὀφθέντος αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ (Acts 7:35)

This occurs too infrequently to show a definitive pattern but it is of note that in 6/9 cases the object of σύν is an abstract noun followed by a descriptor (genitive or adjective). A very important point needs to be made here: in English with is commonly used to express means as we saw in 4.5 under COB4 Sense 5 (Remove the meat with a 144 BDF are surprisingly unhelpful, saying that σύν can mean ‘with, besides all this, together with; and, (together with)’, and also ‘there is little to note regarding its use’ (p. 118 [§ 221]). 145 Though we may dismiss many variants as not original, they can still give insight into how the scribe understood the meaning of a text (see Silva, God, Language and Scripture, p. 273). 146 The change from by to with in our last example is due to the fact that in English by does not naturally collocate with fingernails, unless it follows a phrasal verb such as HOLD ON. It is proper to say He was barely holding on by his fingernails, but not ?Scratch my back by your fingernails (the latter is a collocational clash). Translators are aware that terms which naturally collocate in the SL do not necessarily collocate in the TL, and vice versa. See Tognini-Bonelli, ‘Working with Corpora’, p. 16.

122

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

fork). 147 However although it is possible for σύν to be used as means or instrument, it is extremely rare (0.9%, 9/1,045). It is improper in exegesis to assume this meaning without very good arguments. 148 The fact that with frequently indicates means or instrumentality in English does not mean that we can transfer that meaning to σύν. For example, LEH understand σύν in Ex 36:10 (MT 39:3) as instrument, but we deem it the very common use found in sense 5.5.1, that is, the gold thread was interwoven (along) with the other colored threads, not by means of those threads. Commenting on 2 Cor 4:14, εἰδότες ὅτι ὁ ἐγείρας τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ ἡμᾶς σὺν Ἰησοῦ ἐγερεῖ καὶ παραστήσει σὺν ὑμῖν, Plevnik says that σὺν Ἰησοῦ is instrumental, 149 presumably because he wants to argue that believers will be resurrected by means of Christ’s resurrection, but this is an unwarranted conclusion. The verse fits nicely with sense 5.5.1 in that Jesus has been raised and believers, too, will be raised (involved in the same activity, that is, resurrection). Harris struggles with this since he sees a problem with the fact that the timing of Christ’s resurrection and that of the believer is separated by many (hundreds of) years. 150 Lambrecht argues that this cannot mean that Jesus will rise again another time in the future, and therefore assumes that it must mean something like ‘“just as Jesus in the past” or, better, “owing to our union with him”’. 151 But this is more likely an example of sense 5.5.1, namely that both Paul and Jesus will be raised to life (albeit, not at the same moment). We should not appeal to this very rare usage of instrumentality when the very common, default sense of 5.5.1 (two entities involved in the same activity) adequately explains this verse. Acts 7:35 is the only NT occurrence of σύν expressing instrumentality. There it is collocated with χείρ in the common OT use of ‘the hand’ of God as the means used to deliver or guide God’s people, which Elliger calls a ‘Hebraic circumlocution for a simple prep[osition]’. 152 Some commentators also understand 1 Cor 5:4 as an example of means, though we disagree. Because of the complexity of the possibilities for 1 Cor 5:4 we will deal with it in detail at 6.2.4. 147 Apparently because of her commitment to cognitive grammar and the idea that prepositions and cases originally indicated only spatial orientation, Luraghi tries hard to show that even the idea of instrument is a metaphor for the idea of accompaniment in which ‘an instrument is a companion’. She assumes that for English with, the comitative meaning extended to the instrumental use by metaphor so that something which was with you in the same place was metaphorically involved in an action with you, and she tries to demonstrate this with the example Buffalo Bill shot dozens of buffalo with his old rifle (Luraghi, Meaning of Prepositions and Cases, pp. 27, 160). The cognitive grammar argument that prepositions originally indicated only spatial relationships is one of diachrony and is thus outside the scope of this study. See Bortone’s discussion (Bortone, Greek Prepositions, pp. 33–53). 148 Campbell states that means is ‘probably not a legitimate function’ of σύν (Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, pp. 218–219 n. 9); our evidence shows it is, but only rarely. 149 Plevnik, ‘The Destination of the Apostle and of the Faithful’, p. 91. 150 Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 353. 151 Lambrecht, Second Corinthians, p. 75. 152 Elliger, ‘σύν’, p. 3:291.

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

123

5.5.6 Σύν + Anarthrous ABSTRACT NOUN to Express Manner On rare occasions an action takes place σύν an anarthrous abstract noun which explains the manner in which the action occurs. Table 11: Σύν + Anarthrous ABSTRACT NOUN as Manner

καθεζομένους μετ’ ἀλλήλων σὺν αἰδοῖ καὶ κόσμῳ τῶν νόμων (Hypothetica 7.12) ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὑπήκοος βασιλεῖ, παρρησίᾳ σὺν αἰδοῖ χρώμενος διελέγετο (Joseph 107) ἀεὶ γὰρ τὰ μετὰ τέχνης ἔλεγχός ἐστι τῶν σὺν ἀτεχνίᾳ γινομένων (Flight 27) δι’ ἣν ὄκνον μεθιέμενοι σὺν αὐτοκελεύστῳ ἑτοιμότητι (Worse 120) πράττειν γε μὴν τἄριστα οὐ σὺν διανοίᾳ καὶ λόγῳ πάλιν ὑπαίτιον (Posterity 87) κύριος, ᾗ τῶν γενομένων ἄρχει καὶ σὺν δίκῃ βεβαίως ἐπικρατεῖ (Moses 2.99) ᾗ καὶ τὰ θεῖα καὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα σὺν δίκῃ πρυτανεύεται (Spec. Laws 2.231) ἐπιμελείᾳ τοῦ πάντα ἐφορῶντος καὶ σὺν δίκῃ πρυτανεύοντος θεοῦ τῶν (Embassy 336) φιλεῖ πως ἐπιτέμνεσθαι τὰ δὲ σὺν πόνῳ καὶ ἐπιστήμῃ μῆκος χρόνων (Embassy 246) φροντίζει γὰρ καὶ τοῦ μὴ σὺν πόνῳ μηδ’ἐργασίᾳ τὸ ποτὸν αὐτοῖς (Ant. 3.35) ὀργίζεται τοίνυν αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς καὶ ἣν σὺν πόνοις μυρίοις εὐδαιμονίαν (Ant. 5.180) φιλεῖν δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα σὺν μεγάλοις ἀπαντᾶν πόνοις (Ant. 6.275)

This usage is not extremely common (5.9%, 62/1,045) 153 and is not used in the NT. Abstract nouns are well suited to the expression of manner. For example, σὺν αἰδοῖ (with respect; ‘he was using freedom of speech, [though] respectfully’, Joseph 107), σὺν δίκῃ (with justice, Moses 2.99; Spec. Laws 2.231; Embassy 336) and σὺν πονῷ/πόνοις (with labor/s, Embassy 246; Ant. 3.35; 5.180; 6.275). (This applies whether πονῷ/πόνοις occurs at N+1 or N+3). Caution must be used in making this classification since abstract nouns are not always used in this way. However, it appears significant that in every one of the 62 uses in our primary corpus with this sense, the abstract noun accompanying σύν is anarthrous, 154 and is thus an example of colligation indicating sense (see 5.2). Philo uses σύν this way the most (61.2%, 38/62) even though his writings represent only 24.4% of our primary corpus (see 2.12). As might be expected, he is the only one in our primary corpus who uses σὺν λόγῳ in the sense of with reason. It occurs 13 times, nine of which express manner, namely, reasonably or in accordance with reason. The remaining four times are found in one pericope, Alleg. Interp. 3.155–158 where it is used not in the sense of manner (reasonably) but metaphorically as if Reason were physically present with a person. There it is as if Reason is accompanying someone to a banquet; he personifies Reason and describes it as a guide and as armor and these four uses fit under sense 5.5.2 (to be physically present with someone/something in a location, including metaphorically). Even so we see that for the most part the abstract noun reason is used with σύν to express manner. 153 Two of our examples are understood differently by Muraoka as ‘indicating a trait or accompanying action which characterizes an action’ … ‘“with a confession” Jb 33:26 … “… with mercy and justice” Ba 5:9’ (Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, p. 650). 154 For KWIC lines of all 62 uses, see the web page which accompanies this book: http://structurallexicology.wordpress.com.

124

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

We pointed out above that σύν rarely expresses instrumentality and thus the exegete should not understand it that way unless there are clear reasons from the cotext. In the same way we must be cautious in exegesis in understanding σύν as manner. This is a proper place to point out the interaction between grammar and lexis. 155 Lexemes with certain meanings quite naturally occur in ways that are grammatically concordant with their sense. For example the meaning of αἰδώς (respect) in our first example above almost demands that it be manner. Lexical semantics acts on, and is acted upon by, grammar. 156 As Facchinetti says, ‘Indeed, it is now widely acknowledged that grammar and lexis, structure and meaning, syntax and semantics are so interpenetrating that we cannot study one without at least casting an eye on the other.’ 157 5.5.7 Σύν + God, god or demon When something is done σύν God, a god, or a demon, they are the agent by which the action is carried out. This is quite close to means (sense 5.5.5) except that by means we mean an abstract object (for example, by the guidance of God) but by agent an animate one (for example, by God), and even so the lines blur since one could argue that God is still the agent when it speaks of his guidance. This usage is rare, occurring only 0.9% (9/1,045) in our primary corpus. Table 12: Σύν + God, god or demon

ὡρμηκότες· ἠπείλει τε σὺν τῷ θεῷ λήψεσθαι δίκην παρ’ αὐτῶν (Ant. 5.268) τελέσαντες σὺν θεῷ εἰπεῖν ἃ προεθέμεθα πάντα ἥξομεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς· (Ant. 16.318) σὺν θεῷ γε ἐπολεμήσαμεν, ἔφη, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ τῶνδε τῶν (J.W. 6.411) ἀλλὰ καὶ σὺν τῷ δαίμονι τῷ ἐν τῇ Ἐρυθρᾷ θαλάσσῃ τὸν ἐν τῇ (T. Sol. 23.2) καὶ σὺν θεῷ ἐκόσμησα τὸν ναὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν πάσῃ εὐπρεπείᾳ. (T. Sol. 25.9) μάλιστα δὲ Χαιρέᾳ τῷ Κασσίῳ· σὺν γὰρ τοῖς θεοῖς εἷς ἀνὴρ οὗτος ποριστὴς ἡμῖν καὶ γνώμῃ καὶ χερσὶ τῆς ἐλευθερίας πέφηνεν (Ant. 19.182)

One example above has demon, but the other eight have the structure σὺν [τῷ/τοῖς] θεῷ/θεοῖς, that is, θεός accompanies the preposition and can occur in the singular or plural, with or without the article. 158 It is common outside our primary corpus 159 (for 155 Hunston and Francis, Pattern Grammar, pp. 3, 13, 28–29, 36; Hunston, ‘Colligation, Lexis, Pattern, and Text’, pp. 14–15; Sinclair, Reading Concordances, p. 63; O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, p. 31; Busse and Schröder, ‘Fowler’s Modern English Usage at the Interface of Lexis and Grammar’, p. 69; Hunston, Corpus Approaches to Evaluation, p. 5. 156 See the discussion in Tucker, ‘So Grammarians Haven’t the Faintest Idea’, pp. 145–149. 157 Facchinetti, ‘Introduction’, pp. 1–8. 158 Luraghi points out this usage in Il. 3.439, νῦν μὲν γὰρ Μενέλαος ἐνίκησεν σὺν Ἀθήνῃ, (Luraghi, On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases, p. 159) though she emphasizes that this expresses accompaniment (not instrumentality). 159 See Grundmann, ‘σύν, μετά with genitive’, pp. 7:773–774 for a number of examples.

CHAPTER 5: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 1)

125

example, σὺν θεῷ: Amat. 20; Arat. 2.3; Bell. civ. 2.50; Descr. 2.9.5) 160 and in those uses, as in this one, it means, by God, with God’s help or God willing. Some (for example, Campbell 161) have argued that this is the sense of σὺν Χριστῷ which is found six times in the NT, always in epistles attributed to Paul 162 (Rom 6:8; 1 Cor 1:2; Phil 1:1, 23; 4:21; Col 2:20; 3:3). Commenting on Rom 6:8, Morris says, ‘The expression “with Christ” occurs 12 times in Paul and appears to have been coined by him on the pattern of the frequently occurring Greek “with god” or the “gods”.’ 163 However, our analysis in 5.5.7 and 6.2.4 would indicate that σὺν Χριστῷ does not have the same meaning as σὺν θεῷ (with God’s help/permission), as Morris claims. Of the 12 Pauline usages, 11 are sense 5.5.1: Rom 6:8 (if we died with Christ); 8:32 (how will he not with him give us all things); 2 Cor 4:14 (will also raise you with Jesus); 13:4 (we will live with him by the power of God); Col 2:13 (he made you alive with him); 2:20 (if you died with Christ); 3:3 (your life is hidden with Christ); 3:4 (we will be manifest with him in glory); 1 Thess 4:14 (God will bring with him), 4:17 (we will always be with the Lord); and 5:10 (we will live with him). The other usage is sense 5.5.2: Phil. 1:23, to depart and be with Christ.

5.6 CONCLUSION TO CHAPTER 5 In this chapter we defined more clearly the concepts of collocations and colligations and offered several English illustrations. We then discussed the means of measuring the strength of a collocation (MI, t-score and z-score). Using an unsupervised method we examined the differences between the near synonyms πλοῖον and ναῦς, and ἀγαπάω and φιλέω. We examined the common collocations of ἀγαπάω and φιλέω and presented the possibility that ἀγαπάω collocates more naturally with Lord/God and is a reminder of the great commandment (Deut 6:5), and is thus gently significant in this passage. Using a supervised method we used CL to define several senses of σύν, including its default meaning (two or more entities involved in the same activity) and the relative frequency and collocational indicators for a few of its rarer meanings (means, manner). Our findings were applied to several NT verses, including 1 Cor 10:13 and 2 Cor 4:14, where we argued that σύν did not express contemporaneity or cause/result, but rather the default meaning, namely, being involved in the same activity (God made the πειρασμός and ἔκβασις; Jesus and believers resurrect).

160 According to Jebb, it is arbitrary to take σὺν θεῷ (anarthrous) as referring to divine help in general, and σὺν τῷ θεῷ (articular) as referring to a specific god (for example, Apollo) since both can be used with the general sense (Jebb, The Ajax, line 382). 161 Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, p. 219. 162 For arguments supporting Pauline authorship of Colossians, see O’Brien, ColossiansPhilemon, pp. xli–xlix; Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 28–41; Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, pp. 165–168 (pace Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 35–39). 163 Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 253.

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2) In the previous chapter we looked in detail at the concept of collocations, examined the use of σύν in our primary corpus and demonstrated how this understanding affects our exegesis of several Greek New Testament texts. In this chapter we will continue our examination of collocations for σύν as well as collocations for ζάω and δύναμις.

6.1 ΖΆΩ COLLOCATED WITH ΣΎΝ A number of commentators (for example, Kling, H. A. W. Meyer, Martin, MurphyO’Connor, Omanson and Ellington, Garland and Harris) have argued that ἀλλὰ ζήσομεν σὺν 1 αὐτῷ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς in 2 Cor 13:4 refers not to Paul’s resurrection but to his return visit to Corinth to deal with the unrepentant 2 and this for three reasons. First, a reference to Paul’s future resurrection seems out of place in the immediate context since he is discussing his upcoming visit (Murphy-O’Connor; 3 J. Lambrecht 4). 5 Second, Harris claims that the living will take place when Paul visits Corinth, not at a future resurrection 6 (see Hughes, 7 Garland 8). Harvey agrees and says We follow the reading in Nestle-Aland27/28, as opposed to the vl. ἐν which is the reading found in p46vid D*.c 33. 326 (g); Pelpt. 2 Kling, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, p. 214; H. A. W. Meyer, First Epistle, Ch. XIV.-XVI.; Second Epistle, pp. 506–507; Martin, 2 Corinthians, pp. 476–477; Murphy-O’Connor, The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians, p. 48; Omanson and Ellington, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians, p. 239; Garland, 2 Corinthians, p. 448; Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 916. 3 Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Faith and Resurrection in 2 Cor 4:13–14’, pp. 548–549. 4 J. Lambrecht, Second Corinthians, p. 221. 5 Héring finds it odd that Paul uses the future ζήσομεν (perhaps he was ‘reminded’ of the future in Rom 6:4 or perhaps he is referring to his visit to Corinth) and curious that he uses the plural (Héring, The Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, p. 100). 6 He also states that it ‘involves others as well as Paul and Christ’, yet we fail to see how that means it cannot be a resurrection. At face value, that argument seems to support the resurrection view better than the visit to Corinth view (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 916). 7 Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 479. 1

127

128

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

that ‘this use of “with Christ” is closer to present identification with his life and power than to the anticipation of future life with him’. 9 Third is the range of meaning of ζάω which, according to Harris, can mean to be strong/efficient; he paraphrases, ‘we shall show ourselves alive and effective’ and ‘I shall be full of life and vigour’ (quoting Plummer 10). 11 In agreement with Meyer, 12 Harris argues that it means ‘to be alive in the sense of vigorous or efficient’. He states, ‘Paul is speaking of his imminent visit to Corinth when, in unison with Christ and with God’s power, he would act decisively and vigorously against unrepentant evildoers within the congregation’ and, ‘As a result of his fellowship with Christ (σὺν αὐτῷ), he shared in the power of his risen Lord (vv. 3b, 4a).’ 13 These points, however, can be answered. First, when speaking of his upcoming visit, it is not out of place to speak of the resurrection in v. 4. He is arguing that when he comes he will be strong not weak, ‘since you are seeking proof of the Christ who speaks in me’ (v. 3). He will be strong because Christ is strong. And then he illustrates that by saying that although Christ was ‘crucified from weakness’ he ‘lives from God’s power’. This same Christ who in the crucifixion was weak but now is strong is the one who works in Paul with that resurrection life. To see v. 4 as speaking of the resurrection is not, therefore, out of place but is an integral part of his argument. Second, it is a false dichotomy to think that Paul’s future resurrection will not affect his behavior when he visits Corinth. Paul often speaks of the present effect of the future resurrection (Rom 6:4; 2 Cor 4:10–11; Col 3:1). 14 Héring refers to the resurrection in two stages: 15 the new life we have on earth now as well as the coming resurrection. 16 In order to avoid the eschatological interpretation, Thrall suggests that we understand σὺν αὐτῷ as ‘a compressed version’ of σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ in 1 Cor 5:4. 17 Yet in that verse σύν is connected with συνάγω (see 6.2.4) and means that Paul and the power of Christ (or his armies) are assembled with the Corinthian believers. Third, the statement that ζάω can mean vigorous and efficient in this structure in 2 Cor 13:4 (ἀλλὰ ζήσομεν σὺν αὐτῷ) is doubtful. BDAG list their meaning 4 as ‘to be 8 Garland,

2 Corinthians, pp. 543–544. Harvey, ‘The “with Christ” Motif in Paul’s Thought’, p. 333; Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John, p. 401. 10 Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p. 366. 11 Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 916. 12 H. A. W. Meyer, First Epistle, Ch. XIV.-XVI.; Second Epistle, pp. 506–507. 13 Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 916–917; repeated in Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament, p. 202. 14 Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 337. 15 Wright refers to this two-stage resurrection, though he would not use Parousia to describe the time of our resurrection (Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, pp. 462–464). 16 Héring, The Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians, p. 100. 17 Thrall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 2:887. 9

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

129

full of vitality, be lively the ptc. is used fig. w/ respect to things’ and give 10 references. One unfortunate consequence of a lexicon listing a string of references without listing the content of those references, is that the user of the lexicon cannot see the context nor any patterns which might be present with a specific sense of a word. When we list out all 10 examples, we begin to notice a clear collocational pattern: Table 13: Ζάω Meaning to be lively according to BDAG

Ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος, τὸ θυμίαμα τῶν δένδρων τῶν ζώντων, τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν (4 Bar. 9:3) ἐν τῇ φάραγγι Γεράρων, καὶ εὗρον ἐκεῖ φρέαρ ὕδατος ζῶντος. (Gen 26:19) τὸ ὀρνίθιον τὸ ἓν εἰς ἀγγεῖον ὀστράκινον ἐφ’ ὕδατι ζῶντι· (Lev 14:5) ἐποίησεν ὁ λαός μου· ἐμὲ ἐγκατέλιπον, πηγὴν ὕδατος ζωῆς, καὶ ὤρυξαν ἑαυτοῖς (Jer 2:13) καὶ ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἐξελεύσεται ὕδωρ ζῶν ἐξ Ιερουσαλημ, τὸ ἥμισυ (Zech 14:8) σὺ ἂν ᾔτησας αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδωκεν ἄν σοι ὕδωρ ζῶν (John 4:10) καὶ τὸ φρέαρ ἐστὶν βαθύ· πόθεν οὖν ἔχεις τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ζῶν; (John 4:11) γραφή, ποταμοὶ ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας αὐτοῦ ῥεύσουσιν ὕδατος ζῶντος. (John 7:38) βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ... ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. (Did. 7:1) τοῦ θρόνου ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς καὶ ὁδηγήσει αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ ζωῆς πηγὰς ὑδάτων, καὶ (Rev 7:17)

In nine of these 10 examples, living is collocated with water. It is used three times to refer to moving, rather than stagnant water: Gen 26:19 for Isaac’s servants finding a well with living (running) water; in Leviticus when the priest is to sacrifice over living (running) water (ἐφ’ ὕδατι ζῶντι, 14:5, 6, 50, 51; cf. ‘cleanse the house … with the running water’, ἐν τῷ ὕδατι τῷ ζῶντι, 14:52); and Did. 7:1 where people are to be baptized in living (running) water. Six are used figuratively to express water which gives life. The remaining example refers to the incenses of the living trees. These are very different from the use in 2 Cor 13:4 where Paul says that he and Jesus will live. Paul uses a finite verb to describe the action, yet 8/10 of the examples of living in BDAG have an active participle used adjectivally. The other two examples are of genitive nouns used descriptively. It could be argued that they should not even be included under ζάω since they are nouns and not verbal. Interestingly, though several commentaries assume that BDAG’s definition ‘to be full of vitality, to be lively’ can be applied to 2 Cor 13:4, BDAG do not cite this reference under this sense. It can also be argued that be full of vitality, to be lively is a very poor definition for most of these 10 examples; it is not clear how running water is ‘full of vitality’ or ‘lively’ in the sense Harris seems to claim for 2 Cor 13:4 of Paul being ‘vigorous’ or ‘effective/efficient’. We can see three structural factors that argue against the idea of vigorous and efficient being the meaning in 2 Cor 13:4. First, as just mentioned, in the 10 examples above this sense is most often found when ζάω is being used as a participle, not as a finite verb. Second, it collocates with a noun which it describes. Third, it collocates with water (and tree), which is certainly not the case in 2 Cor 13:4. It might even be a stock or fixed phrase, used normally with water. Living water (‫מיִ ם ַחיִּ ים‬, ַ Gen 26:19)

130

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

means flowing or moving water 18 (see m. Miqw. 1:8) as opposed to stagnant water (defined in m. Miqw. 1:4 as water in ponds, cisterns, ditches, ‘water of rain drippings which have stopped’ and ‘immersion pools which do not contain forty seahs’ except during rainy season). 19 The idiom 20 is then extended, with a type of play on the word living to give the metaphorical idea of water which gives life. Even then, it does not mean that the water was vigorous in the sense of efficient. Harris and others are guilty of equivocation, sliding from one meaning of living in the sense of moving or life-giving to the meaning of vivacious and then applying that meaning to Paul and saying that it means vigorous and efficient. This usage does not hold up to scrutiny. LSJ give the meaning ‘to be in full vigour’ and cite John 4:10, Acts 7:38 and 10 other examples, which we give below. Table 14: Ζάω Meaning to be in full vigour according to LSJ

καὶ λήμψεται ὁ ἱερεὺς ὕδωρ καθαρὸν ζῶν ἐν ἀγγείῳ ὀστρακίνῳ καὶ τῆς γῆς (Num 5:17) dimisi properans ad epistulas. ubi sunt qui aiunt ζώσης φωνῆς quanto magis vidi ex (Att. 2.12.2) καὶ δόμων ἐρείπια τυφόμενα Δίου πυρὸς ἔτι ζῶσαν φλόγα, ἀθάνατον Ἥρας μητέρ’ (Bacch. 8) οἶσθά του· ὡς τοῖσιν ἐμπείροισι καὶ τὰς ξυμφορὰς ζώσας ὁρῶ μάλιστα τῶν (Oed. tyr. 45) μεγάλαι δ’ ἀρεταὶ θνατοῖς ἕπονται (5) ἐκ σέθεν· ζώει δὲ μάσσων ὄλβος ὀπιζομένων (Isthm. 3.5) δ’ ἁλοῦσα νῦν ἔτ’ εὔσημος πόλις. ἄτης θύελλαι ζῶσι· συνθνῄσκουσα δὲ σποδὸς (Ag. 819) οὔπω δέος ζῶντι χρώμενον ποδὶ εἰς ἀλίβαντα (Soph. Fr. 790) μεσόμφαλα γᾶς ἀπονοσφίζων μαντεῖα· τὰ δ’ ἀεὶ ζῶντα περιποτᾶται. (Oed. tyr. 482) ου’ γάρ τι νῦν γε κἀχθές, ἀλλ’ ἀεί ποτε ζῇ ταῦτα, κοὐδεὶς οἶδεν ἐξ ὅτου (Soph. Ant. 457) καὶ πολυγλώσσου δρυός, ἥ μοι χρόνῳ τῷ ζῶντι καὶ παρόντι νῦν (Tr. 1169)

The first example, Num 5:17, should be understood in the same way as the examples above from BDAG where living is a participle modifying water and means flowing water. In Att. 2.12.2 Cicero mocks the saying that a living voice (that is, speaking) is better than a letter since Cicero found Atticus’ letter much clearer in substance than what the messenger had told him with ‘a living voice’. The idea of vigorous or efficient is not present in this usage. In the next two examples, Bacch. 8 speaks of the house ‘smouldering with the still living flame of Zeus’ fire’ and Oed. tyr. 45 of living power. These examples give the figurative or metaphorical use of living and do mean something akin to vigorous or powerful. These and the following examples come from Pindar (ca. 522–443 BCE), Euripides (ca. 480–406), and Sophocles (c. 479/6–406/5 BCE) and thus lie outside the date range of our corpora, yet we deal with them here since they are cited by LSJ, a lexicon used by many for NT studies.

18 Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, p. 202; Reyburn and McG. Fry, A Translator’s Handbook on Genesis, p. 603; HALOT, s.v. ‫חי‬.ַ 19 Neusner, The Mishnah. See Jenney, ‘Water’, p. 1368. 20 What constitutes an idiom is often disputed (note the difference between low-grade and high-grade idioms mentioned in Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament, p. 72; see the definition of idiom in Skandera, ‘Research into Idioms and the International Corpus of English’, p. 340).

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

131

Here we find ζάω used as a finite verb which brings us closer to the use in 2 Cor 13:4. Isthm. 3.5 says, ‘Greater prosperity lives with those who revere you [Zeus]’; 21 Ag. 819, ‘Confusion’s stormy blasts still live’; and Oed. tyr. 482, ‘doom that lives forever’. Sophocles’ Ant. 457 speaks of the statutes given by the gods which ‘live for all time’ and Tr. 1169 says, ‘at that time which lives and now is’. In all five of these examples, one could say that he is personifying inanimate objects (prosperity, blasts, doom, statutes, and time). The sense of lives is to be alive, last or thrive and is the closest example so far to what is being claimed by Harris et al., yet we remain unconvinced that that is the meaning in 2 Cor 13:4. Of the 19 examples 22 which BDAG and LSJ cite with the meaning to be full of vigor, only five use a finite verb, and all five are used with personified inanimate objects. We have yet to see an example of people referring to themselves or describing themselves with ζήσομεν (as Paul does in 2 Cor 13:4) in a context where it clearly means vigorous or efficient. Rather, we believe that Paul is saying that he will live (be resurrected) with Christ 23 and that that truth empowers Paul now when he is coming to visit the Corinthians. This is a recurring motif in 2 Corinthians, that Christ is powerful in Paul even when Paul is suffering and outwardly weak. This is the power that will work in Paul when he comes to Corinth to rebuke the unrepentant. 24 As Savage has explained, ‘… a present manifestation of resurrection life … serves to empower an entirely new way of existence’. 25

6.2 ΔΎΝΑΜΙΣ COLLOCATED WITH ΣΎΝ, ΜΕΤΆ AND ἘΝ As is well-known, δύναμις is a polyseme. NT lexica offer the following glosses and definitions: 1) power, strength, might, capability (ANLEX, Newman, L&N, Thayer, BDAG, LEH, TDNT, EDNT); 2) supernatural ruler(s) or force(s), angels; God (ANLEX, Newman, L&N, Thayer, BDAG, LEH, TDNT, EDNT); 3) ability (ANLEX, Newman, L&N, BDAG, LEH, TDNT, EDNT); 4) ability to communicate through language, meaning (ANLEX, Newman, L&N, Thayer, BDAG, EDNT); 5) miracle, wonder, mighty deed (ANLEX, Newman, L&N, Thayer, BDAG, TDNT, EDNT); 6) wealth, riches, or the influence of riches (ANLEX, Thayer); 7) resource (BDAG); 8) evidently (Thayer for Rom 15:19); 9) army, host, military force (Thayer, BDAG, LEH, TDNT); 10) stars, heavenly bodies as in the host of heaven (Thayer, BDAG, EDNT). What these lexica lack is anything in their definitions which points out structural indicators which will help us know which of these possible 10 senses of δύναμις is intended when we find it in a specific Bible verse. We propose at least one structural Bacchylides, Epinicians, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/, (accessed 5 August 2011). We did not discuss the 20th example, Sophocles Fragment 790, because it is too fragmentary to yield much useful information. 23 Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ, p. 330. 24 Bernard, ‘The Second Epistle to the Corinthians’, p. 116; Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 337; pace Hughes who says that ‘the reference is limited to his impending visit to Corinth’ (Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 479). 25 Savage, Power Through Weakness, p. 177. 21 22

132

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

indicator: whenever δύναμις follows σύν (6.2.1) or μετά (6.2.2) it usually means with the/an army (or military force). 26 6.2.1 Σύν δυνάμει This usage is mentioned separately from the other uses of σύν for two reasons. First, it was proportionately very frequent in our primary corpus. The most frequent collocation of σύν in our primary corpus is the article or a 3rd person sg. pronoun at N+1 (48.2%; 504/1,045). This increases to 65% [679/1,045] if we include N+1 through N+5. The second most frequent lexeme is δύναμις (2.8% [21/1,045] at N+1; [29/1,045] at N+1 through N+5). Granted, this is a low percentage, but since it is the most frequent after the article and 3rd sg. pronoun, it did grab our attention. Second, δύναμις is clearly polysemous and yet almost every time it is collocated with σύν it has the meaning army, military force. Thus it is an excellent example of how CL observations of collocations can be helpful in WSPD. The most common structure is σύν + δύναμις when αὐτῶν is at N+2. Ηere σύν has its very frequent sense of 5.5.1 or 5.5.2. 27 In each case it is discussing people (soldiers) being with, or going out with, other soldiers. Yet, though σύν itself is being used in a sense which we have already seen, it is mentioned here separately since it helps disambiguate δύναμις. Table 15: Σὺν δυνάμει αὐτῶν

θεὸς ἐξαγαγεῖν τοὺς υἱοὺς Ἰσραὴλ ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτουσὺν δυνάμει αὐτῶν· (Ex 6:26) καὶ ἐγένετο πᾶσα ἡ ἐπίσκεψις υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ σὺν δυνάμει αὐτῶν ἀπὸ (Num 1:45) 28 καὶ πεντήκοντα ἑπτὰ χιλιάδες καὶ ἑξακόσιοι σὺν δυνάμει αὐτῶν· ἔσχατοι (Num 2:31) καὶ ἐξῆραν τάγμα παρεμβολῆς Ῥουβὴν σὺν δυνάμει αὐτῶν· (Num 10:18) πέμπει στρατηγὸν Πάππον ὄνομα σὺν δυνάμει πολλῇ (Ant. 14.457)

The last example is the only non-Septuagintal use of σὺν δυνάμει in our primary corpus. Here it has πολλῇ at N+2 (that is, σὺν δυνάμει πολλῇ), and it maintains the meaning army: ‘sent a commander [against Samaria], whose name was Pappus, with a great force.’ This phrase occurs 21 29 times in our primary corpus. Nineteen of the 21 usages in our corpus are concentrated in a small area of the corpus: 17 times it occurs in 26 Bortone notes the similarity of sense for σύν and μετά in both spatial and non-spatial (abstract) meanings (Bortone, Greek Prepositions, pp. 150–151). 27 In order to avoid double counting, we did not include these usages in the figures above for sense 5.5.1 and 5.5.2. We chose to treat this as a separate sense of a quasi-fixed expression. 28 The LXX does not follow the MT here which has (‫ֹתם‬ ֑ ָ ‫)ל ֵב֣ית ֲאב‬, ְ ‘according to the houses of their fathers’ but rather follows the Samaritan Pentateuch which reads ‫( ְל ִצ ְבא ָֹתם‬which the MT has in 1:52). 29 Following the Göttingen LXX, though it would be reduced to 20 if the phrase is omitted as in Num 2:31 according to B V O-58–707 b f-246 x 392 Cyr I 724 Latcod 100 Aeth Arab Co SyhL

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

133

Numbers (mostly in chapters 1, 2, and 10 30 when speaking of the census of soldiers for battle) and twice in Exodus. With αὐτῶν at N+2 (that is, the phraseology σὺν δυνάμει αὐτῶν), it means with their armies. Though Thayer (as a translation of ‫)צ ָבא‬, ָ MM, LSJ and LEH mention army or military force as one of the meanings of δύναμις, none of them mention that in the phrase σὺν δυνάμει it always has this meaning. That is the type of information a lexicon user needs. It is not appropriate when we come across σὺν δυνάμει to say that it means with +____ (fill in the blank from the other options, for example, power, ability, miracle, resource, meaning, etc.). In our chapter on method, we said that conclusions could be drawn only if 50 or more examples were found. In our primary corpus there were only 21 examples of σύν + δύναμις, yet since these examples showed consistency and promise as a special use, we chose to test our hypothesis by looking at examples outside our primary corpus. Our secondary corpus yielded only two examples. We then checked our tertiary corpus; DDbDP yielded no examples, but the TLG provided eight more examples including the following. The first is taken from Pausanias, Graeciae descriptio, the second from Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates Romanae, and the last eight from Cassius Dio, Historiae Romanae. Table 16: Σὺν δυνάμει in Secondary & Tertiary Corpora

οἱ δὲ κατὰ λῃστείαν σὺν δυνάμει ναυτικῇ πλανωμένην φασὶν (9.26.2) ἐπὶ τοῖς μεθορίοις ὑπομένοντας αὐτὸν σὺν δυνάμει πολλῇ. (9.61.2) καὶ τὸν Ῥοῦφον τὸν Σαλουιδιῆνον σὺν δυνάμει πολλῇ ἐς Ῥήγιον προέπεμψε (48.18.2) μετὰ ταῦτα ἐκεῖ μὲν Φούφιον Γέμινον σὺν δυνάμει τινὶ κατέλιπεν (49.38.1) μετ’ οὐ πολὺ δὲ Μίλων ὑπὸ τοῦ Πύρρου σὺν δυνάμει πεμφθεὶς τήν τε ἀκρόπολιν (118.9) περαιωθῆναι, Κλαύδιόν τινα Κλινέαν σὺν δυνάμει προέπεμψε. (176.13) ὸν δὲ Ἀσδρούβαν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἰταλίαν σὺν δυνάμει σταλῆναι (230.26) τὸν μὲν υἱὸν Σέλευκον ἐν τῇ Λυσιμαχίᾳ σὺν δυνάμει κατέλιπεν, (284.28) ὃν ἐπανελθόντα σὺν δυνάμει ἐπὶ τὴν Πέργαμον ἔπεμψεν. (288.16) Καικίλιον Μέτελλον στρατηγὸν σὺν δυνάμει πολλῇ ἔστειλαν (312.27)

Usage in our secondary corpus and the TLG confirms what we found in our primary corpus in that 10/10 usages refer to armies. Three of the 10 follow Josephus’ usage above of πολλῇ at N+2. The fact that we have found this usage in Josephus, 31 Pausanias, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Cassius Dio demonstrates that this is not simply an instance of (Wevers, Numeri, p. 71), which explains why Brenton omitted the phrase since he normally followed B (Valpy’s edition). 30 Though rendered in the LXX each time as σὺν δυνάμει αὐτῶν, the MT has ‫ֹתם‬ ֑ ָ ‫ ְל ִצ ְבא‬in Num 1:3, 52; 10:14, 18, 22, 25; 33:1, but ‫ל־צ ְבא ָ ֹֽתם‬ ִ ‫ ַﬠ‬in Exod 6:26. 31 There is some debate whether Josephus’ writings should be considered translation Greek (see N. Turner’s comments in MHT4, p. 8). Moulton and Howard refer to his Semitic use of προστίθημι (MHT2 §174, p. 480). Sim excludes J.W. from her corpus because of Semitic

134

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

translation Greek 32 (as in the Exodus and Numbers examples above). If we had found this only in the LXX we might be tempted to see this usage as an example of translation Greek which might not carry over to non-translation Greek. So far this shows that 96.8% (30/31) of the usages of σὺν δυνάμει mean with the/an army. However, we still must remain tentative in our conclusion because we lack an adequate number of examples, since in principle we need 50 or more. The one example which might not have this sense is Ex 7:4. Here it has μου at N+2, that is, the collocation is with the 1st person sg. pronoun (σὺν δυνάμει μου), not the 3rd person pl. It is difficult to determine the sense here. Brenton takes the meaning to be different from what we have seen before and renders it by my power which seems to fit the context, but NETS as with my host which goes with the meaning we have seen above (with an army/military force). Muraoka translates it as with my army yet lists it under his sense 3, ‘by involving and making use of’ 33 which would be our sense 5.5.5, means or instrumentality. If Brenton and Muraoka are correct, this would be a rare use of σύν as instrument collocated with δύναμις. The difference then would be that with μου at N+2, σύν is instrumental and δύναμις means power/might while with αὐτῶν at N+2, σὺν expresses accompaniment and δύναμις means army. What is the effect when an article or descriptor is inserted at N+1 or N+2 between σύν and δύναμις? We have two examples of the phrase πολλαῖς δυνάμεσιν. At least as used in Alleg. Interp. 2.37 it refers to mental powers or faculties: σὺν γὰρ πολλαῖς δυνάμεσιν ἠρεμούσαις αὐτὸν κατεσκεύαζε, ‘[when he was creating the mind] for he was furnishing that with many faculties in a state of rest’ (Yonge); and 2.45: σὺν πολλαῖς δυνάμεσι καὶ ἕξεσιν ἐγεννᾶτο, ‘[when it was created] was created with many faculties and habits’ (Yonge). The structural clue is that δυνάμεσιν is plural (whereas above δυνάμει is singular) and it occurs at N+2 or N+3, rather than N+1. In this instance σύν has the sense of possessing or having (in this case a trait or characteristic), which is an example of our sense 8.4. There are three examples with the article after σύν. Table 17: Σύν + Articular δύναμις

πᾶσα ἡ ἐπίσκεψις τῶν παρεμβολῶν σὺν ταῖς δυνάμεσιν αὐτῶν (Num 2:32) καὶ αὐτὸς μὲν ἀνεχώρησεν σὺν τῇ πλείονι δυνάμει, ἵνα δὲ μὴ (Ant. 14.393) συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ (1 Cor 5:4)

influence (Sim, Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek, p. 15). Jobes classifies his Ant. as ‘highly proficient’ non-translation Greek (Jobes, 1 Peter, p. 330). N. Turner claimed that Paul’s Greek was influenced by LXX translational Greek (MHT4, §5, pp. 88–93), as was Revelation (MHT4, §4, pp. 148–150), though Aune demurs [Aune, Revelation 1–5, pp. clxv, cci; Aune, Revelation 6–16, pp. 386, 657). 32 For difficulties related to translation Greek, cf. LEH, xvii–xxiv. 33 Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, p. 658, s.v. σύν.

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

135

Numbers 2:32 has the article and δύναμις in the plural, yet still refers to armies. 34 Perhaps significantly, αὐτῶν which we noted above as following our phrase at N+2 is present in Num 2:32 at N+4. Antiquities 14.393 inserts an article and adjective before δύναμις in the singular and still refers to an army, ‘with the greater part of the army’. At least in these two examples the presence of the article at N+2 did not alter the meaning, though this is not adequate evidence to establish that σύν + article + δύναμις (sg. or pl.) can be treated as an FE. In light of the above analysis, we would venture the following sentential definition: When in the context of a group of soldiers, an action or state done σὺν δυνάμει happens with an army or military force. It appears that this is an FE with a very specific sense. Some might argue that this is a sense of δύναμις, not σύν. While it is true that in this FE σύν maintains its meaning of sense 5.5.1 (two or more entities involved in the same activity) or sense 5.5.2 (two or more entities located in the same place), it is still helpful to list this meaning under both σύν and δύναμις. As mentioned at 4.1, lexicographers debate where phrases should be listed in dictionaries. For example, should the idiom over the top be listed in the dictionary under over or top? Our contention is that it should be listed under both since the collocates are co-selected. For this reason, we propose that the meaning of this FE be listed in (or at least cross referenced to) both σύν and δύναμις. What about the usage in our one NT passage, 1 Cor 5:4? Is this referring to Jesus and his armies? We will examine that below in 6.2.4. 6.2.2 Μετὰ δυνάμεως We have now examined the phrase σὺν δυνάμει and in the process made the claim that δύναμις when at N+1 from σύν almost always means army. Though there is strong evidence in support of this understanding, this conclusion must remain tentative since we were only able to find 31 examples, which falls short of the 50 which we feel is necessary for sure footing. We also noticed that δύναμις when at N+1 from μετά almost always means army. Μετὰ δυνάμεως is found 24 times in our primary corpus and 79% (19/24) of the examples refer to an army, just as σὺν δυνάμει does. Following are several examples: Table 18: Μετὰ δυνάμεως Meaning with an army

πολεμεῖ Δαυίδης τὸν Ἀρτάζαρον φίλος ὢν αὐτῷ μετὰ δυνάμεως ἧκεν ἰσχυρᾶς (Ant. 7.100) γὰρ Ἀντίοχος Κενδεβαῖον τὸν αὐτοῦ στρατηγὸν μετὰ δυνάμεως δῃώσοντα τὴν (J.W. 1.51) ἀντιπαραταξαμένου δὲ κἀμοῦ μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς ὁ μὲν (Life 1.116) ἄρχοντες Δημητρίου εἰς Κηδες τὴν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς (1 Macc 11:63) ὅτι ἐπέστρεψαν οἱ ἄρχοντες Δημητρίου μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς ὑπὲρ (1 Macc 12:24) Λαχις εἰς Ιερουσαλημ πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Εζεκιαν μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς καὶ (Isa 36:2)

34 Muraoka cites this reference with the translation, ‘together with their troops’ (Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, p. 650).

136

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

In 11/19 of the usages meaning army/military force, πολλῆς appears at N+2 (thus a great [military] force). Looking at the cotext (some of which must be seen in the full verse as space did not permit it in the KWIC lines above), we also see frequent use of εἰς and ἐπί indicating direction and movement, which would fit with the context of an advancing army. In addition we see that government and military positions are mentioned (king, general) as well as geopolitical areas which are under attack (Judea, Galilee). This information is not incidental but is related to the meaning of δύναμις in these contexts. Two of the uses which do not appear to mean army are the two by Philo in Alleg. Interp. 3 in which it means power. Table 19: Μετὰ δυνάμεως in Alleg. Interp. 3

συμμαχίαν διὰ λόγων θείων μετὰ δυνάμεως ἐρρωμενεστάτης ἐπίθηται. (3.14) ὁ δ’ ἐπιστήμων ἀθλητοῦ τρόπον μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ ῥώμης καρτερᾶς (3.202)

The broader context of Philo’s philosophical and allegorical approach indicates that he is referring to strength, not an army. This leaves three other uses in our primary corpus which we have yet to discuss, which happen to be the only uses in the NT. Table 20: Μετὰ δυνάμεως in NT

ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς· (Mt 24:30) ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλαις μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς καὶ δόξης. (Mk 13:26) ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλῃ μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς. (Lk 21:27)

Adding these last three usages, this brings to 14 the total of those which have πολλῆς, 12 having it at N+3, and two at N+4. Are these passages referring to Jesus returning with [great] power (that is, powerfully), or with [a great] army? To help answer that, we will follow four lines of investigation asking: 1) What do the standard NT lexica and grammars say? 2) Is there a consensus among translations? 3) What do the commentaries say? and, more important than the other three, 4) Are there more usages we can examine than these 24 examples, in keeping with the principle from 2.3 that we are seeking to base decisions on 50+ usages? First, BDAG list the usages here as ‘marker of attendant circumstances of someth. that takes place, with …’ (3.b.) so their understanding seems to be that the power is with Jesus in his return. Thayer takes Mt 24:30 as ‘association and companionship … after verbs of coming, departing, sending, with the genitive of the thing with which one is furnished or equipped’ (2.g.); both BDAG and Thayer list all three of our verses (Mt 24:30; Mk 13:26; Lk 21:27) under this meaning. Thayer also lists this meaning for Acts 26:12, ‘journeying from Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests’ which is a good candidate for the meaning of μετά used for attendant circumstance, and for Acts 13:17, ‘with an uplifted arm He led them out’ and Mt 24:31, ‘with a trumpet call’, which are probably best understood as manner

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

137

(under μετά, Wallace lumps manner with attendant circumstance). 35 However the other verses which Thayer lists, Mt 26:47, 55; Mk 14:43, 48; and Lk 22:52, speak of those ‘with swords and clubs’ and John 18:3 of those ‘with lanterns and torches and weapons’ which seem to be better understood like the COB4 Sense 6 in 4.5 (‘If someone stands or goes somewhere with something, they are carrying it’) since the soldiers are carrying the swords, clubs and lanterns. Under his entry for δύναμις, Thayer lists our three verses (Mt 24:30; Mk 13:26; Lk 21:27) under his first definition, ‘univ. inherent power, power residing in a thing by virtue of its nature, or which a person or thing exerts and puts forth.’ None of the other lexica (see our list of the 10 lexica we consulted at 4.4) specifically mention any of these verses. In his grammar, Robertson does not take the phrase as referring to an army, but sees μετά here as ‘a metaphorical use for the idea of accompaniment’ along the lines of ‘with haste’ (Mk 6:25) and ‘with tears’ (Heb 12:17) 36 while none of the other grammars comment on this issue in any of these verses. Though the lexica recognize army, military force as one sense of δύναμις, they do not mention that this sense is almost always present when δύναμις is collocated with μετά or σύν. The closest they come is when LSJ, not under δύναμις or σύν, but under πεζός, cite Xenophon Cyr. 2.4.18, σὺν δυνάμει καὶ π. καὶ ἱππικῇ, in a military setting, which Miller renders as, ‘with his force of infantry and cavalry’. 37 To our knowledge, none of the lexica or grammars understand Mt 24:30, Mk 13:26 or Lk 21:27 to be an army which accompanies Jesus. Second, all 30 EVVs 38 which we compared render it as power. This was also true of the translations we consulted in Croatian (moć), 39 Bosnian (sila), 40 Serbian (sila), 41 French (la puissance), 42 and German (die Macht; 43 die Kraft 44). Third, numerous commentaries on Matthew, 45 Mark, 46 and Luke 47 translate the phrase as with power and presumably understand it to be expressing manner or attendant Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 377. Robertson, p. 611. 37 Xenophon, Cyropaedia Books 1–4. 38 Wycliffe (1388; in Luke, though in Matthew and Mark he has vertu), Tyndale (1534), Bishop’s Bible (1595), Geneva Bible (1599), AV/KJV (1769), Webster (1833), RV (1885), Darby (1890), Young (1898), ASV (1901), BBE (1964), RSV (1971), NKJV (1982), NIV (1984), NJB (1985), CJB (1988), NRSV (1989), GWN (1995), NASBU (1995), NIrV (1998), TNIV (2001), WGM (2008), NET (2006), NLT (2007), HCSB (2009), NAB (2010), LEB (2010), ESV (2011), CEB (2011) and NIVU (2011). 39 Šarić (1942) and Kršćanska Sadašnjost (1974). 40 Knežević (2001) and Radosna vijest (2004, though it has moć in Mt 24:30 and Mk 13:26). 41 Karadžić (n.d.), Stefanović (1934) and Čarnić (1973). 42 Darby (1885), Segond (1910), Bible de Jérusalem (1973), Nouvelle Edition de Genève (1975), Traduction Œcuménique de la Bible (1988) and Bible en français courant (1997). 43 Darby (1905), Einheitsübersetzung (1980), Revidierte Elberfelder (1993), Herder (2005) and Zürcher Bibel (2008). 44 Luther (1545), Schlachter (1951), Revidierte Lutherbibel (1984), Münchener (1998), Schlachter de Genève (2000), NeueLuther Bibel (2009) and Janzten (2011). 35 36

138

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

circumstance (that is, coming powerfully or coming with power). Culy et al. specifically say it is manner. 48 In the context of Mt 24:30, Luz refers to ‘the divine character of δύναμις (singular) in Matthew cf. 22:29; 26:64’, 49 apparently understanding this to mean God’s power, yet the collocations are different there: in Mt 22:29 it is the accusative object of οἶδα as a participle in the phrase μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφὰς μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ θεοῦ; in 26:64 it is a genitive describing δεξιός in the phrase καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τῆς δυνάμεως. In neither instance it is the object of μετά. France comments on the ‘close links’ in Mark between 9:1; 13:26; and 14:62, 50 yet these three instances of δύναμις are in three different structures: Table 21: Δύναμις in Mk 9:1, 13:26, 14:62

θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει. (9:1) ὄψονται τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλαις μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς καὶ δόξης (13:26) καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. (14:62)

In 9:1, δύναμις is the object of ἐν and is probably adverbial, meaning powerfully. In 13:26, it is the object of μετά and we are arguing that it means with a great army. In 14:62 it is a genitive modifying δεξιός, and the phrase means the right (hand) of power—a circumlocution for God. France would not agree that this means that Jesus will come with armies since he sees these passages as referring not to Jesus’ second coming, but to his enthronement. 51 Most commentators acknowledge the allusion to Dan 7:13–14 52 in these synoptic passages. Stein remarks that though this may not have been what the author of Daniel 45 Albright and Mann, Matthew, p. 297; Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 608; Hagner, Matthew 14–28, p. 709; Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, p. 3:362; Luz, Matthew 21–28, p. 181; Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 981; Turner, Matthew, p. 582; Osborne, Matthew, p. 894. 46 Bratcher and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, p. 415; Hooker, The Gospel According to St. Mark, p. 318; Brooks, Mark, p. 215; C. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, p. 326; Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, p. 403; France, The Gospel of Mark, p. 535; A. Y. Collins, Mark: A Commentary, p. 591; Stein, Mark, p. 611. 47 Reiling and Swellengrebel, Luke, pp. 673–674; Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, p. 941; Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53, p. 1004; Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, p. 1660. 48 Culy, Parsons, and Stigall, Luke, p. 655. 49 Luz, Matthew 21–28, p. 201. 50 France, The Gospel of Mark, p. 535 (see also p. 344). Garland understands the passage as referring to the fall of Jerusalem (Garland, Reading Matthew, pp. 243–244); Wright understands it to refer to Jesus’ enthronement, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the worldwide spread of the gospel (Wright, Part 2: Chapters 16–28, pp. 122–124). 51 France, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 611–613. 52 Gardner, Matthew, p. 346; Blomberg, Matthew, pp. 362–363; Wilkins, Matthew, p. 783; Keener, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 586; Talbert, Matthew, p. 269.

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

139

meant, it is more important in Mark to understand it how the NT understood Daniel, which would be that it refers to Jesus’ return to earth. 53 Marshall states that in light of Dan 7:9 and 22, Dan 7:13 does indeed refer ‘to a coming to the earth’. 54 In spite of the fact that most commentators understand this as with power (attendant circumstance or manner), it can be argued that usage points to army in the OT sense used of the stars (Deut 4:19; 2 Kings 17:16; Jer 8:2) or angels (1 Kings 22:19; 2 Kings 21:3) as the ‘host (armies) of heaven’ 55 since in the preceding verse, Jesus states, Εὐθέως δὲ μετὰ τὴν θλῖψιν τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐκείνων ὁ ἥλιος σκοτισθήσεται, καὶ ἡ σελήνη οὐ δώσει τὸ φέγγος αὐτῆς, καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες πεσοῦνται ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ αἱ δυνάμεις τῶν οὐρανῶν σαλευθήσονται (Mt 24:29). Here we would have two factors at work: one is the use of δύναμις to mean army, and the other is the metaphor of the heavenly army, sometimes referring to stars and planetary bodies, and sometimes referring to angels. In other words, in v. 29 he refers to the heavenly bodies being shaken (the powers of heaven) and in v. 31 he speaks of the angels (who are also ‘heavenly beings’) coming as his army to conquer. This becomes even more clear in the following verse in Mark’s account (13:27) where it says, καὶ τότε ἀποστελεῖ τοὺς ἀγγέλους καὶ ἐπισυνάξει τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς [αὐτοῦ] ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων ἀπ’ ἄκρου γῆς ἕως ἄκρου οὐρανοῦ. The angels are the ones who come with him, and he is sending them out on his mission of gathering the elect. Arndt recognizes this and says, ‘δύναμις can well be explained as an allusion to the angels accompanying our Lord’. 56 Though Blomberg does not comment on the meaning of δύναμις, he does say that Mt 24:30 is referring to the time ‘when Jesus brings with him all the company of the redeemed already in heaven to join his faithful people yet on earth and still alive to meet him’. 57 Those accompanying Jesus, whether angels or saints, can be understood as an army going out to conquer the godless and to rescue the elect. Talbert speaks of this scene in military terms, with the Son of Man ‘riding on the throne chariot of Yahweh’ and the sign of the Son of Man heralding ‘the beginning of a war’ as in Jer 51:27; Isa 5:26; 13:2–4; 18:3. 58 Though rejecting it as an interpretation of this passage,

Stein, Mark, p. 613. The Gospel of Luke, p. 776. 55 Arnold points out the LXX use of δυνάμεις referring to the ‘hosts of heaven’ (2 Kgs 17:16; 21:3, 5; 23:4) which the Israelites were not allowed to worship (Deut 4:19) and states that this understanding of δυνάμεις as angels in Judaism is found in 1 En. 41:9; 61:1, 10; 82:8; 4 Ezra 6:6, Spec. Laws 2.4 and Planting 14, as well as the magical papyri Prayer of Jacob (PGM XXIIb); PGM IV.1275 (Arnold, Ephesians, Power and Magic, pp. 53–54). 56 Arndt, Luke, p. 425. 57 Blomberg, Matthew, p. 363. 58 Witherington, The Gospel of Mark, p. 348; Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John, p. 400. 53

54 Marshall,

140

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Wilkins does mention those who see the sign 59 of the Son of Man as similar to the banner raised for battle formations in 1QM 3:13–4:17. 60 It should be mentioned that whether this passage in the Synoptics is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 61 or whether it refers to a still-future return of Christ, 62 or both, 63 does not materially affect the interpretation of whether μετὰ δυνάμεως means with an army. 64 The Roman army came in the former, 65 and an army of angels 66 and/or (resurrected) saints 67 will come in the latter. 68 Fourth, in examining our secondary corpus, we find 44 more uses of μετὰ δυνάμεως and every one of them means with an army/a military force. Following are 19 examples from Plutarch, and one each from Appian and Strabo.

59 It is debated whether there is a separate sign in heaven (for example, of a cross, Chrysostom Hom. Matt. LXXVI; Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lect. 15.21; John of Damascus, De Fide Orth. 4.11; or star, J.W. 6.289; Garland, Reading Matthew, p. 243), or whether Jesus himself is the sign (Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark, p. 536). 60 Wilkins, Matthew, p. 783; ‘(7) When they draw near for battle they shall write on their banners, “The Right hand of God,” “The Appointed time of God” … (8) When they return from battle they shall write on their banners … “The Praise of God,” “The Glory of God,” with their names in full’ (1Q33 col. iv:7, Wise, Abegg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 151). 61 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pp. 340–343; Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, pp. 392–393, 462–463; Wright, Paul: Fresh Perspectives, pp. 56–57. 62 Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke, pp. 940–941, 949–950; Barbieri, ‘Matthew’, pp. 76–78; see the comparison of the teaching of Jesus, Paul and John in Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John, pp. 397–403. 63 Brooks, Mark, pp. 207–208, 212; Davies and Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, p. 3:331; Marshall, New Testament Theology, p. 138; D. Turner, ‘The Gospel of Matthew’, pp. 313–314; Beavis, Mark, pp. 196–200. 64 As Hendriksen candidly states, ‘It is not claimed, of course, that any exegete is able completely to untangle what is here intertwined, so as to indicate accurately for each individual passage just how much refers to Jerusalem’s fall, and how much to the great tribulation and second coming’ (Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, pp. 847–848). 65 Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 360. 66 Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John, p. 360. 67 Roloff, The Revelation of John, p. 217; Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of Revelation, p. 526; Keener, Revelation, pp. 230–231; Osborne, Revelation, pp. 315, 550–551, though Keener says this is non-violent (see also Bredin, Jesus, Revolutionary of Peace, pp. 194–195; Finamore, God, Order and Chaos, pp. 90–91, 114, 116, 170, 214, 219–220, 223–224). 68 Osborne, Matthew, p. 638; D. M. Martin, 1, 2 Thessalonians, p. 151.

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

141

Table 22: Μετὰ δυνάμεως in Secondary Corpus

ἐπερχομένου δὲ Ἀγαθοκλέους ... μετὰ δυνάμεως ἀνέβαινεν εἰς Φρυγίαν (Demetr. 46.4) ἐζημίωσεν, Ἐπαμεινώνδαν δὲ μετὰ δυνάμεως ἀπέστειλεν. (Pel. 29.1) τῇ πόλει Χάρητα πεμφθέντα μετὰ δυνάμεως... πρὸς Φίλιππον (Reg. imp. apophth. 50.8) τοὺς μὲν ὑπάτους πρότερον ἔστειλε μετὰ δυνάμεως εἰς Δυρράχιον (Caes. 35.1) ἐκπεμπομένου δὲ αὐτοῦ μετὰ δυνάμεως εἰς τὸν συμμαχικὸν πόλεμον (Sull. 6.6) ὑπάρξας τινος χάριτος ἐνδόξως καὶ μετὰ δυνάμεως ἐλθεῖν πρὸς αὐτόν (Pomp. 6.1) πορευομένῳ δὲ τῷ Δομετιανῷ μετὰ δυνάμεως ἐπὶ τὸν πόλεμον (Aem. 25.4) ἐνίκησεν· αὐτοῦ δὲ Πτολεμαίου μετὰ δυνάμεως πεζικῆς...ναυτικῆς μεγάλης (Demetr. 15.2) ἐξ Ἰβηρίας ἀπεστάλκει Μιθριδάτῃ μετὰ δυνάμεως στρατηγόν (Luc. 8.5) ἐκ Ῥώμης κατὰ τάχος ἀποσταλῆναι μετὰ δυνάμεως. (Sert. 12.4) ὕστερον εἰς Καππαδοκίαν κατήχθη μετὰ δυνάμεως, ... παρόντος καί στρατηγοῦντος. (Eum. 3.6) ἡγεμών, εἶναι σὺν αὐτοῖς μετὰ δυνάμεως, ἐξώρμησε πεζῇ χειμῶνος (Cat. Min. 56.3) ὢν ὁ Κλεόμβροτος μετὰ δυνάμεως, εὐθὺς οὖν ἔπεμπον οἱ ἔφοροι (Ages. 28.3) αὖθις δὲ πεμφθέντος Ἀδριανοῦ μετὰ δυνάμεως, ... ἔχωσιν οἱ στρατιῶται (Luc. 17.1) Μακεδόνων νεωστὶ γεγονότας, διέβη μετὰ δυνάμεως, καὶ σάλον εὐθὺς (Cat. Maior 12.2) ἀρχὴν δι’ αὑτοῦ καὶ κρατῶν, ἀνέβη μετὰ δυνάμεως, τὰ συνοροῦντα τοῖς Ἰνδοῖς (Demetr. 8.2) 69 ὡς οὖν ἐστράτευσεν ἐπὶ Θεσσαλίαν μετὰ δυνάμεως, τήν τε Λάρισσαν...παρέλαβε, (Pel. 26.2) στρατηγοῦ πεμφθέντος ἐπ’ αὐτὸν μετὰ δυνάμεως (Aem. 13.2) εἰς Βοιωτίαν ἐπέμφθη μετὰ δυνάμεως· ὁ γὰρ Ἀγησίλαος, (Ages. 24.2) Ἀγρίππου τε καὶ Σαλουιδιηνοῦ μετὰ δυνάμεως ἔτι πλείονος, (Bell. civ. 5.35) ὁρῶν δ’ ἀπειθοῦντας, ἐμβάλλει μετὰ δυνάμεως μεγάλης, καὶ τό τε τῆς (Geogr. 16.1.18)

Adding these 44 usages to our previous 24, this means that 92.6% (63/68) of the occurrences of μετὰ δυνάμεως refer to an army. These usages have a high frequency of terms (indicated in the above examples with underlining) for movement (going up, entering), direction (εἰς, ἐπί), of sending and being sent (πέμπω, ἀποστέλλω), of military and government terms (governor, general), and of geographic designations (to Dyrrhachium, from Spain, from Rome, to Cappadocia, into Thessaly, took Larissa, into Boeotia). This would seem to fit the context of Jesus’ statement well. He is the ruler (king), 70 returning with his army, 71 sent from heaven to gather his elect and reign. Jesus will return with his angels (μέλλει γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεσθαι ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων αὐτοῦ, Mt 16:27) who are his army. 72 Thus McNeile is probably correct when he says of Mk 13:26 in connection with Mt 24:30, ‘“with a

Demetr. 7.2 (English) Matthew, p. 784. 71 Witherington, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, pp. 135–138; Ryken, Wilhoit, and Longman, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, p. 769. 72 It is not clear that Meyer is actually referring to μετὰ δυνάμεως, but he does say ‘μετὰ δυνάμ. κ. δόξ. πολλ.] This great power and majesty will also be displayed in the accompanying angel-hosts’ (H. A. W. Meyer, Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew, pp. 150–151). 69

70 Wilkins,

142

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

great host and (with) glory,” i.e. the host angels who are mentioned in the next verse; see [Mt] xvi. 27.’ 73 We have thus examined the evidence of NT lexica, grammars, translations and commentaries, and compared this with the use of μετὰ δυνάμεως in our primary and secondary corpora. We conclude that there is a high likelihood that μετὰ δυνάμεως in Mt 24:30, Mk 13:26 and Lk 21:27 means with an army, and we suggest that this be mentioned in future lexica under the lemmas μετά and δύναμις as a likely meaning of this collocation. 6.2.3 Ἐν δυνάμει Δύναμις provides a good example of the effect of collocations on meaning: whereas the majority of occurrences of σὺν δυνάμει and μετὰ δυνάμεως mean with an army, the majority of occurrences of ἐν δυνάμει do not have this meaning. Our primary corpus yielded 72 examples of ἐν δυνάμει. Our reading of these usages in context showed that although ἐν δυνάμει is sometimes used to mean with an army (30.6%, 22/72), it is not used in that sense as frequently as σὺν δυνάμει or μετὰ δυνάμεως are. The following examples show this usage; the first is very clear, using both ἐν δυνάμει and σὺν δυνάμει with the same sense. Table 23: Ἐν δυνάμει Meaning with an army

πᾶς ὁ ἐκπορευόμενος ἐν δυνάμει Ἰσραήλ, ἐπισκέψασθε ... σὺν δυνάμει αὐτῶν (Num 1:3) ὅτε ἐδίωκεν αὐτοὺς Φαραω ἐν δυνάμει. (1 Macc 4:9) πᾶς ὁ ἐκπορευόμενος ἐν τῇ δυνάμει· (Num 1:20)

The phrase πᾶς ὁ ἐκπορευόμενος ἐν τῇ δυνάμει in this last example (Num 1:20) is found verbatim 12 times in Numbers 1 (vv. 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42). Of the 22 uses of ἐν + δύναμις in our primary corpus which had the meaning with an/the army, 17 have the article at N+1. One structural clue for the meaning army is ἐν + article + δύναμις (77.3% [17/22]). Though ἐν + δύναμις is sometimes used with the sense with an/the army, it is more often used to express manner (something done with power), means (through power), 73 McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, p. 353. He goes on to say, ‘In Mt., Lk. the meaning may be the same, if πολλῆς agrees with both substs’ (McNeile, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, p. 353) and then points out the similar use of δύναμις πολλή with two LXX passages (2 Chr 24:24; Ezek 38:15). This part of the argument, however, is weaker, since two of our Synoptic passages have πολλή most likely accompanying δόξα rather than δύναμις:

δύναμις Συρίας ... παρέδωκεν εἰς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν δύναμιν πολλὴν σφόδρα (2 Chr 24:24) ἀναβάται ἵππων πάντες συναγωγὴ μεγάλη καὶ δύναμις πολλή (Ezek 38:15) ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς (Mt 24:30) τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλαις μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς καὶ δόξης (Mk 13:26) τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν νεφέλῃ μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης πολλῆς (Lk 21:27)

It is interesting, though, to note the frequency with which πολλή appears when δύναμις means army, especially when collocated with σύν (6.2.1) and μετά (see table above).

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

143

attendant circumstance (with power), or a general adverbial (powerfully) or adjectival (powerful) sense (59.7%, 43/72). Τhis can be seen in 13 of the 15 NT uses. 74 Table 24: Ἐν δυνάμει in the NT

ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (Rom 1:4) ὐμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἐλπίδι ἐν δυνάμει πνεύματος ἁγίου. (Rom 15:13) βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλ’ ἐν δυνάμει (1 Cor 4:20) τοὺς ἐν δυνάμει θεοῦ φρουρουμένους διὰ πίστεως εἰς σωτηρίαν ἑτοίμην (1 Pet 1:5)

From our analysis in 6.2.1, 6.2.2 and here (though very briefly due to space constraints), we surmise that when δύναμις is accompanying σύν or μετά it will most often refer to a military force (with an/the army) (94% and 92.6% of the time respectively in our study), but that it has this meaning much less often when it accompanies ἐν (30.6%). 6.2.4 Σὺν τῇ δυνάμει in 1 Cor 5:4 Now that we have looked at the various senses of σύν, of δύναμις, and of σὺν τῇ δυνάμει, we are in a better position to understand 1 Cor 5:4–5a which reads, (4) ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, (5) παραδοῦναι τὸν τοιοῦτον τῷ σατανᾷ. What is the meaning of σὺν τῇ δυνάμει in v. 4? Is this referring to Paul being present with the power of the Lord Jesus, or perhaps with his armies (that is, the angels)? Does ‘with the power of the Lord’ here refer to what is present with them or does it refer to the means by which judgment is to be passed, or something else? Following is an examination of how the phrase has been understood in various translations and by various commentators. In English it is often difficult to tell which sense of with was intended by the translators since with is often ambiguous even in context (ESV, KJV, RV, NKJV, NASB, NASBU). Several translations render the verse in such a way that with is used in our sense 5.5.1 (they are involved in the same action of gathering together): ASV, CJB, HCSB, NAB, NET, RSV, NRSV, TNIV, NIV, NIVU, NIrV. However, GWN (‘with his power’) and NJB (‘in the power’) understand it as manner. There are two factors that affect the interpretation, namely, the sense of σύν, and what it is modifying. First, σύν could be being used in sense 5.5.2 (entities present together locally), sense 5.5.1 (entities involved in the same action), sense 5.5.5 (the means by which something is done), or sense 5.5.7 (the agency doing an action). Second, σὺν τῇ δυνάμει could be modifying συναχθέντων, τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος, or παραδοῦναι. 74 Mk 9:1 is probably adverbial (‘coming powerfully’), though it could be argued that it refers to the heavenly army, that is, angels: ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει. First Cor 2:5 is nominal (‘in the power of God’).

144

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

There is much debate over this second point. Those who understand it as modifying παραδοῦναι (Godet, 75 Lenski, 76 Barrett, 77 Fitzmyer 78) tend to understand it as expressing means (5.5.5) or manner (5.5.6), since it is commenting on the infinitive to hand over. Those who take it as modifying συναχθέντων 79 (Findlay, 80 Robertson and Plummer, 81 Conzelmann, 82 Fee, 83 Thiselton, 84 Garland 85) tend to understand it as expressing association (see sense 5.5.1 and 5.5.2), since it is commenting on being gathered. 86 And those who understand it as modifying the entire phrase συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος but with specific reference to πνεύματος (H. A. W. Meyer, 87 Alford 88) understand it as describing a characteristic (feature or possession, sense 8.4) of Paul’s spirit. Grosheide argues that word order would tend to support the interpretation that σὺν τῇ δυνάμει goes with παραδοῦναι, 89 yet Garland points out that in the three other genitive absolutes in 1 Corinthians the subject pronoun and the prepositional phrase follow the genitive absolute. 90 The parallel between 11:18 and 11:20 and 5:4 is striking: Table 25: Genitive Absolutes in 1 Corinthians

[ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (5:4) μὲν γὰρ συνερχομένων ὑμῶν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ ἀκούω σχίσματα ἐν ὑμῖν ὑπάρχειν (11:18) Συνερχομένων οὖν ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ οὐκ ἔστιν κυριακὸν δεῖπνον φαγεῖν· (11:20)

Godet, 1 Corinthians Chapters 1–8, p. 248. The Interpretation of 1 Corinthians, p. 213. 77 Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 124–125. 78 Fitzmyer, 1 Corinthians Chapters 1–8, p. 228. 79 There is debate whether Paul’s ‘gathering with them’ will be figurative (like our ‘I’ll be with you in spirit’), whether it refers to the Holy Spirit (both seen as possible in Ciampa and Rosner, The Letter to the Corinthians, pp. 204–205) or whether it is mystical (as if he would be transported out of the body to Corinth; Hays, First Corinthians, p. 84). 80 Findlay, ‘St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians’, p. 808. 81 Robertson and Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, p. 98. 82 Conzelmann, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 94. 83 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 198. 84 Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 384, 394. 85 Garland, 1 Corinthians, p. 167. 86 Murphy-O’Connor does construe σὺν τῇ δυνάμει as belonging with συναχθέντων, yet his suggested translation expresses not association but empowerment (view [3] below): ‘When you are assembled, I being with you in spirit, and empowered by our Lord Jesus’ (MurphyO’Connor, ‘I Corinthians, V, 3–5’, p. 245). 87 H. A. W. Meyer, First Epistle Ch. I.-XIII., pp. 142–144. 88 Alford, The Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, p. 506. 89 Grosheide, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 122. He actually concludes that it goes with συναχθέντων because it is ‘more naturally linked’ with it, though he does not specify what makes it more natural. 90 Garland, 1 Corinthians, p. 155. 75

76 Lenski,

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

145

Following this pattern, then, σὺν τῇ δυνάμει would modify συναχθέντων. When we combine the question of what is being modified with the possible senses of σύν, we find the possibility of eight different views: 1) Paul, the Corinthians and Jesus’ power will be present together (sense 5.5.2, modifying an understood BE verb); 2) Paul, the Corinthians and Jesus’ power will be gathered together (σύν in sense 5.5.1, modifying συναχθέντων); 3) the Corinthians and Paul are gathered together, and Paul’s spirit is endued with Jesus’ power (σύν in sense 8.4, expressing the possession of a feature and modifying the phrase συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος); 4) the man will be handed over by means of Jesus’ power (σύν in sense 5.5.5, modifying παραδοῦναι); 5) the man will be handed over by Jesus himself (power being a circumlocution, like hand) (σύν in sense 5.5.7 modifying παραδοῦναι); 6) Paul, the Corinthians, Jesus and his army will be present together (σύν in sense 5.5.2 and δύναμις in sense 6.2.1); 7) Paul, the Corinthians, Jesus and his army will be gathered (σύν in sense 5.5.1 modifying συναχθέντων, and δύναμις in sense 6.2.1); 8) Paul, the Corinthians, Jesus and his army will hand the man over to Satan (σύν in sense 5.5.1 modifying παραδοῦναι and δύναμις in sense 6.2.1). We will examine the merits of the different views below. 1) NEB understands it this way, rendering it a bit loosely: ‘you all being assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus over us, this man is to be consigned to Satan’. CEB has ‘I’ll be present in spirit with the power of our Lord Jesus’. Here σύν is used in sense 5.5.2 meaning that Jesus’ power is present. 91 Chrysostom 92 does not directly comment on σύν, but he understands the phrase to refer to Jesus’ power being present somehow with them, helping them to hand the man over. Winer 93 agrees, understanding it to say that the power of Jesus works with the people involved. The trouble with this view is that it assumes that σύν is modifying an understood BE verb. It is better explained as going with one of the existing verbals in the sentence. 2) This view understands σύν in sense 5.5.1. Thiselton, 94 Fee, 95 Porter, 96 Garland, 97 Zerwick and Grosvenor, 98 and Ciampa and Rosner 99 understand σὺν τῇ δυνάμει here to mean that Jesus’ power will be gathered together with the gathered

91 Murphy-O’Connor comments that it modifies συναχθέντων, yet he translates the verse as if it modifies πνεύματος (Murphy-O’Connor, ‘I Corinthians, V,3–5’, p. 239, see also p. 245). 92 Chrysostom, Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, 1:15 (NPNF1 p. 12:84–85). 93 Winer, p. 488. 94 Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 384, 394. 95 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 206, who identifies power here as the Holy Spirit. 96 Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, p. 175. 97 Garland, 1 Corinthians, pp. 155, 167. Though he also speaks of the power as if it is the means by which the offender is to be judged, he apparently does not attribute that to σὺν τῇ δυνάμει; he is remarking more on the necessity of the power being present so that the handing over will be effective. 98 Zerwick and Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. 506. 99 Ciampa and Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 206.

146

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Corinthians. As Findlay says, there are in effect three parties present: the Corinthians, Paul and the power of Jesus. 100 In support of this Rosner notices that this is similar to the practice in Deut 19:16– 20 which speaks of the judgment taking place in the presence of the Lord (v. 17). 101 Fee finds support on grammatical grounds, arguing that σύν τῇ δυνάμει must be modifying συναχθέντων since it is duplicating the σύν there. 102 From our study of 1,045 examples, we have seen that the most common use of σύν is to link two (or more) entities together, showing that they are involved in the same action (5.5.1). If that is the case here, the phrase is stating that Paul and Jesus’ power will be gathered together in the Corinthian assembly when they gather to deliver the man over to Satan. This view has much to commend it. However some balk at this, stating that it will not do to ‘make Christ’s power a third member of the assembly’. In fact, Godet says that this interpretation ‘needs no refutation’. 103 3) In this view, σὺν τῇ δυνάμει explains what enables Paul to hand the man over. A few interpreters understand σύν to be modifying the entire clause συναχθέντων ὑμῶν καὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος and specifically describing the enablement that allows Paul to hand the man over. This would be sense 8.4 which we will discuss below where something or someone is described as having a certain feature. This is a rare usage (0.9% in our primary corpus), yet three of the nine uses are in the NT, two of which are Pauline. H. A. W. Meyer says that Paul is in the assembly ‘clothed with the authority of Christ … as being present in immanent union with it as Christ’s apostle’. As the one with this power, ‘he could give over the sinner to Satan in the name of the Lord, and be assured that the sentence would take effect’. He states that the expression σὺν τῇ δυνάμει is far too weak and abstract an expression to refer to Christ being present (as the third party in the assembly) in which case he ‘would have written at least σὺν τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ Κυρίου’. 104 Arguments based on ‘he would have written’, however, are shaky at best. Alford came to the same conclusion as Meyer and stated that this apostolic power and authority was something that the ordinary believers in Corinth did not have on their own. 105 Murphy-O’Connor argues that the power would naturally go with the agent of the action, not the action. He offers the translation, ‘When you are assembled, I being with you in spirit, and empowered by our Lord Jesus’. 106 100 Findlay, ‘St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians’, p. 808. H. A. W. Meyer rejects this since he cannot conceive of the power of Christ being a ‘third party in the assembly’ (H. A. W. Meyer, First Epistle Ch. I.-XIII., p. 143). 101 Rosner, Paul, Scripture & Ethics, p. 84; Ciampa and Rosner, ‘1 Corinthians’, p. 707. 102 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 206. 103 Godet, 1 Corinthians Chapters 1–8, p. 251. 104 H. A. W. Meyer, First Epistle Ch. I.-XIII., pp. 143–144. 105 Alford, The Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians, pp. 506–507. 106 Murphy-O’Connor, ‘I Corinthians, V,3–5’, pp. 240, 245. See Malina and Pilch who say ‘… with Paul present “in spirit” and armed with the power of the Lord Jesus. Spirit and power

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

147

The view suffers from lack of clarity. The interpreters who take this view say that σὺν τῇ δυνάμει is modifying the entire clause, yet in reality they treat it as modifying πνεῦμα. If they were to say that it modifies the entire clause by describing a feature possessed, then they would end up saying that the Corinthians (συναχθέντων ὑμῶν) have this power, yet Meyer and Alford are clear that they think that this belongs to Paul alone. This view also assumes a fairly uncommon usage of σύν as describing a feature or possession belonging to someone (see 8.4). 4) This interpretation is reflected in GWN, ‘(4) When you have gathered together, I am with you in spirit. Then, in the name of our Lord Jesus, 107 and with his power, (5) hand such a person over to Satan,’ and also in TEV, ‘As you meet together, and I meet with you, by the power of our Lord Jesus present with us …’ It is adopted by Ellingworth and Hatton, ‘When you meet together, and I am meeting with you in my thoughts, through the authority of our Lord Jesus …’ 108 Reid holds this view also, understanding it as means, stating that the individual is being excommunicated 109 ‘by the power of the Lord Jesus’. 110 Fitzmyer comes to the are synonymous, and both imply some action, here handing over the guilty party to Satan …’ (Malina and Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul, pp.79–80). 107 Much of the discussion in commentaries regarding this verse is about what ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου modifies. The options and consequent translations are: κέκρικα (v. 3) (‘For I … have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus’, Garland, 1 Corinthians, pp. 155, 165–167; so also, Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 206–207, NIVU, NAB, NLT, RSV, NRSV); κατεργασάμενον (v. 3) (‘I … have already judged the one who has done this thing in the name of the Lord Jesus’ meaning that the adultery was done ‘in the name of the Lord’, MurphyO’Connor, ‘I Corinthians, V,3–5’, p. 245, a view which Fitzmyer calls ‘nonsense’ [Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, p. 237]); συναχθέντων (v. 4) (‘When you have been gathered together, with my spirit, in the name of the Lord’, Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 125; so also Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, p. 228, ESV, NIV, HCSB, NET, NJB); παραδοῦναι (v. 5) (‘Then, in the name of our Lord Jesus, and with his power, hand such a person over’, GWN; also CJB, NASB, NASBU, NKJV, H. A. W. Meyer, First Epistle Ch. I. –XIII., pp. 142–144.), or both συναχθέντων and παραδοῦναι (though Thiselton holds to this view, it is difficult to express in translation, for which he simply renders, ‘When you are assembled together in the name of our Lord Jesus’, Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 393–394). Godet points out the parallel with Mt 18:20, συνηγμένοι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα (Godet, 1 Corinthians Chapters 1–8, p. 249). 108 Ellingworth and Hatton, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 113. Their final comment on the verse that ‘[t]here is probably no difference in meaning between in the name and with the power’ is very unhelpful. 109 We are using excommunicate (A. Y. Collins, ‘The Function of “Excommunication” in Paul’, pp. 253–254; Talbert, Reading Corinthians, pp. 14–16) here as shorthand for ‘handing the man over to Satan’, without taking sides on the detailed debate about what the phrase actually means. For options, see Thiselton, pp. 397–400. Smith understands this to be a curse and to mean that Satan will ‘inflict malevolent consequences’ on the man, including physical suffering and probably death because of his sin (Smith, ‘“Hand This Man Over to Satan”’, p. 158). Interpreters differ as to what this means regarding this man’s ultimate salvation, with Kistemaker representing the more mild view that he is a believer who will come to his senses

148

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

same conclusion, 111 yet this was rejected by Godet who says, ‘certainly this preposition does not denote the means by which (διά, ἐν)’. 112 As we saw previously, it is rare for σύν to express instrumentality, though not impossible (sense 5.5.5). Lenski rather naïvely states that ‘[t]he very meaning of the preposition σύν, “with the help of,” settles the question as to whether this phrase depends on the preceding genitive absolute or on the following infinitive “to deliver over.”’ 113 However, our analysis of σύν has shown that ‘with the help of’ is far from ‘the very meaning of the preposition σύν’. While it can have that meaning (5.5.7), it is quite rare. Lenski claims that it expresses the power that helps them deliver over the man, arguing that people cannot assemble together ‘with a power’ but can act ‘with’ or ‘by the help of a power’. 114 However although the concept of gathering together with a power may seem odd to modern readers, we cannot for that reason automatically reject it. Against this view is the fact that means is a rare usage of σύν (0.9% in our primary corpus, compared to 60.9% for sense 5.5.1) so without clear collocational indicators it should not be assumed. Fee is correct that ‘the preposition seldom carries an instrumental sense, and never so in Paul’. 115 5) This view understands σὺν τῇ δυνάμει as modifying παραδοῦναι and indicating the agent (Jesus) by which the man will be handed over. Under sense 5.5.7, we said that σύν + God, god, or demon can indicate the agency by whose help something is accomplished. Some have understood 1 Cor 5:4 to have this meaning (Barrett following Robertson who follows Deissmann). At first glance Barrett’s comments seem to imply that he understands it as means (5.5.5, view [4] above). He translates the verse, ‘When you have been gathered together, with my spirit, in the name of the Lord Jesus, we should, with the power of our Lord Jesus, hand over such a man to Satan’ connecting it with the action of handing over. 116 He speaks of the church acting ‘with the power of the Lord Jesus’ which again implies means: ‘These words do not simply reduplicate in the name of the Lord Jesus, but refer to the supernatural power granted to and repent (Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 160) and A. Y. Collins representing the other end of the spectrum, saying he will be damned eternally (A. Y. Collins, ‘The Function of “Excommunication” in Paul’, pp. 259–261, 263). Quinn and Wacker comment on παραδίδωμι that, despite parallels with later magical spells, the use in 1 Cor 5:4 is better understood as being influenced by ‘a traditional legal formula for capital punishment’, though in 1 Tim 1:20 it seems to mean physical judgment short of death (Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, pp. 155–159). 110 Reid, ‘Satan, Devil’, p. 866. 111 Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, pp. 228, 238. 112 Godet, 1 Corinthians Chapters 1–8, p. 251. 113 Lenski, The Interpretation of 1 Corinthians, p. 213. 114 Lenski, The Interpretation of 1 Corinthians, p. 213. He cites Robertson (p. 624) here, but Robertson’s comments there do not actually address the issue. 115 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 206, n. 46. There is, however, a clear usage in the NT in Acts 7:35 in the idiom σὺν χειρὶ ἀγγέλου, ‘with the help of the angel’ which we discussed at 5.5.5. 116 Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 124.

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

149

the obedient people of God.’ But later he is quite explicit in identifying what he understands it to mean when he says, ‘The phrase with the power … is to be taken adverbially with hand over; with (σύν) is sometimes 117 used of the instrument or means, but in the present phrase it is more personal, and means “with the help of” (as in for example σὺν θεῷ, with God’s help, or blessing; the existence of this Greek idiom makes it unnecessary to resort to the magical contexts in which also σύν is used— Robertson, p. 628; M.M., s.v.).’ 118 Barrett says that his understanding means that we do not need to interpret the verse as if it is being used in the same way that σὺν θεῷ was used in magical contexts, and he then cites Robertson. Turning to Robertson we note that he says, ‘σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου (1 Cor. 5:4) has a technical sense (“together with”) seen in the magical papyri and in an Attic cursing tablet (iii/BCE). Cf. Deissmann, Light, etc., p. 304 f.’ 119 Robertson does not say in what way it is a technical term, but turning to Deissmann we see that he referred to 1 Cor 5:4 and said that it is used in the same way as pagan execration texts. He translates, ‘Gather together in the name of the Lord Jesus, ye and my spirit, and in fellowship with the power of our Lord Jesus deliver such a one unto Satan …’ 120 Deissmann claimed that σύν means ‘with’, ‘in fellowship with’ and ‘is technical in just such contexts as this’. He cites IG 3.3.108, δήσω ἐγὼ κείνην … σὺν θ’ Ἑκάτ(η)ι χθονίαι καὶ Ἐρινύσιν which he translates as ‘I will bind her … in fellowship with Hecate, 121 who is below the earth, and the Erinyes’ 122 and goes on to say, ‘All this proves therefore that the apostle advised the Corinthian church to perform a solemn act of execration’. Here his understanding of σύν becomes muddled: he says that the meaning is ‘in fellowship with’, that is, our sense 5.5.2 (locally present) which is clear from his footnote 2 that speaks of being with Christ. 123 Yet he also references his transcription of the Great Magical Papyrus and translates from lines 2999–3000, ἡ Ἀθηνᾶ. ἐγώ εἰμι Ἑρμῆς. λαμβάνω σε σὺν ἀγαθῆ Τύχη καὶ ἀγαθῶ It is more accurate to say ‘on occasion’, or better, ‘rarely’. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 125. 119 Robertson, pp. 627–628. 120 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 304. 121 Hecate (or Hekate) appears in many magical texts, since she was the goddess of witchcraft and sorcery, associated with the underworld (Arnold, Ephesians, Power and Magic, pp. 23, 25, 33, 39, 58; Arnold, Powers of Darkness, pp. 42–43; Arnold, Ephesians, p. 254). 122 These are ‘Greek spirits of retribution’ mentioned in Il. 9.572 (Riley, ‘Demon, Δαίμων, Δαιμόνιον’, pp. 236, 239). 123 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 305. In the same note he refers to the rarity of σύν and calls it ‘aristocratic’. Our search showed 1,045 instances of σύν in our primary corpus, 2,223 in our secondary corpus, and 785 in a sample from DDbDP. In comparison, μετά occurs 5,530 times in our primary corpus, 9,430 in our secondary, and 1,297 in the same DDbDP sample. It occurs less frequently than μετά, but ‘rarity’ and ‘aristocratic’ are surely exaggerations. Bortone states that σύν was ‘stylistically higher, and at all stages of the history of Greek rarer than’ μετά and eventually dropped out of use (Bortone, Greek Prepositions, pp. 152, 154–155, 166–167, 184). 117 118

150

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Δαίμονι καὶ ἐν καλῆ ὥρᾳ καὶ ἐν καλῆ, 124 ‘… Athena. I am Hermes. I seize thee in fellowship with good Tyche 125 and good Daemon, 126 and in a good hour, and a good …’ and in his footnote 3 says, ‘This σύν is a technical 127 expression in the ritual of magic and cursing’. 128 Deissmann is apparently arguing that when σύν collocates with the name of a deity or demon, it expresses agency and means ‘with the help of’ 129 and that Paul is using it this way in our text. Barrett argues for the same meaning but says it is an idiom and that we do not need to understand it like the magical execration texts. Barrett does not offer any independent evidence; he alludes to Robertson who alludes to Deissmann. So both Deissmann and Barrett conclude that it means ‘by the help of’, but Deissmann claims that it is a technical use as in the magical papyri and Barrett claims that it is not. A. Y. Collins agrees with Deissmann, citing his parallels in the magical papyri, 130 and Malina and Pilch refer to this as ‘a sort of hexing’ 131 while Fee argues that A. Y. Collins’ examples are not actual parallels. 132 124 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, pp. 251, 303–305. This and the previous references in Deissmann are repeated in A. Y. Collins, ‘The Function of “Excommunication” in Paul’, p. 256. 125 Agathe Tyche refers to a goddess worshipped in ‘a public cult to ensure the good fortune of cities’ (Martin, ‘Tyche, Τύχη’, pp. 877–878). She was the goddess of good luck (= Roman goddess Fortuna), (Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, p. 93). 126 ‘Demon’ could be a general term for spirits or lesser gods (Riley, ‘‘Demon, Δαίμων, Δαιμόνιον’, pp. 235–239), often understood as ghosts of the deceased (Beavis, Mark, pp. 52, 93). They are often malicious (Arnold, Powers of Darkness, pp. 23–24), but not always. Nickelsburg says they are ‘generally thought to be good rather than evil’ (Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1, p. 213) and Luz compares them to guardian angels (Luz, Matthew 21–28, p. 441). See Jewett, Romans, p. 496 n. 231 for examples of them ‘leading’ people for the persons’ benefit. For examples of driving out a ‘daemon’ but also of invoking a ‘daemon’ for help and service, see Bock and Herrick, Jesus in Context, pp. 73, 105. Aune remarks that Agathos Daimon is referred to as παντοκράτωρ in PGM XII.238; XIVa.9; LXXI. 1–5 (Aune, Revelation 1–5, p. 58). 127 A. Y. Collins calls παραδίδωμι a technical term in this passage, referring to its use in magical papyri (A. Y. Collins, ‘The Function of “Excommunication” in Paul’, pp. 255–256). Fee rejects the parallels from the magical papyri, but on the basis of the usage of παραδίδωμι in 1 Tim 1:20 he does see it as ‘quasitechnical language for some kind of expulsion from the Christian community’ (Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 208–209). 128 Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 255. 129 Σύν τοῖς θεοῖς (‘with the help of the gods’) was a common phrase. Interestingly, Jannaris describes the sense as together with, in company with, not as instrumentality as in with, by means of (Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, p. 396 [§1668]). 130 A. Y. Collins, ‘The Function of “Excommunication” in Paul’, p. 256. 131 Malina and Pilch, Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul, pp. 79–80. 132 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 206 n. 46. Though not discussing their relation to magical texts, Godet mentions the phrases σὺν θεῷ and σὺν θεοῖς πράττειν, ‘to do with the help of God’ and calls it not means but ‘a co-operating circumstance’ and since he sees it as

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

151

We have a standoff between scholars on one side who claim that 1 Cor 5:4 parallels the magical texts and informs Paul’s usage, 133 and those on the other who say it does not. Can we use structural lexicology to break the impasse? Can we shed light on this crux through an examination of collocations? Deissmann, Robertson and Barrett make the assumption that arguments which are used for σὺν [τῷ/τοῖς] θεῷ/θεοῖς also apply to the construction σὺν τῇ δυνάμει [τοῦ] + SUPERNATURAL BEING, but it is our contention that they do not. In our study of the 1,045 examples in our primary corpus, we separated the two senses: sense 5.5.5 follows the structure of σύν + noun(s) expressing the means by which an action is done, and sense 5.5.7 which has the structure σύν + God, god or demon expressing the agent by which something is done. The examples found by Deissmann and then repeated by Robertson, Barrett and A. Y. Collins might or might not be parallels with our examples in sense 5.5.7 and might have a bearing on σὺν Χριστῷ, yet that is beside the point for 1 Cor 5:4 which does not match these examples structurally. The magical incantations collocate σύν with a deity or demon; 1 Cor 5:4 does not seem to be an example of this sense (5.5.7 which specifies God as the agent), since in the phrase σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, δύναμις (not God) accompanies the preposition σύν. It appears to be a stretch to say that Paul was echoing magic ritual language to invoke ‘the power of our Lord Jesus’ the way pagans invoked Tyche or Hecate. 134 In our primary and secondary corpora we do not find σύν collocated with δύναμις modified by a deity or a demon. Out of the almost 4 million tokens of our combined primary and secondary corpus, never once was σύν collocated with δυνάμει + θεοῦ/Χριστοῦ/Ἰησοῦ. A search of the TLG yielded only one example: σὺν δυνάμει τοῦ θεοῦ ταῦτα ποιεῖς καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ἐθαυμάσαμεν (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 1.13.9) where Agabus tells Thaddeus ‘you do do these things by the power of God’. This is dated to the 4th century CE and shows no similarity to the magical papyri. A search of σύν + δυνάμει + θεοῦ/Χριστοῦ/Ἰησοῦ in our sample selection from DDbDP yielded nothing. modifying παραδοῦναι he glosses it as ‘to deliver with the power of Christ Himself’ (Godet, 1 Corinthians Chapters 1–8, p. 251). 133 Some of the discussion focuses not on the use of σὺν θεῷ, but rather on the use of παραδίδωμι. An interesting illustration is found in I. Nikaia I.87 which reads ὅς ἄν δὲ εἰς τοῦτο τὸ μνημεῖον δόλον πονηρὸν πυήσει, πα[ρ]αδίδωμι αὐτὸν θεο[ῖς] καταχθονίοις (2–5), ‘whoever performs any wicked treachery against this tomb, I hand him over to the infernal gods’ (NewDocs 4, p. 165, §173). The use of παραδίδωμι is of course not limited to inscriptions, but is found in the biblical text itself in Job 2:6: εἶπεν δὲ ὁ κύριος τῷ διαβόλῳ ἰδοὺ παραδίδωμί σοι αὐτόν μόνον τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ διαφύλαξον, as pointed out by Fitzmyer (Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, p. 238; see also Schmidt, ‘Discipline’, p. 217). 134 While it is true that δύναμις is the name of a god or can stand for the name of a god (Betz, ‘Dynamis, Δύναμις’, pp. 267–270; Arnold, Ephesians, Power and Magic, pp. 35, 70) and is used in the plural for spirits (see Arnold, Ephesians, Power and Magic, p. 52, citing 1 En. 61:10; 2 En. 20:1; Eph 1:21; Rom 8:38; 1 Pet 3:22; 1 Cor 15:24 [though the latter is sg.]), this meaning would not work in the construction in 1 Cor 5:4, σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, *by the help of the god Dynamis of our Lord Jesus.

152

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

It therefore seems inaccurate to say that σὺν δυνάμει [τοῦ] θεοῦ was used in the same way as σύν [τῷ] θεῷ to mean ‘by God’s help’ and we conclude that (5) is flawed as an application to this verse. It is also difficult to see how Paul who turned people in Ephesus away from pagan magic 135 to the point where they burned 50,000 drachmas’ worth of magical books (Acts 19:18–19), 136 would echo a magical execration to expel someone from the church in Corinth. 137 6–8) We now come to the final views which understand σὺν τῇ δυνάμει as with an/the army and τοῦ κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ as indicating possession, thus ‘with the army of our Lord Jesus’. If this is the correct understanding, then the verse would mean ‘in the name of [our] Lord Jesus, when you and my spirit have gathered together with the army of our Lord Jesus, to hand such a one over to Satan …’ We listed this above as three views since the meaning with the army could apply whether it is modifying συνάγω, πνεῦμα or παραδίδωμι. This view must remain tentative because of the paucity of evidence. Though there are a fair number of examples of the meaning of σὺν δυνάμει, there are no other examples of σὺν τῇ δυνάμει (that is, articular) in our corpora. Xenophon wrote before our date cut-off (ca. 400 BCE) yet it is interesting to note that both of his usages of σὺν τῇ δυνάμει in Anabasis (3.4.32; 7.4.21) refer to military troops. Origen is on the fringe of our dates on the other side (CE 184/185–253/254) and his uses of σὺν τῇ δυνάμει are not independent attestations since they are quotes of, or allusions, to 1 Cor 5:4 (De oratione 31.5.22; In Jeremiam hom. 19.14.133; Comm. on Matt. 14.1.135; 17.14.79; 17.14.84; Frag. ex. comm. in ep. Cor. 24, n3-n4). Perhaps one could argue that Jesus’ army could be present for the solemn occasion of excommunication. It can be argued (as we did in 6.2.2) that when Jesus returns, it will be with his army. However that is not a direct linguistic parallel since the preposition we discussed in 6.2.2 was μετά (without the article). So although it is quite

135 Arnold, ‘Magic’, p. 582. This belief was reflected later in a canon declared at the Council of Laodicea in mid-fourth century: ‘It is not right for priests or clergy to be magicians or enchanters or mathematicians or as astrologers’ (Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 65). 136 For a discussion of the reliability of the miracle accounts in Acts (such as the episode of the sons of Sceva here, and the ensuing burning of magic books), see Hemer, Acts in Hellenistic History, pp. 411–414, 437–443; Barnett, Is the New Testament Reliable?, pp. 150–156; Bock, Acts, pp. 3–6. 137 See Paul’s consistently negative response to magic and sorcery in Acts in the incidents with Simon the Magician (8:9–24), Bar-Jesus (13:4–12), and the slave girl in Philippi (16:16–21) (Arnold, Powers of Darkness, pp. 31–34).

CHAPTER 6: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 2)

153

interesting to speculate that 1 Cor 5:4 is speaking of Jesus gathering with his army, 138 there simply is not enough evidence to lead to that conclusion. 139 Here we bring in what we have learned from our corpus-driven approach. Σύν is used 80% of the time to express presence with someone or multiple entities doing an action together. While it is true that we should not say that because it is used in sense 5.5.1 or 5.5.2 more often than the other senses that it therefore must be the case in this instance. Yet we can say that if in doubt, it is wise to default to the more common usage (which incidentally should be listed toward the beginning of a lexical entry). It seems wisest to support view (2), wherein Paul, the Corinthians and Jesus’ power will be gathered together (σύν in sense 5.5.1, modifying συναχθέντων). This is a case of WSPD (word sense possibility delimitation) (see 3.7), rather than pure WSD (word sense disambiguation). In other words, it is difficult to say with confidence that we have disambiguated the sense here, yet we can be relatively confident which of the senses of σύν are possible here. Our investigation, we believe, has ruled out the possibility of σύν being used in senses 5.5.5 (means), 5.5.6 (manner), 5.5.7 (by help of the god) or 8.4 (a feature of), and have established that it is probable that σύν in 1 Cor 5:4 has the sense of 5.5.1 (involved in same activity) or 5.5.2 (locally present), or 6.2.1 (with an army). The most probable view would be (2) when you and my spirit are gathered together with the power of our Lord Jesus, and a second possible view would be (7) when you and my spirit are gathered together with the army of our Lord Jesus.

6.3 CONCLUSION TO CHAPTER 6 In this chapter we have continued our discussion of collocations. We discussed the meaning of ζάω and its use with σύν in 2 Cor 13:4. We then examined δύναμις and the meaning when collocated with σύν, μετά and ἐν. We followed this with a discussion of the meaning of σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ in 1 Cor 5:4, showing how collocations are beneficial for WSPD in this complicated verse.

138 This would remove the objection by Godet (Godet, 1 Corinthians Chapters 1–8, p. 251) and Meyer (H. A. W. Meyer, First Epistle Ch. I. –XIII., p. 144) that Jesus’ power cannot be seen as a third entity in the assembly, presumably because it is an abstract force and not an entity. There would in theory be no problem if power actually referred to Jesus’ army. 139 The fact that not one of the 26 commentaries we consulted mentioned this idea gives one pause.

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3) In this chapter we will conclude our detailed study of collocations by using a supervised method to examine the usage of συνίστημι and συνείδησις.

7.1 ΣΥΝΊΣΤΗΜΙ 1 AND ITS COLLOCATES Συνίστημι 2 occurs 330 times in our primary corpus and is especially frequent in Philo. The following chart gives the usage breakdown. Table 26: Dispersion of Συνίστημι in Primary Corpus Section of corpus: # of occurrences: % of actual occurrences % of expected occurrences Philo 159 48.2% 24.3% Josephus 97 29.4% 29.0% LXX 39 11.8% 25.3% OT Pseudepigrapha 16 4.8% 9.8% NT 16 4.8% 7.9% Apostolic Fathers 3 0.91% 3.7% The first column lists the section of the corpus and the second lists how many times συνίστημι occurs in that section. The third column divides the number of occurrences in the section by the total number of occurrences in the corpus to give the percentage of total occurrences of συνίστημι found in each section. The fourth column is based Our analysis includes the orthographically distinct forms συνιστάνω and συνιστάω (Winer, §14.1.f.; BDF, §93; Robertson, pp. 315–316; Kasch, ‘συνίστημι, συνιστάνω’, pp. 7:896–898) as well as the older spelling ξυνίστημι. 2 Lee calls συνίστημι ‘unexciting in thought-content’ (Lee, ‘συνίστημι: A Sample Entry’, p. 1). Though it is ‘unexciting’ for the LXX, it does provide for an interesting discussion of meaning for the NT in Col 1:17 and 2 Pet 3:5 (see 7.1.8). Kretzer has surely gone too far, however, when he cites Rom 3:5 and claims, ‘συνίστημι is a significant term in Paul’s theology of justification and the law’ and cites Gal 2:18 and claims, ‘Συνίστημι in this context is an essential christological and soteriological term in Pauline theology’ (Kretzer, συνίστημι, συνιστάνω, p. 3:308.). 1

155

156

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

on information in Table 2 at 2.12 in which we divided the token count of each section by the token count of the total primary corpus. This shows what percentage of the tokens of the entire corpus are found in each section so that we would have an accurate picture of the proportion of each section. For example, knowing that Philo uses a word four times more than LXX is meaningless since the body of text of Philo is four times longer than the body of text of the LXX. In other words, it is what would be expected if left entirely to chance. A comparison between the third and fourth columns indicates the difference between the number of actual occurrences and what would be found by chance. This is done in order to demonstrate whether the number of occurrences in each section is significantly higher or lower than expected (see 5.3 on statistical measurements). In essence the results show that Philo uses it more than would be expected; he is quite fond of this word, using it twice as often as would be found by chance. The LXX uses it less than half as much as would be expected. The difference in Josephus is insignificant, and the number of occurrences in the other three sections (OT Pseudepigrapha, NT and Apostolic Fathers) is too small for their differences to be meaningful. We used a supervised method (see 2.19) for συνίστημι, meaning that we read through the 330 uses in context. 3 We then composed original sentential definitions after the manner of COBUILD, and assigned each usage to one of the senses. We identified 11 different senses for συνίστημι, five of which were transitive, and six intransitive. 4 The transitive senses are: 1) to gather together, bring together, assemble, often for conflict; 2) to commend, recommend, express approval; 3) to demonstrate, manifest; 4) to commit someone to someone else's care or charge; 5) to make, create, found, begin, establish, start something (to cause something new to come into existence). The intransitive senses are: 1) to consist of, be composed of; 2) to arise, come about, happen, become, begin, develop, take place (such as war); 3) to be, happen, be happening, be going on, exist, take place; 4) to be present somewhere, stand; 5) to be on someone's side in a disagreement or fight; and 6) to be firm, compact, stopped up, congealed, compact. 7.1.1 Συνίστημι Collocated with ἐκ When something (or someone) συνίστησιν 5 of more than one part (or ELEMENT, QUALITY, NUMBER or thing), it is composed of those parts. Common glosses are consists of or composed of. 3 For

KWIC lines of all 330 uses, see http://structurallexicology.wordpress.com. However, see O’Donnell’s discussion of voice, transitivity, intransitivity and ergativity (O’Donnell, Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament, pp. 370–386). 5 In light of recent debates about verbal aspect, it would be fascinating to investigate the differences in meaning when συνίστημι is used in the various tense forms, but it is beyond the scope of this study to deal with this issue adequately. For that reason, we have used the common lexicographic practice of listing the lemma as present active, but have changed it from the standard 1st per. sg. συνίστημι to the 3rd per. sg. συνίστησιν so that it flows correctly in our sentential definitions. We are not claiming that these meanings are only found with the present tense form. 4

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

157

Common collocates when συνίστημι has this sense are ἐκ, κόσμος, σῶμα, ψυχή, ὅλος and μέρος. Philo uses it to explain what the κόσμος consists of, or to describe a living being composed of body and soul (σῶμα 1x, ψυχή 3x, together 9x). Ἐκ is very often used to indicate the parts of which something consists (48/77) 6 and it understandably collocates nine times with ὅλος or μέρος. This sense is the most common usage of συνίστημι in our primary corpus (23.3%; 77/330). Table 27: Συνίστημι with ἐκ

κόσμου τοῦ κατὰ ... ὃς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς ζῴων συνέστηκε (Eternity 4) ἀλλὰ εἰς τὰ συνεκτικώτατα, σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν τὸ πρῶτον, ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκεν (Spec. Laws 1.211) τῶν διχοτομημάτων, λέγω δὲ τῶν ἐναντιοτήτων, ἐξ ὧν ἅπας ὁ κόσμος συνέστηκε, (Heir 311) εὐσεβείᾳ καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἀνδρείᾳ καὶ πειθοῖ ἐξ ὧν τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς συνίσταται (Ant. 6.161) διαπλασθεὶς αἰσθητὸς ἤδη μετέχων ποιότητος, ἐκ σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς συνεστώς, (Creation 134)

A common collocation is ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκε indicating the things of which an item consists or is composed. In our corpus it was often used to describe the parts that make up the world (fire, air, water, earth; ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος, γῆν ὕδωρ ἀέρα καὶ πῦρ [Heir 281]), a person (body, soul; ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος [Drunkenness 69]), or the number seven (from one, two and four, or from three and four; ἐξ ἑνὸς καὶ δυοῖν καὶ τεττάρων … ἐκ τριάδος καὶ τετράδος [Creation 95; 97]). 7 Though not as common, it can also be used when referring to a genealogical list or narrative which has been composed (οἱ περιλειπόμενοι τῶν ἱερέων [Ag. Ap. 1.35]; 8 διηγήσεως [Let. Aris. 1]; μνήμῃ [J.W. 1.15]). This sense (to consist of, be composed of) is recognized by Newman, BDAG, EDNT, MM, Thayer and TDNT. Newman, MM, TDNT 9 and Thayer classify 2 Pet 3:5 here. BDAG and TDNT point out the use of ἐκ which we also noted as being extremely frequent.

6 However ἐκ is not always present. The context of Heir 152 (a, b) is speaking of the world and man being made up of the four elements, though Philo does not use ἐκ: ὅτι ἀναλογίᾳ μὲν ἴσα τὰ τέτταρα στοιχεῖά ἐστιν, ἀναλογίᾳ δὲ καὶ ὁ κόσμος ἅπας κραθεὶς τὸ ἴσον ἑκάστῳ τῶν μερῶν ἀπονεμούσῃ συνέστη τε καὶ συσταθεὶς εἰς ἅπαν διαμένει. 7 This is not limited to the world, LIVING BEINGS and NUMBERS; in Heir 282, τὰ λόγου μέρη consists ἐκ τῶν τῆς γραμματικῆς στοιχείων; in Herm. Mand. 5.2.4, it is μῆνις which consists ἐκ τοσούτων κακῶν. 8 Barclay translates, ‘the surviving priests make up new lists from the archives’ (Josephus, Against Apion, p. 27) and Thackeray ‘compile fresh records’ (Josephus, The Life; Against Apion, p. 177). 9 Kasch says ‘be composed of, consist of, have existence’ and ‘Stoic and Hellenistically influenced cosmology that understands the world as divided into constituent individual elements probably has influenced both this passage [Col 1:17] and 2 Pet 3:5’ (‘συνίστημι, συνιστάνω’, p. 7:897). See discussion at 7.1.8.

158

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

7.1.2 A Rare Usage of Συνίστημι with Σῶμα In the previous section we saw that when συνίστημι collocates with σῶμα, it often means to consist of, to be composed of. However, when collocated with σῶμα it could also be describing a body or body part which is firm or blocked (stopped up). This is extremely rare, found only four times in our primary corpus, twice in the same verse. Table 28: A Rare Usage of Συνίστημι with Σῶμα

γόνον ἐκ σώματος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς ῥύσεως, ἢ συνέστηκεν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ διὰ τῆς ῥύσεως (Lev 15:3a) πᾶσαι αἱ ἡμέραι ῥύσεως σώματος αὐτοῦ ἢ συνέστηκεν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ διὰ τῆς ῥύσεως, (Lev 15:3b) ὐκταῖον τέλος, ἔτι τῶν ὀργανικῶν μελῶν συνεστηκότων· (Creation 103) μὴ τὰ σώματα τῶν ἀθλίων, ὧν οἱ μὲν ἔτι συνεστῶτες εὐπορεῖν τροφῆς ἐδόκουν, (J.W. 5.426)

The examples are admittedly difficult to understand. Regarding Lev 15:3, Lee states that this means to ‘be blocked, congeal ... “or (when) his body [ref. penis] is closed up because of the discharge”’. 10 NETS has ‘if his body has become compacted through the flow’ and Brenton ‘by which his body is affected through the issue’. Hartley suggests that the underlying ‫ החתים‬means obstructed in this verse. 11 It appears to mean that if he still has the disease, he is unclean, whether or not there is actually a discharge happening at the moment. It may have stopped for a time 12 as in b. Nid. 5:1, VI.1 which understands it to mean that the discharge ‘must be enough to stop up the hole of the penis, as it is said, “or his flesh be stopped from his issue”’. 13 Fitzer 14 seems to concur, rendering it ‘to close.’ 15 Philo’s usage in Creation 103 is cryptic, though Colson and Whitaker are probably correct to translate as ‘while the bodily organs are still compact and firm’. 16 In J.W. 5.426, Josephus speaks of οἱ μὲν ἔτι συνεστῶτες as opposed to οἱ τηκόμενοι, those who wasted away (because of starvation). It is difficult to fully understand the meaning here. A more literal translation might say ‘those still standing rather than those who melted’. Whiston has ‘if they were in good case’ and Thackeray ‘those still in good condition’. 17 However, it seems to be the same idea expressed by Philo in Creation 103 that their bodies are firm which is a sign of health. 18 This sense is very rare and as expected is listed only by LEH, LSJ and Muraoka. 19 864F

865F

86F

867F

86F

10 Lee,

‘συνίστημι: A Sample Entry’, p. 3–4. Hartley, Leviticus, p. 209. 12 Gardiner, Leviticus or The Third Book of Moses, p. 120. 13 Neusner, The Babylonian Talmud, p. 22:199. 14 Fitzer, ‘σφραγίς, σφραγίζω, κατασφραγίζω’, p. 944. 15 Kasch takes this to mean stand (‘συνίστημι, συνιστάνω’, p. 7:897). 16 Philo, On the Creation; Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3, p. 85. Yonge mistranslates as ‘while his limbs are unimpaired’. 17 Josephus, The Jewish War, Vol. 3, Books 5–7, p. 333. 18 LSJ list to be compact, solid, firm as a meaning used for animals in good condition. 19 Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, p. 658. 11

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

159

7.1.3 Συνίστημι Meaning to bring into existence An entity or event συνίστησιν when it is brought into existence. This can be glossed as make, create, found, begin or establish and in our primary corpus can be used in a wide variety of ways: for the production of fruit (Cherubim 102); the founding or organizing of festivals (Cherubim 91), feasts (3 Macc 4:16; 5:36), a gymnasium and group of youth (2 Macc 4:9), a group of singers (2 Macc 3:62; 20 Contempl. Life 85); the founding of a city (Ps 106:36 [MT 107:36]); and for the creation of the earth (Creation 26) and all things (Creation 67a; 21 1 Clem 27:4). Table 29: Συνίστημι Meaning to bring into existence

ἐτήσιοι ὧραι τεταγμένῳ καὶ παγίῳ συνίστανται, τὸ παραδοξότατον (Moses 2.125) θεὸς κύριος καὶ ἐπέφανεν ἡμῖν· συστήσασθε ἑορτὴν ἐν τοῖς πυκάζουσιν (Ps 117:27) 22 οἵ τε Ἰουδαῖοι, καθὼς προειρήκαμεν, συστησάμενοι τὸν προειρημένον χορόν (3 Macc 6:35)

This sense is fairly common, occurring 38 times in our primary corpus. It was mentioned above that sense 7.1.1 often occurs with ἐκ, but that information must be used with caution since it appears in this sense (to bring into existence) with ἐκ as well (see Eternity 8). This sense is mentioned by Newman (2 Pet 3:5), LSJ, BDAG and LEH. 7.1.4 Συνίστημι Speaking of an Event Occurring When an event (such as war) συνίστησιν, it occurs or happens. In translation it can often be glossed come about, arise or take place.

20 Translated as choruses (NRSV), dances (Brenton), dance, dancing; troop of dancers; group of singers, choir (BDAG). 21 Translated here as ‘all things took shape together’ (Philo, Creation, Allegorical Interpretation, 51). 22 MT 118:27.

160

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Table 30: Συνίστημι Speaking of an Event and Collocated with WARFARE

ἔρημα δὲ καὶ τὰ τείχη φυλάκων εὗρε πολέμου συνεστηκότος, (Ag. Ap. 2.118) 23 Γενομένῳ δὲ ἐν τῇ Ῥώμῃ κἀκεῖθεν ἐπανήκοντι συνέστη πόλεμος (Ant. 16.271) πολέμων ... ἔρωτας καὶ μοιχείας καὶ γυναικῶν ἀπάτας συνέστησαν (Joseph 56) δὲ μηκέθ’ ὁμοίως συντελῶνται, στάσεις εὐθὺς καὶ πόλεμοι συνίστανται (Abraham 240)

This is normally, though certainly not always, used with a semantic prosody (see note at 3.7.2) of WARFARE or of MISFORTUNE. It occurs with πόλεμος (war) 18x (Ag. Ap. 2.118; Ant. 14.268, 280; 16.271; Joseph 56; Abraham 240; J.W. 1.1, 218, 225; Embassy 68; Posterity 117, 185; 1 Macc 1:2, 18; 2:32; 3:3; Sib. Or. 12.260; 1 Esdras 1:29), ἐπιβουλή (plot) 4x, as well as with siege, death (θάνατος, Alleg Interp. 1.107), fear, disturbance (ταραχή, J.W. 2.266; 24 Ant. 17.44), clamor, danger, 25 negative emotions (λῦπαι καὶ ἡδοναὶ καὶ φόβοι καὶ ἐπιθυμίαι, Abraham 238), quarrel (μάχης, Ant. 15.121), calamity (δεινόν, Ant. 17.335), slander (δυσφημία, 3 Macc 2:26), 26 and pain (λύπη, Alleg. Interp. 3.113). 27 23 Thackeray translates, ‘He found the walls unguarded in wartime’ (Josephus, The Life; Against Apion, p. 339) and Barclay, ‘though a war was raging’ (Josephus, Against Apion, p. 230). This would be an example in support of Sim’s argument that genitive absolutes draw the reader’s attention to an assumption that makes the current text more relevant (Sim, ‘The Genitive Absolute in Discourse: More Than a Change in Subject’). In this instance, by pointing out that this happened during wartime, Apion’s story of Apollo finding the walls unguarded is surely incredible and Barclay’s translation as a concession brings this out. The genitive absolutes in Ant. 6.175 could express surprise that Saul would send away a potential soldier during time of war (Τοῦ δὲ πολέμου συνεστηκότος τοῖς Ἑβραίοις καὶ τοῖς Παλαιστίνοις Σαοῦλος ἀπέλυσε τὸν Δαβίδην πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Ἰεσσαῖον), 7.22 surprise that Abner was able to keep the soldiers on Ishbosheth’s side so long (τοῦ δ’ ἐμφυλίου πολέμου συνεστῶτος), 15.121 as emphasizing the effect that the news of the war had on the Arabians’ morale (Ἐν τούτῳ καὶ τῆς ἐπ’ Ἀκτίῳ μάχης συνεσταμένης Καίσαρι πρὸς Ἀντώνιον ἑβδόμου δ’ ὄντος Ἡρώδῃ τῆς βασιλείας ἔτους) and 18.181 may be emphasizing that Anthony was loyal to Tiberius even in the midst of the plot. However, against Sim’s argument, it is not clear how the genitive absolute in J.W. 1.255 makes a background assumption more salient. 24 Whiston translates ‘There was also another disturbance’. Mason translates, ‘But a different kind of disturbance involving Caesarea compounded [matters]’, then adds the note, ‘This is the same verb (συνίστημι) as in 2.258. Although in the middle rather than active voice, in context it seems to have the same function of adding to existing problems. If taken absolutely, it would mean that this disturbance “came together” (that is, “arose, took shape, emerged”)’ (Masonb, pp. 216–217 n. 1678). 25 Feldman translates the phrase with the aorist optative, εἴ τινι συσταίη in Ant. 4.153, as ‘if he should be involved in any danger’ (Feldman, p. 384). 26 ‘he framed evil reports’ (NRSV), ‘nasty rumours started’ (NETS). 27 We have tentatively classified Drunkenness 91 under this sense, though Yonge translates it, ‘when it devotes itself to the investigation of’ and Colson and Whitaker seem to take it as to deal with, ‘Under the name of piety and holiness it deals with the attributes of the Really Existent’ (Colson and Whitaker, Philo in Ten Volumes). But since this meaning is unattested in the rest of

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

161

This meaning occurs 56 times in our primary corpus, making it the second most frequent use. This sense of an event occurring (to take place, to arise, to occur) is not mentioned in most lexica. Newman gives the gloss arise and LEH as bring about or cause to occur. It is quite surprising that the other lexica omit this sense since it is very frequent. Since the other lexica do not even list it as a meaning, they of course cannot point out that it is normally used when WARFARE or MISFORTUNE is taking place. 7.1.5 Συνίστημι Speaking of Warriors Gathering In sense 7.1.4 we spoke of contexts in which συνίστημι refers to events (for example, πόλεμος, ἐπιβουλή) which take place or arise. However it is also used frequently to refer to people in similar situations: Sometimes when people συνίστησιν, they gather or band together. Table 31: Συνίστημι Speaking of People and Collocated with WARFARE, ROBBERY βασίλεια ὑπό τινων συστάντων ἀνδρῶν Σίμωνι παραπλησίων. (Ant. 17.277) πάλαι στρατευσαμένων συστάντες ἔνοπλοι διεμάχοντο τοῖς βασιλικοῖς (J.W. 2.55) τότε γὰρ οἱ σικάριοι συνέστησαν ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑπακούειν Ῥωμαίων...ὡς πολεμίοις (J.W. 7.254) δὲ τὸν Διναίου παῖδα τὸν συστησάμενον τῶν λῃστῶν τὸ σύνταγμα δι’ ἐνέδρας εἷλεν (Ant. 20.161) Συνέστη δὲ πρὸς τούτοις στῖφος ἕτερον πονηρῶν χειρὶ (J.W. 2.258) 28

This is often used of a band of warriors or fighters in a context of opposition (military or civilian) (τοὺς πλείστους τῶν ἀγώνων [Worse 2]), and the one(s) against whom they gather are indicated by ἐπὶ (ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑπακούειν Ῥωμαίων θέλοντας [J.W. 7.254]; see also Ant. 16.235, 253 of forming a plot against him [ἐπ’ αὐτὸν]). Lee points out this use our primary corpus, we chose to be cautious and categorize it under this common sense since as the complement of πέφυκε it can mean to arise or take place. 28 Whiston translates, ‘a body of wicked men gotten together’, and Mason, ‘a different band of worthless [fellows] united with these’ (Masonb, pp. 209–210). We prefer the gloss to bring or gather together rather than to unite since, though they may both refer to the same action, unite often has a connotation of being in agreement. These ‘worthless fellows’ were united in a short-term goal, but not for the long term, as Mason observes: ‘The present group also appears as a ‘band’ (στῖφος: a close-pressed unit, column, mass), though it quickly becomes clear that they are not a unified group; the Egyptian and his followers (2.261) are but one instance of this analytical category constructed by Josephus. Cf. 4.135: various chief bandits with their own organizations will eventually join, Josephus says, into one band (στῖφος) in Jerusalem—except for all the stasis that follows (e.g., 4.353, 362–63, 371–76, 388–97; 5.20–27)’ (note 1622). Also, due to the limited context it is sometimes difficult to know whether the sense is that the people were banded together (perhaps for the purpose of opposition) or whether they were present (or standing) in a given location (another sense of συνίστημι which though not treated here is shown in the accompanying web site, http://structurallexicology.wordpress.com). Thus J.W. 2.10 could be stating that the people were present, though Mason is probably correct in saying that they were gathered for a purpose: ‘those who were mourning the sophists had united in the temple’ (Masonb, p. 12).

162

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

in Ex 32:1 29 and Num 16:3 where there is a note of conspiracy 30 (συνέστη ὁ λαὸς ἐπὶ Ἀαρών). This sense frequently collocates with words having to do with WARFARE, ROBBERY or PLOTS 31 (for example, στρατεύω, στῖφος [Virtues 43], στρατιᾶς, σικάριοι, πόλεμος, πολέμιος, μάχη [Ant. 17.260], δύναμις [Ant. 11.323]), ἐπιβουλή [Ag. Ap. 2.241]), and λῃστής). 32 Mason notes that in J.W. it can mean ‘“formed a conspiracy,” since συνίστημι has a causative sense and hostile connotation (2.55, 56, 59, 80 etc.)’. 33 Josephus often uses it in this way, which is not surprising considering his prolific historical writings in which he records numerous battles and conspiracies. This is the third most common meaning in our primary corpus, occurring 50 times (15.2%; 50/330). It is mentioned by L&N (for Col 1:17, though see our critique at 7.1.8), LEH, EDNT, LSJ, Thayer and TDNT. We have noted that this almost always refers to the gathering of people and is most often in a setting of opposition, collocating with numerous words involving warfare or conflict. LSJ recognize that this is used in a hostile sense, for which they offer glosses such as to be joined, of battle; meet in fight and LEH mention the glosses to battle, to sustain a siege. 7.1.6 Συνίστημι Meaning to exist, especially in Philo This sense is similar to 7.1.4 which usually describes an event as taking place, yet it appears that Philo is fairly unique in that he often uses it to mean that something or someone exists. 34 We found this meaning 35 times in our primary corpus with Philo providing 94.2% (33/35) of the usages. Following are four examples:

NETS translates ‘gathered together before Aaron’ but adds a note, ‘Perhaps against’. Lee, ‘συνίστημι: A Sample Entry’, p. 3. 31 Three uses in our primary corpus did not have a semantic prosody of trouble or warfare: it is used of water gathered together (Exod 7:19). Brenton calls it ‘standing water’ and NETS ‘accumulated water’; Dozemen comments that it probably refers to man-made cisterns (Dozeman, Commentary on Exodus, p. 214), of bitumen hanging or clinging together (J.W. 4.480), and metaphorically (brings together the minds of, J.W. 4.240). In the former two at least, it does not match our pattern of referring to people. 32 Lee provides a good representation of this meaning in the examples he lists. 33 Masonb, p. 12. 34 It is also possible to include Spec. Laws 2.214, disagreeing with Yonge’s translation supporting and Colson and Whitaker’s spreading exhilaration (Philo, On the Decalogue. On the Special Laws, Books 1–3, p. 441) and Ant. 17.122, disagreeing with Yonge (again) supporting and Marcus favoured (Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Vol. 7, Books 16–17, p. 429). 29 30

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

163

Table 32: Συνίστημι Meaning that something exists

συνέζευκται καὶ συνήρμοσται (5) τῷ δὲ δευτέρῳ ἀνθρώπῳ βοηθὸς συνίσταται, (Alleg. Interp. 2.5) αὔξησιν, αἱ δ’ ἀπὸ ταύτης ἄχρι γήρως καὶ τελευτῆς κατὰ μείωσιν συνίστανται· (Eternity 60) τῶν γὰρ ἀρετῶν ἡ μὲν θεοῦ πρὸς ἀλήθειάν ἐστι κατὰ τὸ εἶναι συνεστῶσα, 35 (Worse 160) ἄχρι δεκάδος ἀριθμοῦ τελείου λήψεται, καθ’ ἣν ὁ δίκαιος Νῶε συνίσταται (Posterity 173)

It is possible that the use of συνίστημι (esp. in the form συνίσταται) meaning that a person or thing exists was an idiolectic use by Philo not frequently found in other writers. 36

7.1.7 Examination of Evidence for the Meaning to hold together It is surprising that several lexica list meanings which we did not find in our primary corpus, namely to hold together, to cohere (Newman, L&N, MM, Thayer for Col 1:17; BDAG for 2 Pet 3:5; Col 1:17; also EDNT), to have one’s proper place (Newman), to continue, to endure (BDAG and Newman for 2 Pet 3:5; Col 1:17). It appears that some interpreters claim for 2 Pet 3:5 and Col 1:17 a sense of συνίστημι which is unattested or poorly attested in other Hellenistic Greek literature. In the following section we will discuss one of the senses which has been proposed for συνίστημι in the standard dictionaries and lexica which are used in NT studies. We will point out that the meaning to hold together, to cohere, which has been propagated in our lexica and has made its way into many commentaries, does not find support in our primary corpus. We will show which lexica make this claim and will examine each of the citations given in support of the meaning. In the process we will examine 37 references in their contexts. This detailed examination is warranted since numerous NT commentaries have assumed the meaning to cohere, to hold together in Col 1:17. The situation is complicated since BDAG list as one sense to come to be in a condition of coherence, continue, endure, exist, hold together, yet to us it appears that these glosses entail three separate meanings: 1) to cohere, to hold together, which we do not find in our primary corpus; 2) to continue, to endure, which also does not occur in our primary corpus; 37 3) to 35 In 3/4 of these examples συνίστημι occurs at the end of a clause. An interesting observation is that, at least according to the punctuation in the edited editions of our texts, in 105 of its 330 occurrences συνίστημι is the last word in the clause, including half of the NT examples (8/16; Rom 3:5; 2 Cor 3:1; 10:12, 18 bis; 12:11; Gal 2:18; Col 1:17.). See Hoey and O’Donnell’s analysis of word position as an important colligational factor in style in which they argue that once upon a time occurs in the first half of a sentence, that yesterday in news articles occurs most often in the second half of a sentence, and the move in the first half of a sentence (Hoey and O’Donnell, ‘Lexicography, Grammar, and Textual Position’, pp. 296–307). 36 BDAG, EDNT and TDNT disagree, understanding it to have this meaning in 2 Pet 3:5 and Col 1:17. See our discussion of Col 1:17 at 7.1.8. 37 Williams claims that this is the meaning of συνίστημι in Col 1:17, having come to mind because of the Aramaic ‫א ְת ַקיַּ ים‬, ִ meaning continue (see Targum Job 15.29; Williams, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 48).

164

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

exist, which is our 7.1.6. LSJ also list their sense A.I., set together, combine which is very similar to the meaning to hold together, to cohere, so we will examine the two references they list under that sense as well. This is a reminder that we must be wary of uncritical use of our lexica. When we see a definition given in a lexicon followed by references for which the Greek text is not fully written out, it is difficult to see whether those references actually support the lexicographer’s meaning. An advantage of CL is that it allows interpreters to see numerous examples in context in KWIC concordance lines and allows us to see which references support which definitions. We will now examine the 37 references cited in BDAG and LSJ which supposedly support the idea that one sense of συνίστημι is to hold together, to cohere. Two of the references do not even contain our word συνίστημι. Under B.3 BDAG list Tatian (II CE), Oratio ad Graecos 30.1, which does not have συνίστημι, but rather the noun σύστασις in the phrase ‘the nature of wickedness’. Under their meaning A.I., LSJ list Xenophon (V/IV BCE) Cyn. 6.12 which reads, ἱστάναι τὰς ἄρκυς καὶ τὰ δίκτυα, ‘let him set up the purse-nets and hayes’. 38 This text uses ἵστημι, not συνίστημι, and is speaking of setting up nets for hunting. It should not be used in support of the meaning to set together, to combine for συνίστημι. Two references which are cited as examples of the meaning to hold together would fit better under our sense 7.1.6 to exist. Table 33: References for to hold together Better Understood as to exist

τὸ γὰρ ζῇν διὰ τῆς τροφῆς συνεστάναι νομίζει. (Let. Aris. 154) διαλυτὸς ὢν καὶ νεκρὸς συνέστηκε καὶ ζωπυρεῖται προνοίᾳ θεοῦ τοῦ τὴν χεῖρα ὑπερέχοντος, (Heir 58)

The example Let. Aris. 154 is a legitimate reference for exist, our sense 7.1.6. Heir 58 is also in our primary corpus and reads, ‘Since the mass of the body … has its existence through, and is kept alive by, the providence of God’ (Yonge) and is also best understood in our sense 7.1.6, to exist. There is no need to render it to cohere or hold together. One reference, Melito of Sardis (II CE), Paschal Homily 91, 681, fits better under our sense 7.1.4, to happen, take place (of an event, such as war): δι’ αὐτὸν πόλεμος συνίσταται, (682) δι’ αὐτὸν τεῖχος ῥήγνυται, ‘a war is started because of him, fortifications are shattered because of him’. 39 It has nothing to do with the meaning to cohere, to hold together but rather fits with our sense 7.1.4 of an event (such as war) taking place. It collocates with πόλεμος which is common with 7.1.4. This lends no support to BDAG’s suggested sense to cohere, to hold together, nor even to the suggested to continue, to endure which is given in their conflated definition B.3 (mentioned above). Six references listed fit the sense to consist of, to be composed of (our 7.1.1). 38 Xenophon, 39 Melito

Scripta Minora. of Sardis, ‘On the Passover’, pp. 5–35.

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

165

Table 34: References for to hold together Better Understood as to consist of

ὥστε ἐκ γῆς ἁπάσης καὶ παντὸς ὕδατος καὶ ἀέρος καὶ πυρός ... συνέστη ὅδε ὁ κόσμος (Planting 6) τουτέστι τῷ κρίνοντι λόγῳ καὶ ὁμοιογενεῖ τοῖς τὰ πάντα συνεστακόσιν ἀριθμοῖς (Math. 7.109) ὂν πάντῃ πάντων, ἔτι τε ἐλαφρότατον, ἐξ ὀλιγίστων συνεστὸς τῶν αὐτῶν μερῶν (Tim. 56b) ὑπερβάντες τἆλλα, ἐξ οὗ τὸ ἰσόπλευρον τρίγωνον ἐκ τρίτου συνέστηκεν (Tim. 54) ἀλλ’ ἐπ εὶ ἡ μὲν πόλις ἐκ πλειόνων ἢ μυρίων οἰκιῶν συνέστηκε, (Mem. 3.6.14) πολὺ θειότερα τὴν φύσιν, οἷον φανερώτατά γε ἐξ ὧν ὁ κόσμος συνέστηκεν (Eth. nic. 1141b 2)

Planting 6, found in our primary corpus, says, ‘so that this world consists of all earth, and all water, and all air, and all fire’ (Yonge). We classify this under our sense 7.1.1 to consist of, to be composed of which is the most common meaning in our primary corpus and where it fits best, having the common collocations ἐκ and κόσμος. It is not an example giving independent support for the sense to cohere, to hold together. Under definition A.II., combine, associate, unite, LSJ list Sextus Empiricus (II–III CE) Math. 7.109, (= 7.109.1–6), ‘every skill is a system made up of apprehensions, and system is number … Everything is like number … and is similar in kind to the numbers that constitute everything.’ 40 This also fits well with our sense 7.1.1, to consist of, to be composed of. Under B.I, stand together, LSJ list Plato Tim. 56b, ‘composed of the fewest identical parts’. 41 This fits with sense 7.1.1, to consist of, to be composed of, collocating with ἐκ and μέρος which we pointed out above tend to collocate with that sense. They also cite Plato Tim. 54, ‘that triangle out of which, when two are conjoined the equilateral triangle is constructed as a third’ 42 which also fits with 7.1.1 to consist of, be composed of, since the third triangle is made from the other two. LSJ cite Xenophon Mem. 3.6.14, ‘Seeing that our city contains more than ten thousand houses’, 43 another example of our sense 7.1.1, to consist of, be composed of, with the common collocation ἐκ. Under their definition B.IV, to come or be put together, of parts, LSJ cite Aristotle (IV BCE), Eth. nic. 1141b 2, ‘since there exist other things … the things of which the celestial system is composed’. 44 Again this is an example of our sense 7.1.1, to be composed of, to consist of, and has the common collocations κόσμος and ἐξ ὧν … συνέστηκεν which we pointed out above were common with this sense. Seven references in BDAG fit better under our sense 7.1.3, to make, create, found, bring into existence.

40 Sextus

Empiricus, Against the Logicians, pp. 22–23. Plato, Platonis Opera. 42 Plato, Platonis Opera. 43 Xenophon, Memorabilia, Oeconomicus, Symposium, Apology. 44 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. 41

166

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Table 35: References for to hold together Better Understood as to make, create οἷόν τε κάλλιστα τὰ τοιαῦτα ἔργα συστήσασθαι, οὕτω συνεστάναι τῷ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ δημιουργῷ αὐτόν τε (Resp. 530a) ἐκ θεοῦ πάντα καὶ διὰ θεὸν συνέστηκεν, οὐδεμία δὲ φύσις αὐτὴ καθ’ ἑαυτήν ([Mund.] 6, 2) ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα συνέστηκεν (PGM IV. 1769) αὐτὸν οὖν λέγω εἶναι θεὸν τὸν συστησάμενον τὰ πάντα καὶ διακρατοῦντα. (Apology 1, 5) ασιλέως μισθοῦ ἡσύχαζεν· οἱ δὲ ξυνιστάντες τὴν ὀλιγαρχίαν (Hist. 8.48) φύσεως κόσμον ἀγήρων, πῇ τε συνέστη καὶ ὅπῃ καὶ ὅπως. (Fragmenta 910.6)

BDAG list Plato 45 Resp. 530a 46 which uses our word twice: ‘the artisan of heaven fashioned it and all that it contains in the best possible manner for such a fabric’. 47 Συνεστάναι 48 here fits with our sense 7.1.3, to bring into existence, to create, which BDAG list under their B.3. Συστήσασθαι is used here in the sense of to organize, to found, which is also our sense 7.1.3, to make, to found, to establish. It is listed by LSJ under their definition A.III.3, put together, organize, frame but as can be seen by the examples they give which refer to school, etc., it does not mean cohere or hold together but rather to found or establish. Neither of the usages in Resp. 530a gives independent support for the sense to cohere, to hold together. LSJ also cite this for their definition B.IV, ‘to come or be put together, of parts’, yet it does not have that meaning here. It fits best under our definition to bring into existence, to create (7.1.3). BDAG 49 list [Mund] 6, 2, ‘… all things are from God and were framed for us by God’. 50 This usage fits well with our sense 7.1.3, to make, to create. BDAG list PGM IV. 1769 51 which Betz translates, ‘from the time when the world came into being’ 52 and this fits with our sense 7.1.3, to make, to create, to begin. BDAG list Apology of Aristides 1, 5 (= 1.2.3) which Kay translates, ‘… the mover and controller is God’ (ANF, p. 9:263). Because it appears at the very beginning of the Apology it is difficult to know the exact meaning of συστησάμενον, though our sense 7.1.3 to make, to create, seems to fit very well. LSJ refer to Thucydides Hist. 8.48 (= 8.48.3.2–4), ‘… they that were setting up the oligarchy’. 53 This example fits either with our sense 7.1.5, to gather (people) in a context of military conflicts (used here for political 45 One might question the use of Plato in a Hellenistic Greek lexicon since he dates from VI/V BCE. Though we have not included him in our corpora because of his early date, his usage is still of interest because of his influence on future generations, just as Shakespearean and KJV English still affect modern English in certain specific phrases, quotations or allusions. 46 Wilson cites this for his understanding of Col 1:17 (Wilson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, p. 144); see our 7.1.8. 47 Plato, Opera. 48 H. A. W. Meyer appeals to this as an example of to sustain or maintain, rather than to create (H. A. W. Meyer, Handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, p. 288). 49 Also cited by Schweizer (Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, p. 71 n. 44) and Wilson (Wilson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, p. 144). 50 Plato, De Mundo. 51 Preisendanz, Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri, p. 1:128. 52 Betz, Texts, p. 70. 53 Thucydides, The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury.

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

167

alliances), or with our sense 7.1.3, to found, to establish, in this case a political body (oligarchy). LSJ cite Euripides (V BCE) Fragmenta 910.6, ‘but observing eternal nature’s ageless order, the way it was formed’. 54 This is an example of our sense 7.1.3 to make, to create and fits well with the examples from our primary corpus. One reference fits better under the sense to assign, to commit someone to somebody’s care, which we found seven times in our primary corpus. Under their A.II.B to unite, LSJ list Polybius Hist.15.5.5, ὡς τοὐναντίον συστήσας αὐτοῖς χιλίαρχον ἐπέταξε πάντα καθαρίως ὑποδεῖξαι τὰ κατὰ τὴν παρεμβολήν, ‘appointed a tribune to show them everything in the camp thoroughly and without reserve’. 55 They err in glossing this as unite; it would have been better for them to have placed it under their definition A.IV.d. place in charge. One reference in BDAG fits better under our sense 7.1.2, to be firm: Tim. 61a, μὲν γὰρ ἀσύστατον ὑπὸ βίας οὕτως ὕδωρ μόνον λύει, συνεστηκυῖαν δὲ πλὴν πυρὸς οὐδέν, 56 ‘Thus earth when it is not forcibly condensed is dissolved only by water; and when it is condensed it is dissolved by fire only’. Συνεστηκυῖαν is an example of our sense 7.1.2, to be firm, in the sense of being compacted or condensed, and fits with LSJ’s definition V. ‘to be compact, solid, firm … of eggs … of blood, honey, milk … congealed’ (though they do not cite Tim. 61a as an example of this usage) and of Lee’s B.I.3, to block, to congeal. 57 As we have seen with the previous citations in BDAG, this is not independent support for the definition to cohere, to hold together. Thirteen references 58 fit better under sense 7.1.5, to gather (people) together, often for conflict.

54 Euripides,

VII: Fragments: Aegeus-Meleager, p. 910. Historiae. 56 Also claimed by H. A. W. Meyer in his interpretation of Col 1:17 (H. A. W. Meyer, Handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, p. 288). 57 Lee, ‘συνίστημι: A Sample Entry’, p. 12. 58 Several of these fall outside the time period of our synchronic corpora: Herodotus (V BCE), Thucydides (V BCE), Empedocles (V BCE), Isocrates (436–338 BCE) and Demosthenes (384–322 BCE). 55 Polybius,

168

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Table 36: References for to hold together Better Understood as to gather people ἐβούλευσέ τε πρῶτος τὸ πρῆγμα καὶ συνέστησε αὐτούς (Hist. 3.84.1) συνιστὰς τοὺς Ἀρκάδας ἐπὶ τῆ Σπάρτῃ (Hist. 6.74.1) Πελοποννήσου γὰρ τὰ δυνατώτατα ξυστήσας ἄνευ μεγάλου ὑμῖν κινδύνου καὶ (Hist. 6.16) 59 καὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν. Ἢν γὰρ ταύτας συστῆσαι δυνηθῇς, οὐ χαλεπῶς καὶ (Philippus 30.5.1–6) 60 δὲ ταύτας εἰς μῖσος αὐτῶν προήγαγον, συνίστασαν καὶ τὰς μεγίστας πόλεις πρὸς (Hell. 3.5.2) 61 τὴν Ἅλυος ποταμοῦ ἄνω Ἀσίην πᾶσαν συστήσας ἑωυτῷ (Hist. 103.1) 62 ὁ δὲ Κῦρος γιγνώσκων ὅτι οἴχοιτο συστήσων εἴ τι δύναιτο ἀντίπαλον ἑαυτῷ, (Cyr. 6.1.26) ἑξαπέλεκυν αὐτοῖς ἡγεμόνα συστήσαντες (Hist. 2.24.6) ἐξαποστέλλει μέρος τι τῆς δυνάμεως, συστήσας καθηγεμόνας ἐγχωρίους, ἐπὶ δὲ (Hist. 3.42.6) ἠθροισμένου δὲ καὶ ξυνεστῶτος στρατοῦ ἥμεσθ’ ἀπλοίᾳ χρώμενοι (Iph. aul. 87) γὰρ ἱππικὸν οὔτε πελταστικὸν ἔτι ἐγὼ συνεστηκὸς κατέλαβον παρ’ ὑμῖν (Anab. 7.6.26) ἂν μὲν τοίνυν ᾖ τὸ συνεστηκὸς στράτευμα. (De Chersoneso 8.17) καὶ ὅπως τὸ συνεστηκὸς τοῦτο συμμενεῖ στράτευμ’ (De Chersoneso, 8.46)

LSJ list all these references under their definition A.II, to combine, associate, unite. This in itself is not necessarily a poor definition. However if NT exegetes refer to LSJ and see a string of over a dozen references which are listed as (supposed) support for the sense to combine, to associate, unite, they might be led to believe that they could insert the gloss unite into Col 1:17, which we believe would be inaccurate. Several commentators have understood this verse this way: H. A. W. Meyer says, ‘It expresses that there is in Christ not merely the creative cause, but also the cause which brings about organic stability and continuance in unity (preserving and governing) for the whole of existing things’; 63 Lightfoot, ‘He impresses upon creation that unity and solidarity which makes it a cosmos instead of a chaos’; 64 Bratcher and Nida, ‘It carries the idea of consistence, harmony, congruence; it represents the unifying power, the integrating principle’; 65 Lohse, ‘Der göttliche Logos, ja Gott selbst ist das einegende Band’; 66 and M. Y. MacDonald, ‘The term “to hold together” (sunistēmi) suggests coherence, unity, and stability, which occur in Christ. It is a term employed in Platonic and Stoic philosophy to designate the unity of the cosmos.’ 67 Yet a closer look at these examples demonstrates that the sense is not the general idea of UNITING, but rather the specific

59 6.16 (= 6.16.6.2–7). A number of the references in LSJ are too broad, so we have specified down to the line number in order to make it easier to locate the citations. 60 Isocrates, To Philip, 5.30 (= Philippus 30.5.1–6). 61 Xenophon, Hell. 3.5 (= 3.5.2). 62 Herodotus, Hist. 103.1 (= 1.103.2). 63 H. A. W. Meyer, Handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, 288. 64 Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 154. 65 Bratcher and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Colossians, p. 25. 66 Lohse, Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, p. 92. 67 M. Y. MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians, p. 61.

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

169

sense explained in 7.1.5, to gather (people) together, often for conflict. Translations of these passages are listed in order below with the gloss of συνίστημι given in italics: 68 Table 37: Translation of References Supposedly Meaning to unite

it was he who had first planned the matter and assembled the conspirators. there he came to Arcadia and stirred up disorder, uniting the Arcadians against Sparta. 69 Did I not, without involving you in ... danger ... combine the most powerful states of Peloponnesus against the Lacedaemonians ...? 70 you ought to make an effort to reconcile Argos ... and Athens; for if you can bring these cities together, you will not find it hard to unite the others 71 they had brought their people to a feeling of hatred toward them, they undertook ... to unite the largest states with one another. 72 and who united under his dominion all of Asia 73 recognizing that he had gone for the purpose of forming, if he could, a coalition against him. 74 formed into an army and sent in advance ... under the command of one of the Praetors. 75 sent forward a detachment of his army ... under the command of Hanno, the son of the Suffet. 76 But after the army was gathered and come together, we still remained at Aulis. 77 found no division either of cavalry or of peltasts in existence any longer among you. 78 If, therefore, our present force is still in being, it will be able ... to make raids upon ... 79 and arrange for the permanent upkeep of our existing army. 80

In several of these examples συνίστημι collocates with military terms (underlined above), such as στρατός (for example, Euripides, Iph. aul. 87 for which LSJ rightly add ‘esp. in military sense’). For Xenophon Anab. 7.6.26, if we follow Brownson here, this would fit with 7.1.6, to exist. If we follow LSJ, ‘an organized force of cavalry’, it fits well

68 In order to keep the node words centered in the Greek and the English KWIC lines, the English translations given here do not necessarily translate all or only the words listed in the Greek KWIC lines, but rather enough to give the context of the verse while still allowing the English KWIC lines to be centered. 69 Herodotus, The Persian Wars Books 5–7. 70 Thucydides, Thucydides translated into English. 71 Isocrates, Isocrates, vol. 3. 72 Xenophon, Scripta Minora. 73 Herodotus, The Persian Wars. 74 Xenophon, Cyropaedia Books 5–8. 75 Polybius, Historiae. 76 Polybius, Historiae. 77 Euripides, The Plays of Euripides. 78 Xenophon, Anabasis. 79 Demosthenes, Demosthenes: Orations 1–17 and 20, Olynthiacs 1–3, Philippics, Minor Public Orations. 80 Demosthenes, Demosthenes: Orations 1–17 and 20, Olynthiacs 1–3, Philippics, Minor Public Orations.

170

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

with our sense 7.1.5 of soldiers gathered together, collocating with the two military terms, ἱππικός (cavalry) and πελταστικός (light troops). Vince translates De Chersoneso 8.17 as, ‘If, therefore, our present force is still in being’, 81 and LSJ as ‘the organized force’. However the context is speaking of the Athenian army staying together (rather than disbanding) and fits well with our sense 7.1.5, to gather (people [soldiers]) in a military context. Again we see the collocation with a military term, στράτευμα, here and in De Chersoneso 8.46. In any case, this is not an independent attestation of the sense to cohere, to hold together. Up to this point, we have seen that the citations listed by BDAG and LSJ do not support their proposed definitions of unite, hold together, cohere. There are several glosses given in LSJ for which we did not find support in our primary corpus. This is not surprising since LSJ goes back to Classical Greek and we are dealing only with Hellenistic Greek, but the question remains whether some of the meanings they give may have misled interpreters for how συνίστημι is used in the NT. For example, under meaning A.I, to set together, combine, LSJ cite Plato Resp. 412a, ‘the one who brings the strings into unison (συνιστάντα) with one another’ 82 with a meaning we did not find in our primary corpus, to make harmonious, to bring together. Under their definition B.IV, to come or be put together, of parts, LSJ cite Empedocles 35.6 (= Fragmenta 35, line 23), (22) ἐν τῆι δὴ τάδε πάντα συνέρχεται ἓν μόνον εἶναι, (23) οὐκ ἄφαρ, ἀλλὰ θελημὰ συνιστάμεν’ ἄλλοθεν ἄλλα, ‘there all these come together to be one alone, not suddenly, but voluntarily coming together, each from a different direction’. 83 This usage is one we have not seen clearly in our primary corpus, which again is not surprising since it occurs three centuries before our Hellenistic Greek cut off. It is a good illustration of the meaning to combine, or as LSJ glosses to bring together (of parts). It could be that NT interpreters were misled by this to infer this meaning in Col 1:17 (see 7.1.8). They also list Xenophon, Cyr. 6.1.54, ἐπεὶ δὲ πάντα συνειστήκει αὐτῷ τὰ περὶ τοὺς πύργους. This could be understood with LSJ and Miller 84 as ‘Now when all the appurtenances of his towers were put together’, though this leaves αὐτῷ dangling a bit awkwardly. 85 The LSJ meaning to put together, also given by Kasch 86 and Kretzer (put together, fit together 87) may have arisen from the root fallacy which assumes the compositional meaning with (from σύν) and set, place, bring (from ἵστημι). However, compositionality needs to be demonstrated and not simply assumed. A lexical item is non-compositional 81 Demosthenes, Demosthenes: Orations 1–17 and 20, Olynthiacs 1–3, Philippics, Minor Public Orations. 82 Plato, Republic, Vol. 1, Books 1–5. 83 Empedocles, The Poem of Empedocles, pp. 54, 114. 84 Xenophon, Cyropaedia Books 1–4. 85 It could perhaps be, ‘Now when all the things concerning the tower were gathered together to him’ (TLP), which fits with our sense 7.1.5 to gather; however, it would not follow the pattern we have seen of gathering people together. 86 Kasch, ‘συνίστημι, συνιστάνω’, p. 7:898. 87 Kretzer, ‘συνίστημι, συνιστάνω’, p. 3:308.

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

171

when the meaning of the whole is not derived from the meaning of its parts. 88 We are familiar with this feature in idioms since the meaning cannot be explained by the meanings of the parts being added together (for example, a person caught red handed does not have a crimson palm). Similar to what an idiom is on the phrase level, a lexeme that is non-compositional is a word whose meaning is not directly related to its constituent parts. It is non-predictable 89 in the sense that what we might expect of a given morpheme may no longer hold when joined with another morpheme, or the meaning of the morpheme might change in dependence on the other morpheme with which it is joined. For example, pre- most often marks something as happening before another thing: a preamble comes before the rest of the document; pre-Christian describes the era before the coming of Christianity. But this is not always the meaning of pre-: predominant does not describe something that was dominant before something else (but means most frequent or common or having superior strength); a pre-occupation does not come before another occupation (but is rather excessive concern for something). In the same way, we cannot presume that all lexemes with a prefixed σύν add the idea of with or together to the bare meaning of the un-prefixed stem. From our investigation it does not appear that συνίστημι has the compositional meaning to put together as has been assumed for Col 1:17. 90 The question we have raised is whether the meaning to cohere, to hold together, which is listed in BDAG and LSJ and has found its way into numerous commentaries (see 7.1.8) as the proposed meaning in Col. 1:17, is legitimate. We examined 330 examples from our primary corpus and did not find this meaning. We then examined the 37 references (four of which we had already seen in our primary corpus thus giving us a total of 363 references) used by BDAG and LSJ to support either this meaning or the similar meanings to combine, to come or be put together (of parts), to unite. Of those 37, we found the following: six examples which fit with our sense 7.1.1 (to consist of, be composed of); two which fit our sense 7.1.6 (to exist); two references which did not actually contain συνίστημι; 13 which fit our sense 7.1.5 (to gather [people] in a context of conflict); one which fit our sense 7.1.4 (to occur [of an event], often of war); one which fit the sense to commit someone to someone else’s care); seven in our sense 7.1.3 (to make, to create, to found); and one in our sense 7.1.2 (to be firm). This leaves only four examples (out of 363 examined) which have the meaning that could be understood as to cohere, to hang together or to combine, to be put together (of parts). These are Plato Resp. 412a (to play strings of an instrument in harmony), Empedocles Fr. 35.6 (to combine), Herodotus Hist. 2.49 (to acquire) and Xenophon Cyr. 6.154 (to put together). These four are early (IV/V BCE) and outside a Hellenistic Greek time frame. Four examples out of 363 seems a very thin base on which to posit that Col. 1:17 is speaking of the world cohering or hanging together. We will argue below, in spite of what several commentators have assumed, that συνίστημι in that verse fits better with our sense 7.1.3 (to make, to create, to found, to bring into existence). 88 Geeraerts,

‘Introduction: A Rough Guide to Cognitive Linguistics’, p. 17. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon, p. 14. 90 Though it can have the compositional meaning to be present or stand (with someone). 89 Murphy,

172

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

7.1.8 Συνίστημι in Col 1:17 Συνίστημι in the phrase καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν has been understood to mean to cohere, to hold together. Of the 32 commentaries we examined which commented directly on the issue, 27 understood it to mean to hold (the universe) together (for example, Wilson, 91 Patzia, 92 M. Y. MacDonald, 93 and Zerwick and Grosvenor 94). Dunn is representative of other commentators when he claims that Christ ‘holds together’ the universe as is reflected by Greek philosophers. 95 In fact, this comment is repeated over and over in the commentaries: Moo states that ‘the universe owes its continuing coherence to Christ’; 96 O’Brien translates ‘all things hold together’ and states that Christ is the ‘sustainer of the universe and the unifying principle of its life’; 97 Witherington calls Christ ‘the glue’; 98 Garland calls him ‘a kind of divine glue or spiritual gravity that holds creation together’; 99 Talbert ‘the glue that holds the natural world together’; 100 Lohse ‘das alles zusammenschließt und zusammenhält’; 101 McDonald calls him the ‘chain-band of all existence. Without him the cosmic whole would fall apart’; 102 Wright translates ‘and in him all things hold together’ 103 and says that ‘Jesus holds together the old world and the new, creation and new creation’. 104 Bruce says ‘all things cohere or hold together in him’ 105 (so also Harris 106 and 91 Wilson,

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, p. 144. Patzia, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, p. 17. 93 M. Y. MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians, p. 61. 94 Zerwick and Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. 604. 95 Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 94. 96 Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 125. 97 O’Brien, Colossians-Philemon, p. 47. 98 Witherington, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians and the Ephesians, p. 134. 99 Garland, Colossians and Philemon, p. 89. 100 Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, p. 189. 101 Lohse, Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, p. 92. Lohse apparently also understands it to mean to unite. In fact a number of commentators use a variety of terms, seemingly milking συνίστημι for all it is worth, and in the process committing the fallacy of illegitimate totality transfer (Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, pp. 216–219). For example, Lohse understands it to imply to unite, to maintain, to sustain, to establish, to have existence and to hold together (Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 52), and M. Y. MacDonald says it means to hold together, to cohere, to give stability, to unite, to preserve, to sustain (M. Y. MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians, p. 61). We find this piling up of glosses unhelpful in the extreme since some of them represent distinct senses. It should be mentioned, though, that it is often unclear when some commentators are offering a gloss or meaning of συνίστημι, and when they are expressing their opinion of an implication or application of that meaning. 102 McDonald, Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, p. 51. 103 Wright, The Prison Letters, p. 148. 104 Wright, The Prison Letters, p. 151. 105 Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, p. 65. 106 Harris, Colossians and Philemon, p. 47. 92

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

173

Mussner 107) and Schweizer that Christ ‘holds the world together and keeps it from breaking into pieces’. 108 From this idea that the world coheres or is being held together, several commentators conclude that this means that the universe is under control, rather then chaotic. Hendriksen compares Christ to air traffic controllers directing planes at a busy airport so that all does not fall into chaos. 109 Bratcher and Nida mention the idea of furniture fitting together—each part in its proper place and perfectly ‘dovetailing’, and offer the translation, ‘everything fits together because of Christ’ or ‘Christ is the one who causes everything to fit together’. 110 Similarly, some interpreters infer from this supposed meaning of συνίστημι that Col 1:17 teaches stability and orderliness in the world, such as Melick (‘Jesus keeps things in order’ 111) and H. A. W. Meyer (‘It expresses that there is in Christ not merely the creative cause, but also the cause which brings about organic stability and continuance in unity [preserving and governing] for the whole of existing things)’. 112 Related to this, some commentators argue that it speaks of harmony and unity. Talbert, for example, quotes 2 En. 19:4, ‘These are the archangels who are over the angels; and they harmonize all existence, heavenly and earthly’ (OTP 1:133). 113 But this is a translation from Slavonic which is all that currently survives; it is not possible to be certain of the underlying Greek, 114 and whether or not it used συνίστημι. Some, such as M. Y. MacDonald, 115 Patzia, 116 Simpson and Bruce understand this to mean that he not only created the universe, but that he sustains it: ‘… this adds something to what has been said before about His agency in Creation. He maintains in being what He has brought into being.’ 117 This is apparently the teaching of Heb 1:3 (φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ), 118 but is it what Col 1:17 is saying? Once again, a look at the corpus did not reveal that συνίστημι was used with Mussner, The Epistle to the Colossians, p. 115. Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, p. 71. 109 Hendriksen, Exposition of Colossians, and Philemon, pp. 74–76; Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, 71. 110 Bratcher and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Colossians, p. 25. 111 Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, p. 220. 112 H. A. W. Meyer, Handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, p. 288, emphasis his. 113 Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, p. 189, emphasis his. 114 Or underlying Hebrew or Aramaic as some argue. For a brief discussion of whether it was originally written in Slavonic, Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic, see Andersen, ‘2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch’, p. 1:94. 115 M. Y. MacDonald, Colossians and Ephesians, p. 61. 116 Patzia, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, 17. 117 Simpson and Bruce, Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, p. 200. 118 Cited by Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 154; Simpson and Bruce, Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians, 200; Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 52; Wilson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, p. 144. 107 108

174

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

the meaning to sustain, to maintain. Our examination of 363 usages does not support the claims of commentators such as O’Brien (that Christ is the ‘sustainer of the universe and the unifying principle of its life’ 119), Garland (‘God did not simply start things off and then withdraw from his creation; Christ continues to sustain the whole universe’ 120), Harris (‘What Christ has created he maintains in permanent order, stability, and productivity’ 121), Melick (‘the continual sustaining of what was created’ 122), E. D. Martin (Christ is the Sustainer, and the verse teaches coherence and preservation 123), and H. A. W. Meyer (ἐν αὐτῷ refers to ‘the causal dependence of the subsistence of all existing things on Christ’ and συνέστηκε speaks of ‘the subsistence of the whole, the state of lasting interdependence and order,—an idea which is not equivalent to that of creation, but presupposes it.’) 124 O’Brien, 125 Garland, 126 McDonald, 127 Lohse, 128 Schweizer, 129 Peake 130 and Moo use Col 1:17 to say that if it was not for Christ presently holding all things together, the atoms—indeed the whole world—would disintegrate or blow apart: ‘Without him, electrons would not continue to circle nuclei, gravity would cease to work, the planets would not stay in their orbits.’ 131 At first glance it appears that Chrysostom is making a similar comment, but looking more closely we see that he is apparently remarking not on τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν in 1:17, but rather on ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα … τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται in 1:16. 132 He seems to gather the concept of sustaining not from συνίστημι in 1:17, but from εἰς αὐτόν in 1:16. Again, we are not arguing that the concept of Christ holding all things together is incorrect, only that this meaning does not come from the sense of συνίστημι and its cotext in Col 1:17. Chrysostom seems to equate the meaning τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν in 1:17 with ἔκτισται in 1:16 (which is the sense for which we argue): Καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκε· τουτέστιν, εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, 133 ‘“And in Him all things consist,” that is, they are created into Him’. 134 O’Brien, Colossians-Philemon, p. 47. Colossians and Philemon, p. 89. 121 Harris, Colossians and Philemon, p. 47. 122 Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, p. 220. 123 E. D. Martin, Colossians, Philemon, p. 64. 124 H. A. W. Meyer, Handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, p. 288, emphasis 119

120 Garland,

his.

125 O’Brien,

Colossians-Philemon, p. 47. Garland, Colossians and Philemon, p. 89 n. 30. 127 McDonald, Colossians and Philemon, p. 51. 128 Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 52 n. 148. 129 Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, p. 71 n. 44. He also cites Ag. Ap. 2.190, ὁ θεὸς ἔχει τὰ σύμπαντα παντελὴς καὶ μακάριος in support of this, yet there Josephus does not use συνίστημι. 130 Peake, ‘The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians’, p. 505. 131 Moo, Colossians and Philemon, p. 126. 132 Chrysostom, In Epistulam ad Colossenses (Homiliae 1–12), p. 319, lines 32–53. 133 Chrysostom, In Epistulam ad Colossenses (Homiliae 1–12), p. 320, lines 5–6. 126

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

175

O’Brien 135 and Moo 136 appeal to the perfect tense-form 137 of συνέστηκεν to say that Christ is currently and continuously holding things together, as does Wright: ‘the world is now sustained and upheld by Christ … The verb, again, is in the perfect, indicating that everything has held together in him and continues to do so. Through him the world is sustained, prevented from falling into chaos’. 138 The perfect tenseform, however, does not rule out the sense for which we are arguing (7.1.3 to make, create, bring into existence). As is well known, there has been a great deal of debate since 1989 over the meaning of verbal aspect in NT Greek. 139 Particularly confusing has been the meaning of the perfect. Campbell states that the ‘semantic nature of the perfect and pluperfect tense-forms is one of the great puzzles in Greek linguistics’ 140 and calls the perfect indicative one of the ‘difficult’ tense-forms. 141 T. Evans refers to ‘the enigma of the perfect tense’ 142 and Armstrong calls the perfect an ‘aspectually problematic’ tense. 143 Yet to our way of thinking, none of the various, competing interpretations of the perfect tense-form rule out the meaning to make, bring into existence for Col 1:17, nor do they require that the meaning be to cohere, hold together. For example, the ‘traditional’ view is that the perfect indicates a completed action with continuing results (Winer, pp. 331, 338, 342; Jannaris, 144 BDF §340–346, Zerwick, 145 Burton, 146 Wallace 147). This interpretation of the perfect fits with the idea of the world being created by Christ in past time with the results still abiding.

134 Chrysostom, Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians, 2:3 (NPNF1 p. 13:271), emphasis mine. 135 O’Brien, Colossians-Philemon, p. 47. 136 Moo, Colossians and Philemon, p. 125. 137 Tense-form is used in the literature on verbal aspect rather than the older term tense due to the debate over whether grammatical forms in Hellenistic Greek express temporality or only viewpoint (see Porter, Reed, and O’Donnell, Fundamentals of New Testament Greek, p. 39). 138 Wright, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 73. 139 Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood; Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. For insightful arguments by linguists outside the biblical debate, see Galton, The Main Functions of Slavic Verbal Aspect; V. Evans, The Structure of Time and the classic works by Comrie (Comrie, Aspect; Comrie, Tense). For a viewpoint covering Classical Greek, see Lyons, Structural Semantics, pp. 116–118; Chadwick, Lexicographica Graeca. 140 Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek, p. 46. 141 Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative, p. 3. 142 T. Evans, Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch, p. 19. 143 Armstrong, ‘The Ancient Greek Aorist as the Aspect of Countable Action’, p. 1. 144 Jannaris, An Historical Greek Grammar, pp. 438–439 (§1862, 1863, 1866, 1870). 145 Zerwick, Biblical Greek, pp. 97–98 (§285–89). 146 Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, p. 37. 147 Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 573–583.

176

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Olsen’s view is that the perfect tense-form expresses present time and views the event from a perfective (completed) aspect. 148 Fanning understands it in a similar way though he adds that it has stative Aktionsart. 149 McKay’s understanding is similar, seeing the perfect as expressing a state consequent upon an action. 150 Understanding συνέστηκεν as McKay, Fanning and Olsen have explained the perfect fits well with the world being created and currently existing in that created state. Taking a different approach, Porter, 151 Reed and O’Donnell understand the perfect as atemporal, as expressing a state, as giving emphasis (‘non-remoteness’) and putting the action into the ‘frontground’. 152 Again, this view is not problematic for understanding Col 1:17 as speaking of the world as in a state of having been created. Campbell agrees that the perfect tense-form is atemporal and gives ‘heightened proximity’ to the action, expressing emphasis by making the action frontgrounded, but argues that in narrative it expresses an imperfective viewpoint of the action. 153 As to whether it is frontgrounded or expresses heightened proximity we are unprepared to say, though such a claim is often ‘immune to falsification’. 154 Of necessity we have had to simplify the numerous issues involved in the debates involving verbal aspect in general (especially as it relates to the concept of state) and the perfect tense-form in particular. 155 Our main point is that the argument by Moo, 148 Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, pp. 232–233, 236, 240–245, 250, 260. 149 Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, pp. 17, 32–33, 35, 43, 48–49, 103, 112– 113, 115–117, 119–120, 126, 130, 137–140, 147, 169. 150 McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, pp. 27, 31–33, 49, 51. 151 Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood, pp. 32, 35; Porter, ‘Greek Language and Linguistics’, pp. 15–17; Porter, ‘Tense Terminology and Greek Language Study’, pp. 46–47. But see the sharp criticisms by Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament, pp. 316–336. 152 Porter, Reed, and O’Donnell, Fundamentals of New Testament Greek, pp. 37, 39–40, 110, 147, 154–155, 315, 319, 322, 335, 364. 153 Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs, p. 11; Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek, pp. 19–20, 50–52, 103–104; Campbell, ‘Breaking Perfect Rules’, pp. 144–153. 154 Fanning, ‘Review of Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament,’ p. 396. 155 For additional arguments see Porter (Porter, ‘In Defence of Verbal Aspect’, pp. 32, 35– 37; Porter, ‘Linguistic Issues in New Testament Lexicography’; Porter, ‘Vague Verbs, Periphrastics, and Matthew 16:19’, pp. 103, 109; Porter, ‘Verbal Aspect and Discourse Function in Mark 16:1–8, pp. 125, 129–130, 132), Fanning (Fanning, ‘Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek’, pp. 50–51, 53–54, 58, 62; Fanning, ‘Review of Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative’), Campbell (Campbell, Verbal Aspect, Indicative Mood, and Narrative, p. 9; Campbell, Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs, pp. 8–11, 13, 28, 72, 76–77, 81– 83, 123–124), Decker (Decker, Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect. Helpful synopses and critiques are given by Silva (Silva, ‘Review of Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990, and Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament: With

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

177

O’Brien and Wright that the verb is perfect in Col 1:17 does not mean that it must mean to hold together, that is, that it is currently being held in place. Many commentators point out parallels either from Greek philosophers (Aristotle, Plato, and the Stoics) and/or the LXX. 156 Wilson, 157 O’Brien, 158 Witherington, 159 Schweizer, 160 and Scott 161 appeal to Wis 1:7, yet this uses συνέχω (not συνίστημι), and, along with Talbert, 162 Moo, 163 Garland, 164 Lohse 165 and Bruce, 166 they also cite Sir 43:26, yet this uses σύγκειμαι (not συνίστημι). One gets the impression that commentators have been repeating these citations without taking the time to examine whether, first, the citation contains the word in question, and second, if it does contain the word, whether the usage supports the interpretation for which they are using it in their argument. R. P. Martin, based on Scott’s arguments, 167 appeals to Prov 8:30 and says that ‘wisdom is regarded as a principle of coherence between Yahweh and his world’ and says that that is the meaning in Col 1:17. Συνίστημι is not used in the Greek translations of Prov 8 and Martin is appealing to the concept of Wisdom as the ‫ אמון‬168 which LXX translates as ἁρμόζουσα (> ἁρμόζω, to join, to fit). 169 From this he argues that it means to bind, to unite. 170 However the argument in Prov 8 fits well with the idea that Wisdom created the world. There is no need to import the idea of cohering, or holding the world together. Interestingly, Scott himself does not conclude that ‫ אמון‬means to Reference to Tense and Mood. SBG 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1989, pp. 179–183; Silva, ‘A Response to Fanning and Porter on Verbal Aspect’), Culy (Culy, ‘Review of Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek, pp. 851–853) and Decker (Decker, ‘Review of Mari Broman Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect, pp. 110–120). For very helpful insights from linguists outside the NT debate, see Verkuyl, On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects, pp. 2, 5–6, 36–37, 101–102, 105; Fuchs, ‘Deixis, Relevance, and Tense/Aspect’, pp. 103–105, 107–108; Lloyd, Anatomy of the Verb, pp. 14, 18, 43–46, 51–54; Johnson, ‘A Unified Temporal Theory of Tense and Aspect’, pp. 145–146, 152, 163; Smith, ‘Semantic and Syntactic Constraints on Temporal Interpretation’, p. 215. 156 O’Brien, Colossians-Philemon, pp. 47–48. 157 Wilson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, p. 144. 158 O’Brien, Colossians-Philemon, pp. 47–48. 159 Witherington, The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians and the Ephesians, p. 134. 160 Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, p. 71 n. 44. 161 Scott, ‘Wisdom in Creation’, p. 220. 162 Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, p. 189. 163 Moo, Colossians and Philemon, p. 125. 164 Garland, Colossians and Philemon, 89. 165 Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 52. 166 Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, p. 66 n. 127. 167 Scott, ‘Wisdom in Creation’, pp. 213–223. 168 R. P. Martin, Colossians and Philemon, p. 59. 169 Scott argues that the vocalization is uncertain and could be understand in a variety of ways (Scott, ‘Wisdom in Creation’, p. 214). 170 Scott, ‘Wisdom in Creation’, p. 220.

178

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

cohere or to hold together, but rather in the final analysis he understands Prov 8:30a to mean, ‘Then was I at his side, “a living link” (or, “vital bond”)’ and concludes that it is a parallel with Prov 3:19–20a, 171 which clearly speaks of creation. Lightfoot appeals to four citations from Philo: first, Flight 112, 172 ὅ τε γὰρ τοῦ ὄντος λόγος δεσμὸς ὢν τῶν ἁπάντων … καὶ συνέχει τὰ μέρη πάντα, yet as can be seen, it uses συνέχω, not συνίστημι. Second, Planting 9, συνάγων τὰ μέρη πάντα καὶ σφίγγων δεσμὸν, yet here he uses συνάγω, not συνίστημι. Third, Heir 188, κόλλα γάρ ἐστι καὶ δεσμὸς οὗτος τὰ πάντα τῆς οὐσίας ἐκπεπληρωκώς; this uses δεσμός as do the previous two citations, but not συνίστημι. We have already dealt with his fourth citation, Heir 58, 173 συνέστηκε καὶ ζωπυρεῖται προνοίᾳ θεοῦ, in which the meaning is better understood as our sense 7.1.6, to exist. He also cites 1 Clem. 27:4, ἐν λόγῳ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ συνεστήσατο τὰ πάντα, which we cited under our sense 7.1.3, to make, to create. 174 Schweizer cites Philo Heir 281 175 which we cited in 7.1.1 and even his comment shows that he understands it to refer to something ‘made up of the elements’ 176 (our sense 7.1.1, to consist of, to be composed of), not to hold together. Talbert also cites Philo, in Spec. Laws 2.190–192, 177 yet συνίστημι is not used in this passage. (Indeed, almost none of the citations from Greek philosophers appealed to by commentators actually use συνίστημι, but rather συνέχω, συνάγω or σύγκειμαι.) H. A. W. Meyer cites Plato, Laws 7.817b, ἡ πολιτεία ξυνέστηκε μίμησις τοῦ καλλίστου … βίου to argue that συνίστημι means to sustain, yet in context it fits better with our meaning 7.1.1, to consist of, to be composed of in the sense that something written is composed. As the tragedians compose poems, so the leaders of the city compose polity. He also cites Herodotus, Hist. 7.225.1, τοῦτο δὲ συνεστήκε μέχρι οὗ οἱ σὺν Ἐπιάλτῃ παρεγένοντο yet the meaning there is to happen, to take place, our sense 7.1.4, speaking of a battle (‘the battle went on until the men with Epialtes arrived’ 178). 179 As can be seen above from multiple references to the same commentators, a number of them seem to have fallen into the trap of illegitimate totality transfer 180 in that they mention several meanings for συνίστημι and assume that all of them obtain Scott, ‘Wisdom in Creation’, pp. 222–223, emphasis mine. appealed to by Scott (Scott, ‘Wisdom in Creation’, p. 220), Lohse (Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 52 n. 147) and Schweizer (Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, p. 71 n. 44). 173 Also appealed to by H. A. W. Meyer (H. A. W. Meyer, Handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, p. 288) and Bruce (Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians, p. 65 n. 126). 174 Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 154. 175 Also cited by Wilson (Wilson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, p. 144). 176 Schweizer, The Letter to the Colossians, p. 71 n. 44. 177 Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, p. 189. 178 Herodotus, The Persian Wars. 179 H. A. W. Meyer, Handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians, p. 288 180 Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language, p. 216–219. 171

172 Also

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

179

for Col 1:17. Some, in our opinion, started on the right track by understanding Col 1:17 to be saying that in Christ the world was created. For example, at first it seems that Lohse recognizes this. He refers to some of the same passages (Resp. 530a; [Mund.] 6, 2; Heir 281) as the other commentators above, but understands them to mean that the world was established or constituted (‘daß Gottes Schöpfung festen Bestand hat’ 181) (our sense 7.1.3), or that it is composed 182 (Heir 311; P. Oxy. 11, 1380, 183–85 183 re: Isis, ἐξ ὧν ἅπαντα συνέστηκεν, ‘of which all things are composed’) (7.1.1). But then he goes on, as the others do, to add that Christ is the bond holding things together (citing Sir 43:26, Heir 23, 184 58; Flight 112). 185 In our opinion this is going too far. From our examination above of 363 occurrences we found no usages that mean to cohere, to hold together, and only four (and that from the Classical Greek period) with the meaning to put together. Compelling reasons cannot be found to support the claim that to cohere, to hold together, despite being repeated by numerous commentators, is the meaning of συνίστημι in Col 1:17. 186 Rather, in the poetic structure 187 of Colossians 1, συνίστημι is expressing an idea similar to κτίζω which is used in the preceding verse: 181 Lohse,

Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, p. 92. Pagels, this does not support a gnostic interpretation: ‘Such statements as Col 1:16–17 show (according to Valentinian exegesis) that the savior not only is “from the aions” but contains within himself “all things” (i.e., the pleroma) as he descends from the pleroma into the regions below’ (Pagels, The Gnostic Paul, p. 137). 183 Also cited by Wilson (Wilson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, p. 144). 184 Talbert appeals to this text as well, though it uses συνέχω, not συνίστημι. Talbert gives only the English which is quite misleading since the English reader will assume that Heir 23 uses the same Greek lemma as Col 1:17, which it does not (Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, p. 188). 185 Lohse, A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, p. 52. 186 The perfect active participle συνεστῶσα in 2 Pet 3:5 probably has the same sense as Col 1:17 to create, to bring into existence. A number of commentators understand it this way (Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, pp. 351, 356–358; Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, pp. 296–298; Kistemaker, Exposition of Peter, and Jude, pp. 328–329; Arichea and Hatton, A Translator’s Handbook on the Second Letter from Peter, pp. 147–148; Moo, 2 Peter and Jude, pp. 169–170; Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, pp. 375–376; Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, pp. 268–270. In his other work on 2 Peter, Davids also gives the alternative interpretation to cohere, hold together (Davids, 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text, p. 97–98), held by Green (Green, Jude and 2 Peter, pp. 314, 319–320) and Witherington, though the latter acknowledges that the passage is talking about the Genesis creation (Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, pp. 369, 373–374). Our arguments against the sense to cohere, hold together in Col 1:17 would also apply to 2 Pet 3:5. Or 2 Pet 3:5 could have our sense 7.1.1 indicating that the world is composed of water, though this is doubtful and is intertwined with the debatable issues of how ἐκ (a common collocation for sense 7.1.1) is used and whether συνεστῶσα is modifying οὐρανός, γῆ or both (Titrud, ‘The Function of καί in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2 Peter’, p. 265). 187 Most understand Col 1:15–20 as a hymn which the author of Colossians is quoting (for example, Furnish, ‘Colossians, Epistle to the’, pp. 1:1090–1091; Keesmaat, ‘Colossians, Book 182 Contra

180

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (16)

(17)

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι· τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται· καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν

Τὰ πάντα is found in parallel three times, referring to all of creation, and the sense is that all things were created (κτίζω) in (or by) Christ, all things were created (κτίζω) through him and for him, and all things were created or exist (συνίστημι) in (or by) him. This fits with what Chrysostom said, Καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκε· τουτέστιν, εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτιστα. 188 The use of συνίστημι, not only in our primary corpus but in almost all the other passages which we have examined to which appeal has been made by the lexica and commentators, leads us to conclude that it is much more likely that the meaning is one of two senses which we found to be common in our primary corpus: our sense 7.1.6, to exist (35x in our primary corpus), or most likely, sense 7.1.3 to make, create, bring into existence (38x in our primary corpus). Colossians 1:17 then would be saying either that all things exist or have their existence by Christ, or more likely, that all things were created by Christ.

7.2 ΣΥΝΕΊΔΗΣΙΣ AND ITS COLLOCATES Συνείδησις occurs 53 times in our primary corpus, 29 of which are in the NT. L&N offer two glosses for the lexeme συνείδησις: 1) be aware of, and 2) conscience, and one gloss for the phrase καυστηριάζομαι τὴν συνείδησιν, be insensitive to. LSJ list six glosses: 1) knowledge shared with another, 2) information, 3) knowledge, 4) consciousness, 5) conscience, and 6) complicity. BDAG offer three definitions: 1) ‘awareness of information about something, consciousness’; 2) ‘the inward faculty of distinguishing right and wrong, moral consciousness, conscience’; and 3) ‘attentiveness to obligation, conscientiousness.’ BDAG assign all the NT occurrences to definition (2) except for 1 Pet 2:19 and Heb 10:2 and we concur with their judgment, and 1 Clem. 2.4 to definition (3). What we seek to point out below is that the disambiguation of sense (conscience vs. consciousness) is signalled by a colligation. We examined our primary corpus using a supervised method. The vast majority of uses (88.7%, 47/53) had meaning (2) from BDAG, conscience. Very often it was modified by an evaluative adjective, such as in clean conscience, evil conscience, good conscience, of’, pp. 119, 122; Fleming, Contextualization in the New Testament, p. 220; and MHT4, pp. 98–99, who sees the possibility that 1:13–20 forms a chiasmus). Houlden uses the term hymn but also suggests creed as a proper appellation to describe its contents (Houlden, Paul’s Letters from Prison, p. 156). 188 Chrysostom, In Epistulam ad Colossenses (Homiliae 1–12), p. 320 lines 5–6.

CHAPTER 7: COLLOCATIONS AND COLLIGATIONS (PART 3)

181

etc. Examples include καθαρός (1 Tim 1:5; 3:9; 2 Tim 1:3; Titus 1:15, 1 Clem. 45.7), κακός (Ant. 16.212), ἀγαθός (Acts 23:1; 1 Pet 3:16, 21; 1 Clem. 41.1), καλός (Heb 13:18; 2 Clem 16.2), πονηρός (Heb 10:22; Herm. Mand. 3.4; Barn. 19.12; Did. 4.14), σεμνός (1 Clem. 1.3), ἄμωμος and ἁγνός (Ign. Pol. 5.2; Ign. Trall. 6.2). Table 38: Συνείδησις Meaning conscience

ἐν ἀληθείᾳ πορεύεσθαι καὶ πονηρὰν συνείδησιν μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς (Herm. Mand 3.4) οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν (1 Pet 3:21) πίστεως ῥεραντισμένοι τὰς καρδίας ἀπὸ συνειδήσεως πονηρᾶς καὶ λελουσμένοι τὸ σῶμα (Heb 10:22)

This leaves six usages (11.3%, 6/53) where it means consciousness. In none of them is it modified by an evaluative adjective and in each one it is accompanied by a genitive phrase which modifies συνείδησις and indicates the item of which the person is conscious, for example, consciousness of sins; consciousness of what they had done; consciousness of having committed some transgressions; consciousness of iniquities. Table 39: Συνείδησις Meaning consciousness

διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν ἔχειν ἔτι συνείδησιν ἁμαρτιῶν τοὺς λατρεύοντας ἅπαξ (Heb 10:2) παραστήματι ψυχῆς, τὸ πλέον δὲ συνειδήσει τῶν εἰργασμένων (J.W. 4.193) φόβῳ δεσποτικῶν ἀπειλῶν ἢ συνειδήσει τινῶν ἁμαρτημάτων ἢ μηδὲν ἠδικηκώς (Virtues 124) τὸν βραχύτατον χρόνον ἑορτάζει, συνειδήσει τῶν ἀδικημάτων ἀγχόμενος καὶ (Spec. Laws 2.49) ἱκετεύωμεν οὖν τὸν θεὸν οἱ συνειδήσει τῶν οἰκείων ἀδικημάτων ἐλεγχόμενοι (Worse 146) τοῦτο γὰρ χάρις εἰ διὰ συνείδησιν θεοῦ ὑποφέρει τις λύπας πάσχων ἀδίκως (1 Pet 2:19)

Kelly comments that the phrase in the last example we cite above, 1 Pet 2:19, ‘is extremely obscure and has caused commentators a great deal of trouble’, 189 yet we believe that we can determine the meaning by paying attention to the colligation, namely, the genitive θεοῦ. Here συνείδησις is not modified by an evaluative adjective such as often happens with the sense conscience, 190 but is followed by a genitive which often happens with the sense consciousness. Here the genitive is God and the EVV vary on how it should be understood. Some take it as meaning (1) in BDAG, conscience and translate conscience toward God (KJV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NET), while others take it as meaning (2) in BDAG, consciousness and translate accordingly as consciousness of God (NAB, Zerwick and Grosvenor, 191 Kelly, 192 Achtemeier, 193 Schreiner, 194 Jobes, 195 Dubis 196), Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, p. 116. Unless we accept the vll. ἀγαθὴν (C Ψ 323 614 630 945 1241 1505 1739 sy) or ἀγαθήν θεοῦ (p72 A* 33 81) which would mean through a good conscience (toward God). 191 Zerwick and Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. 708. 192 Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and Jude, pp 114, 116–117. 193 Achtemeier, 1 Peter, p. 189. 194 Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 139. 195 Jobes, 1 Peter, p. 180. 196 Dubis, 1 Peter, p. 73. 189 190

182

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

conscious of God (NIV, NIVU, TNIV), mindful of God (RSV, ESV), aware of God (NRSV, [GWN]), understanding of God (CEB), awareness of God (NJB, Kistemaker, 197 Waltner 198), or a conscious commitment to God (Michaels 199). Meaning (3) from BDAG is unlikely for this passage since it is rare and the only clear usage in our primary corpus is 1 Clem. 2.4 where it is the object of μετά. Since our use in 1 Pet 2:19 it is not being modified by an evaluative adjective nor is it the object of μετά, and because it has a following genitive, it would probably be best to take it as consciousness, with the understanding that it means mindful of God in the sense of being conscious of the fact that the suffering is God’s will. This is captured by HCSB (mindful of God’s will), TEV (conscious of his will), and Arichea and Nida (who explain the meaning as being conscious that this suffering is God’s will). 200

7.3 CONCLUSION TO CHAPTER 7 In this chapter we looked in detail at συνίστημι in 363 uses, in our primary corpus and also in BDAG and LSJ. We discussed several of its senses especially as related to collocations (for example, ἐκ, σῶμα, WARFARE). We examined and found wanting the claim that συνίστημι in Col 1:17 means to cohere, to hold together, and presented evidence in support of the meaning to bring into existence, to create. Turning to συνείδησις we saw that it means conscience when colligated with an evaluative adjective, but consciousness when colligated with a genitive phrase. We believe that the debate over its meaning in 1 Pet 2:19 can be resolved by noticing this colligation, and thus that there it means consciousness.

Kistemaker, Exposition of Peter, and Jude, p. 105. Waltner, ‘1 Peter’, p. 90. 199 Michaels, 1 Peter, pp. 133, 140. 200 Arichea and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from Peter, pp. 79–80. 197 198

CHAPTER 8: SEMANTIC PREFERENCE In this chapter we will discuss three senses in which the meaning of σύν is indicated by semantic preference. These include the use of σύν to indicate inclusion of SMALLER ‘PARTS’ (8.2), the use of σύν to indicate transportation of items (8.3), and the use of σύν to refer to a FEATURE or POSSESSION (8.4).

8.1 SEMANTIC SETS AND SEMANTIC PREFERENCE Some of the examples we have looked at so far consist of a node word collocating with other specific lexemes. In other examples the collocations are not specific lexemes but rather groups of words related to one another in a semantic domain (for example, in 5.5.2, σύν collocated with words for BEING, LIVING, DWELLING). That is, some lexemes have a specific sense when collocated with words from the same semantic domain. Also, sometimes the meaning of a node is affected by a kind of word which is more difficult to classify. As an example, Sinclair found that borders on is usually followed by ‘objects [which] share unusual meanings, of a mental state or character trait which is considered abnormal or extreme’. 1 Examples include borders on arrogance, borders on cartel-like behavior, borders on demagoguery, borders on genocide, and borders on incompetence. Sinclair used the term semantic preference to describe this phenomenon ‘[w]here the structure of a phrase … shows repeated choices of words with similar meaning (though not necessarily the same words)’. 2 He observed that the findings show not so much that borders on collocates with a specific lexical unit, but rather with words of a specific semantic preference, 3 for example, words expressing ABNORMALITY or EXTREMENESS. Hoey recognizes that the collocational nesting of COMMUNICATIVE INTERCHANGE (for example, hear, speak) + a word against is ‘primed to have pragmatic 4 association with both denial and hypotheticality’ (for example, I would never say a word 1 Sinclair,

Reading Concordances, p. 71. Sinclair, Reading Concordances, p. 146. 3 Hoey prefers the term semantic association (Hoey and O’Donnell, ‘Lexicography, Grammar, and Textual Position’, p. 295). 4 The literature disagrees whether this part of meaning is semantic or pragmatic (see Blakemore, Semantic Constraints on Relevance, pp. 114–116, 119; Sinclair, Reading Concordances, p. 117; Burkhanov, ‘Pragmatic Specifications’, p. 103). 2

183

184

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

against him; Esther would not hear a word against them). 5 For the lexical unit true feelings, Sinclair found that the most common words appearing to the left of the node were words which have to do with EXPRESSION or CONCEALMENT, such as share his true feelings, mask her true feelings, showed her true feelings, admit his true feelings, etc. 6 We can say that there is a cline in which ‘[s]emantic preference is one step more abstract than colligation, which in turn is more abstract than collocation’. 7 In the following sections we will deal with σύν and three of its senses in which it manifests this concept of semantic preference.

8.2 ΣΎΝ USED TO INCLUDE SMALLER ‘PARTS’ When a smaller or more specific entity is mentioned σύν a larger or more general entity, that smaller or more specific entity is included in the larger or more general one. Examples include the whole animal including (σύν) the hide and flesh and blood and belly full of the contents, the robe including (σύν) the hanging ornaments, and the sheep including (σύν) their wool. 8 Table 40: Σύν Used to Include SMALLER ‘PARTS’ εἶθ’ ὅλην κατακαίειν σὺν δορᾷ καὶ κρέασι καὶ αἵματι καὶ πλήρει (Spec. Laws 1.268) ὀκτωκαίδεκα καὶ πεντακισχίλιοι σὺν ἡγεμόσι καὶ ταξιάρχαις (Ant. 10.21) τέσσαρας πόλεις προστίθησιν σὺν ταῖς τοπαρχίαις (J.W. 2.252) τὸ στέαρ καὶ τὴν ὀσφὺν ἄμωμον· σὺν ταῖς ψόαις περιελεῖ αὐτό· (Lev 3:9) αὐτοῦ μυριάδας εἴκοσι προβάτων σὺν τοῖς πόκοις (Ant. 9.29) πᾶσιν τοῖς ἁγίοις ... ἐν Φιλίπποις σὺν ἐπισκόποις καὶ διακόνοις (Phil 1:1) 9 ὁρμὴ τῶν ἐθνῶν τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων σὺν τοῖς ἄρχουσιν αὐτῶν ὑβρίσαι καὶ λιθοβολῆσαι (Acts 14:5) In these constructions the part modified by σύν is the smaller or more specific part, though by smaller we do not mean always smaller in physical size. For example the toparchies covered a larger land mass than the cities, but the cities were more powerful and important and exercised some authority over the villages in the toparchies. 10 Josephus (J.W. 2.252) speaks of πόλεις προστίθησιν σὺν ταῖς τοπαρχίαις. Understanding this sense requires encyclopedic knowledge (3.7.5) in that one has to know that the wool is on the sheep, the ornaments are on the robe, or that a large number includes a small group, such as in Ant. 10.21, ‘a hundred fourscore and five thousand, with their captains and generals, were destroyed’ (Whiston). 5 Hoey,

Lexical Priming, p. 29. Reading Concordances, pp. 144, 146. 7 Sinclair, Reading Concordances, p. 146. 8 According to Arichea and Nida, Gal 5:24 could be understood in this sense, that is, ‘have crucified the flesh including its passions and desires’, though 8.4 below is another possibility (Arichea and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, p. 142). 9 Assuming the commonly accepted reading, as opposed to συνεπισκόποις found in B2 D2 K Pvid 075. 33. 1241s. 1739. 1881 al r; Casspt (Hawthorne, Philippians, p. 3). 10 Jeffers, The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era, pp. 65–67. 6 Sinclair,

CHAPTER 8: SEMANTIC PREFERENCE

185

There are two NT passages with this sense. In Phil 1:1 the overseers and deacons are specifically mentioned yet they are included in ‘all the saints’ mentioned previously in the verse. 11 Similarly, when Acts 14:5 mentions the Gentiles and the Jews with their leaders, these leaders are included in the group, that is, these leaders were Gentiles and Jews who attempted to stone Paul and Barnabas.

8.3 ΣΎΝ WITH TRANSPORTABLE ITEMS When people bring a TRANSPORTABLE ITEM σύν themselves, they are carrying or transporting it. This sense is not so much present when σύν is collocated with one specific word but rather when it is used with verbs of CARRYING (for example, φέρω), TRAVELING and MOVING (for example, ἐξαίρω, μετάγω), ENTERING (for example, παρέρχομαι), RUNNING (for example, ἐκτρέχω), etc., and with nouns for things which are portable (such as baggage, daggers, censers, gifts, etc.). Table 41: Σύν with TRANSPORTABLE ITEMS ἔφερον δὲ σὺν αὐτοῖς ὅσα λοιπὰ πρὸς τὴν θυσίαν ἦν πλὴν ἱερείου (Ant. 1.227) ἐξῆραν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἰσραὴλ σὺν ἀπαρτίαις αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τοῦ Σινά (Num 10:12) ἐκδραμόντες Ῥωμαῖοι σὺν ἐγχειριδίοις τοὺς μὲν αὐτῶν ἀπέκτειναν, (Ant. 14.329) οἴκους δισχιλίους σὺν ἐπισκευῇ μεταγαγεῖν. (Ant. 12.149) παρελθόντων δὲ σὺν τοῖς ἀπεσταλμένοις δώροις καὶ ταῖς διαφόροις (Let. Aris. 176) συνεπέμψαμεν δὲ μετ’ αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀδελφὸν οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ διὰ πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ χειροτονηθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν συνέκδημος ἡμῶν σὺν τῇ χάριτι ταύτῃ τῇ διακονουμένῃ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν πρὸς τὴν (2 Cor 8:18–19) This is a rare usage, only 1% (10/1,045) 12 in our primary corpus and the only NT usage is 2 Cor 8:19. In the example above we have included v. 18 also since it includes the main verb. There are two interrelated issues at stake. The first is whether ἡ χάρις αὕτη refers to grace in general, to a benevolent work, or specifically to the offering. The second issue is the function of σύν. Regarding χάρις, a few render it woodenly as grace (KJV, Darby, Webster, RS, ASV, Barrett, 13 Wright 14) leaving the reader to guess the meaning. Some recognize the lack of clarity with that translation and seek to expand out the meaning: ‘in this work of grace’ (CEB); ‘as we carry out this act of grace’ (ESV, similarly Kistemaker 15); ‘in this gracious work’ (RSV, NAB, NASB); and ‘with this work of charity’ (Betz 16). Some go a 11 Loh and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, p. 7; O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, p. 48; Silva, Philippians, p. 38 12 Muraoka cites 2 Chron 30:6 with the meaning ‘carrying with oneself’ (Muraoka, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the Septuagint, p. 650). 13 Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 217. 14 Wright, 2 Corinthians, p. 92. 15 Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 294. 16 Betz, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, p. 38.

186

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

step further and specify that this grace refers to the (financial) gift or offering: ‘in the grace of this giving’ (BBE); ‘generous gift’ (NET); ‘generous undertaking’ (NRSV); and ‘gracious donation’ (WGM) and this fits the context well. It seems clear, as Harris points out citing the similar use of ἡ χάρις αὕτη in vv. 6–7 and ἡ χάρις ὑμῶν in 1 Cor 16:3, that Paul is referring to the collection. 17 Regarding the meaning of σύν, it is quite surprising in light of our survey of all 1,045 examples to see many translations render it with the unprecedented senses in or concerning: ‘the way we administer this charitable work’ (CJB); ‘as we administer this generous gift’ (NET); ‘in this work of generosity’ (NJB), and ‘concerning this grace/benevolence’ (Geneva, Bishops’, Tyndale). In fact σύν here seemed to trip up a number of commentators. Harris states that it means ‘in connection with’ or ‘in dealing with’ the collection, but he does not offer any proof in favor of that understanding. 18 In our examination of 1,045 uses of σύν it is not once used to mean in connection with or dealing with. The comment by Zerwick and Grosvenor that we need to supply ‘to help’ in translation so that σύν means to help with 19 is completely unnecessary and this use is also unprecedented in our 1,045 examples. R. P. Martin states that the ‘preposition σύν is left untranslated since it goes strangely with τῇ χάριτι,’ yet he does not explain what is so strange about σύν τῇ χάριτι. 20 This understanding of σύν (concerning the gift) is highly questionable. It is not used that way in other examples. This points to one of the advantages of using CL in exegesis. What at first glance may seem to the translator or commentator as a legitimate option is shown to be unlikely in light of a careful examination of usages throughout a larger corpus. Perhaps commentators were misled by the fact that English with can mean concerning. COB4 Sense 11 shows that English with can be used to express ‘what a state, quality, or action relates to, involves, or affects … He still has a serious problem with money’, yet that usage has not shown up in our CL study of σύν. A few EVV take it temporally: ‘while we are administering this generous undertaking’ (NRSV); ‘as we carry out this act of grace’ (ESV); and ‘on the business of administering this fund’ (MOFFATT). However, temporality has not been shown as a legitmate use of σύν in our examination of 1,045 examples (see 5.5.3). Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 604. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 604. H. A. W. Meyer follows the variant in B, ἐν τῇ χάριτι, and argues that it means ‘in matters of this χάρις, i.e. in the prosecution, in the whole bringing about, of this kindness’ but also acknowledges that σύν could be understood to mean delivering the offering (‘in the bringing over’) (H. A. W. Meyer, First Epistle, Ch. XIV.–XVI.; Second Epistle, p. 362, emphasis his). The translation ‘in [the matter of] this grace’ in ASV, RV may stem from this variant (ἐν τῇ χάριτι) as well. 19 Zerwick and Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. 551. 20 R. P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, p. 271. His further remarks are also muddled when he comments that Paul ‘administers the service (χάρις) of “the collection,” lit., “this grace which is being administered by us.”’ He seems to intend to say χάρις means collection but his use of parentheses implies that it means ‘service’. 17 18

CHAPTER 8: SEMANTIC PREFERENCE

187

It would be better, in light of the usages of σύν which we have seen in this study, to understand 2 Cor 8:19 to be saying that the brother will be their traveling companion to deliver the offering. Only a few EVV are explicit in bringing this point out: ‘while we carry this gift’ (CEV); ‘as we carry the offering’ (NIV, TNIV); ‘as we bring the offering’ (NIrV), and ‘as we take the offering to Jerusalem’ (NLT). 21

8.4 ΣΎΝ + feature OR possession Someone or something σύν a particular FEATURE or POSSESSION has that FEATURE or POSSESSION. This may serve the purpose of emphasizing the effect or importance of that feature. Table 42: Σύν + FEATURE or POSSESSION ̈ πεποίηται δὲ σφαιρία καὶ κρίνα σὺν ῥοίσκοις καὶ κρατηριδίοις, ἑβδομήκοντα (Ant. 3.145) στολὰς δὲ ἱερατικὰς τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι σὺν ποδήρεσιν ἐπωμίσι καὶ λογίῳ καὶ λίθοις (Ant. 8.93) νοῦς, καθάπερ ἐδήλωσα, ὅτε ἐγεννᾶτο, σὺν πολλαῖς δυνάμεσι καὶ ἕξεσιν (Alleg. Interp. 2.45) 22 παρηρίθμησεν αὐτῷ τὰ θυλάκια σὺν ταῖς σφραγῖσιν, καὶ συνέθηκαν αὐτά. (Tob 9:5) ἐπέγνωσαν προπεπτωκότα Νικάνορα σὺν τῇ πανοπλίᾳ (2 Macc 15:28) τοῦ [Ἰησοῦ] τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις. (Gal 5:24) ἀπεκδυσάμενοι τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον σὺν ταῖς πράξεσιν αὐτοῦ (Col 3:9) ἀνέτειλεν γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος σὺν τῷ καύσωνι καὶ ἐξήρανεν τὸν χόρτον (Jas 1:11) With this sense we see a candelabrum having (with, σύν) decorative pomegranates and bowls (Ant. 3.145), priestly garments having (with, σύν) long robes, the oracle and precious stones (Ant. 8.93), the mind created having (with, σύν) many faculties and abilities (Alleg. Interp. 2.45), money bags having (with, σύν) seals intact (Tob 9:5) and Nicanor found dead wearing (with, σύν) his armor (2 Macc 15:28). This is rare, found in less than one percent of the usages in our primary corpus, 0.9% (9/1,045). However there are three NT passages with this usage (Jas 1:11; Gal 5:24; Col 3:9). In Jas 1:11 καύσων can mean either heat or wind (as in Job 27:21; Hos 12:1; Jer 18:17; even when paired with ἥλιος in Isa 49:10). D. M. Martin claims that the best translation is, ‘The sun rises with a scorching hot wind’, basing this on the supposed Palestinian background 23 of ‘James’ letter at least in its first draft’. 24 Lange and Oosterzee argue that καύσων must refer to the wind, not the sun’s heat, but their argument that Easterners cannot imagine the heat as withering the plants which is rather something only a hot wind can do, is unconvincing. Their own use of Mt 13:6 (‘But when the sun had risen, they were scorched’ [NASB]) refutes their point. 25 Though ‘with this gift’ (HCSB, NKJV, LEB) can also be understood in this way. of the few times when σὺν δύναμεις does not mean with armies (see 6.2.1). 23 As does Adamson (Adamson, The Epistle of James, pp. 63–64). 24 D. M. Martin, James, p. 26. Dibelius also appeals to the local climate (which he refers to as Syria), though his reason is that this saying is dependent on the OT; he does not presume a Syrian background for James (Dibelius, James, p. 86, n. 85). 25 Lange and Oosterzee, The Epistle General of James, p. 42. 21

22 One

188

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Blomberg and Kamell argue that it means wind since the heat of the day peaks in the afternoon not in the morning when the sun rises. 26 However, Davids argues convincingly that καύσων means heat (not wind) in Jas 1:11. 27 The hot winds of Palestine blow night and day, whether the sun is out or not. 28 The wind cannot be said to be tied to the rising of the sun, whereas heat (another meaning of καύσων) can. 29 If James was thinking of a wind, why even mention the sun at all? It is the sun, especially its 30 heat, which withers the plants. It is not the sun itself per se, but the sun with its heat 31 which does the damage. Galatians 5:24 is often translated ‘have crucified their flesh together with the passions and the desires’, 32 that is, understanding σύν as together with 33 or along with. 34 But what does that mean? In this English translation at least, it almost sounds like sense 5.5.1 in which more than one entity (the flesh, and the passions and desires) are described by the same verb (crucified). We suggest rather that it is an example of the sense we are discussing, namely that the flesh is crucified, and an emphasis is being placed on the passions and desires which characterize or are a prominent feature of the flesh. Arichea and Nida understand σύν to mean either this sense in which case they translate it as, ‘Their human nature has all of these strong and evil desires’, or else as our sense 8.2 (a more specific entity included in a larger entity) and translate as, ‘This includes all that their human nature wants so much to do’. 35 It seems preferable to take Gal 5:24 and Jas 1:11 to mean characterized by; in both passages, the writer is pointing out a specific characteristic (of the flesh and of the sun). With this sense, it is possible that the feature collocated with σύν is being emphasized. In Gal. 5:24, what is being 26 Though they also comment that it could be both the heat and the wind (Blomberg and Kamell, James, p. 56). 27 Some commentators mention both possibilities and leave the issue undecided (Ropes, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James, p. 148; Moo, The Letter of James, pp. 67– 68). 28 Loh and Hatton, A Translator’s Handbook on the Letter from James, p. 26. 29 Davids, The Epistle of James, pp. 77–78; Dibelius, James, p. 86. See also Laws, The Epistle of James, pp. 64–65. 30 The article can be understood as possessive (BDF §221; contra Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, p. 45). 31 Huther’s comment, ‘the parching effect is attributed not to the καύσων as something different from the sun, but to the sun itself’ (Huther, Handbook to the General Epistles of James and John, p. 59) is not in contradiction to our claim since his point is to defend the view that it is the sun (not a separate wind) which causes the scorching, whereas our point is that it is heat as a specific feature of the sun, which withers the plants. 32 Betz, Galatians, p. 289; Martyn, Galatians, p. 500. 33 Hendriksen, Exposition of Galatians, p. 226. 34 Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, p. 427. 35 Daniel C. Arichea Jr. and Eugene Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, p. 142.

CHAPTER 8: SEMANTIC PREFERENCE

189

emphasized 36 about the flesh is its passions and lusts—these have been crucified. 37 In Jas 1:11, the feature being emphasized about the sun is its heat—that is what scorches. In Col 3:9 σύν is being used the same way. Rather than speaking of two entities being put off—the old humanity as well as its works—the author is speaking of one thing that is being put off—the old humanity—and he is emphasizing the part that is germane to his argument. 38 In other words, this old humanity you are putting off is characterized by evil works, 39 which is why you need to put it off.

8.5 CONCLUSION TO CHAPTER 8 In this chapter we discussed the issue of semantic preference. Sometimes a lexeme has a distinct sense when it is collocated, not with one specific word, but with any of a group of words (semantic set) which share similar semantic features. We illustrated this with σύν when it is collocated with SMALLER PARTS, with TRANSPORTABLE ITEMS, or with FEATURES which are being emphasized.

36 ‘Notice the emphasis on the flesh having passions and desires’ (Witherington, Grace in Galatia, p. 412). 37 Though he does not attribute it to σύν, Burton comes to a similar conclusion, saying that the phrase emphasizes that the crucifixion extends, not just to outward acts, but even to dispositions and desires (Burton, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, p. 319). 38 Thayer (s.v. σύν, 2) says the use in Gal 5:24 and Col 3:9 is ‘the thing with its power or result’. 39 Though not attributing it to σύν, Sumney echoes this same idea: ‘the old way of being is identified with the practices and attitudes that characterized it’ (Sumney, Colossians, p. 200).

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION Throughout this study we have noted some of the shortcomings of Greek-English lexica which are used for Greek New Testament studies. We agree with Lee’s analysis which is generally pessimistic: ‘Have all possible sources of opinion been checked and has everything of value been extracted, after due evaluation, and brought to bear on the word before its treatment in the lexicon? In the present state of affairs, it is seldom possible to answer confidently in the affirmative.’ 1 After a detailed review of 500 years of NT lexicography he concludes, ‘At this juncture, it seems important to be aware of what has gone wrong in the past and how it might be fixed, rather than to continue in trustful ignorance and perpetuate the same mistakes.’ 2 This study is a modest proposal for one area in which we may move forward, namely by using structural lexicology for Greek New Testament studies and applying CL for WSPD using collocational indicators.

9.1 CONCLUSION TO OUR STUDY At the outset of this study we raised the following questions: Does a lexical item have a different meaning when accompanied by certain other words (collocations), by certain grammatical structures (colligations), and by words from certain semantic domains or sets (semantic preferences)? If so, can paying attention to the collocations, colligations and semantic preferences assist us in disambiguating polysemes in the Greek New Testament? Also, can we distinguish between synonyms in the Greek New Testament by observing their collocations, colligations and semantic preferences? We have answered yes to the above questions and demonstrated this through the analysis of several lexical items and their interpretation in a number of Greek New Testament verses. We have shown how CL, which has been a fruitful method for the study of lexical semantics especially as applied to foreign language learning, can be applied in Greek New Testament lexicography. A number of newer dictionaries for advanced learners of English have significantly improved their lexical entries through observations made by applying CL to their word meaning analysis. We believe that future Greek-English lexica can be improved by paying closer attention to structure in lexicography and that the 1 Lee, 2 Lee,

A History of New Testament Lexicography, p. 128. A History of New Testament Lexicography, p. 188.

191

192

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

application of CL to NT Greek lexicography will contribute to a better understanding of the meaning of many lexical items in the Greek New Testament. The findings of this study, therefore, are that NT Greek-English lexica would be improved if, based on results from the application of CL, we were to add to our lexical entries information about each lexical item’s collocations, colligations and semantic preferences, which would be of significant assistance to the exegete in delimiting the possible word senses for a lexical unit in the specific Greek New Testament verse under investigation.

9.2 A FINAL CHALLENGE This study is an initial inquiry into the use and application of structural lexicology for lexical semantics in the Greek New Testament. There is much that remains to be done if we desire to see this approach brought to fruition. First, the Hellenistic Greek corpus must be expanded. We were able to utilize two corpora with a combined 4 million tokens. This provided an initial point of departure, yet we believe that our lexicogrammatical conclusions for Hellenistic Greek and the Greek New Testament would have been on surer footing if we had had available to us a greater number of examples of a given node word with its collocations. As mentioned in 1.4.8 modern language corpora are often much larger than this. Second, what is needed is a tripartite lexicogrammar for Hellenistic Greek. By this we mean that a reference work should be developed which includes a Hellenistic Greek lexicon which is digitally linked to the Hellenistic Greek corpus on which it is based and also linked to a grammar of Hellenistic Greek usage. Through digital storage and hyperlinks it should be possible for a user to click on a lexical item in the Hellenistic Greek lexicon and be given a real-time display of all Hellenistic Greek usages in KWIC lines, which would then be sortable by collocations on positions from N-5 through N+5, and searchable by lemma, form, POS, tense, mood, voice, number and gender. This would be tied to a Hellenistic Greek grammar which would function like a modern language usage guide, listing the settings in which the lexical items are used, complete with information about their collocations, colligations and semantic preferences. This would require a team of lexicographers working over a number of years. 3 If readers of this study take up the challenge to move the work forward by developing such a corpus and such a lexicogrammar, then the effort put forth for this study will be amply repaid.

3 This is in essence what is available for English in the Collins COBUILD Resource Pack (HarperCollins: 2003/Lingea s.r.o., 1997–2002, v. 3.0; www.collins.co.uk) which includes a corpus-driven dictionary, thesaurus, usage guide, grammar and 5 million word corpus (Wordbank from BoE) all on one CD with the resources hyperlinked to each other.

WORKS CITED Aarts, Jan. ‘The Description of Language Use’. Pages 1–20 in Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Edited by Hilde Hasselgård and Signe Oksefjell. LCSPL 26. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. Achtemeier, Paul J. 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996. Adamson, James B. The Epistle of James. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1976. Adolphs, Svenja. Introducing Electronic Text Analysis: A Practical Guide for Language and Literary Studies. London: Routledge, 2006. Agirre, Eneko, and Philip Edmonds. ‘Introduction’. Pages 1–28 in Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications. Edited by Eneko Agirre and Philip Edmonds. TSLT 33. New York: Springer, 2007. Agirre, Eneko, and Philip Edmonds. Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications. TSLT 33. New York: Springer, 2007. Albright, W. F., and C. S. Mann. Matthew: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1971. Alexander, Patrick H., John F. Kutsko, James D. Ernest, Shirley Decker-Lucke, and David L. Petersen. SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Early Christian Studies. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. Alford, Henry. The Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. Vol. 2 of The Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary. 7th ed. London: Rivingtons, 1877. ———. Part I: Matthew-Mark; Part II: Luke-John. Vol. 1 of The Greek Testament: An Exegetical and Critical Commentary. 7th ed. London: Rivingtons, 1874. Almela, Moisés, and Aquilino Sánchez. ‘Words as “Lexical Units” in Learning/Teaching Vocabulary’. International Journal of English Studies 7, no. 2 (2007): 21–40. Altenberg, Bengt. ‘On the Phraseology of Spoken English: The Evidence of Recurrent Word-Combinations’. Pages 101–122 in Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Edited by A. P. Cowie. OSLL. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Andersen, Francis I. ‘2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch’. Pages 1:91–100 in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983. Andersen, Francis I., and Dean A. Forbes. Biblical Hebrew Visualized. Edited by M. O’Connor, Cynthia L. Miller-Naudé, and Jacobus A. Naudé. Linguistics Studies in Ancient West Semitic. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012. 193

194

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Arichea, Daniel C., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator’s Handbook on the First Letter from Peter. UBSHSHT. New York: UBS, 1980. Arichea, Daniel C., and Howard A. Hatton. A Translator’s Handbook on the Second Letter from Peter. UBSHSHT. New York: UBS, 1993. Arichea, Daniel C. Jr., and Eugene Nida. A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. UBSHSHT. New York: UBS, 1976. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by H. Rackham. Vol. 19 of Aristotle. LCL 73. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1934. Armstrong, David. ‘The Ancient Greek Aorist as the Aspect of Countable Action’. Pages 1–12 in Tense and Aspect. Edited by Philip J. Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen. SS 14. New York: Academic, 1981. Arndt, William F. Luke. Concordia Classic Commentary Series. St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1956. Arnold, Clinton E. Ephesians. ZECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2010. ———. Ephesians, Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians in Light of Its Historical Setting. SNTSMS. Cambridge: CUP, 1989. ———. ‘Magic’. Pages 580–583 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP, 1993. ———. Powers of Darkness: Principalities & Powers in Paul’s Letters. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1992. Asher, Nicholas, Joan Busquets, and Anne Le Draoulec. ‘Cooperativity in Dialogue’. Pages 217–245 in Semantic and Pragmatic Issues in Discourse and Dialogue: Experimenting with Current Dynamic Theories. Edited by Myriam Bras and Laure Vieu. Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001. Atkins, Sue, Michael Rundell, and Hiroaki Sato. ‘The Contribution of FrameNet to Practical Lexicography’. International Journal of Lexicography 16, no. 3 (2003): 333– 357. Augendre, Sandra. ‘La Dislocation en Italien: Une Etude sur Corpus’. Corpus, no. 9 (2010): 221–244. Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. LEC. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. ———. Revelation 1–5. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1997. ———. Revelation 6–16. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1998. Austin, John L. ‘The Meaning of a Word’. Pages 419–441 in Readings in Semantics. Edited by Farhang Zabeeh, E. D. Klemke, and Arthur Jacobson. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois, 1974. Ayto, J. R. ‘On Specifying Meaning: Semantic Analysis and Dictionary Definitions’. Pages 89–98 in Lexicography: Principles and Practice. Edited by R. K. K. Hartmann. ALS. London: Academic, 1983. Bacchylides. Epinicians. Translated by Diane Arnson Svarlien. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ (accessed 5 August 2011). Bader, Markus. ‘Word Order in German: A Corpus Study’. Lingua 120, no. 3 (March 2010): 717–762. Baker, Mona. ‘Corpus Linguistics and Translational Studies—Implications and Applications’. Pages 233–250 in Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair.

WORKS CITED

195

Edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993. Baker, Mona, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, eds. Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993. Barbieri, Louis A. Jr. ‘Matthew’. Pages 13–94 in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, vol. 2: New Testament. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1985. Barnbrook, Geoff. Language and Computers: A Practical Introduction to the Computer Analysis of Language. ETEL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1996. Barnett, Paul. Is the New Testament Reliable? Downer’s Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2003. Barr, James. Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: OUP, 1961. Barrett, C. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. ———. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. London: Continuum, 1968. ———. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. London: Continuum, 1973. Barth, Markus. Ephesians: Translation and Commentary on Chapters 4–6. AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974. Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1983. Bayer, Samuel, John Aberdeen, John Burger, Lynette Hirschman, David Palmer, and Marc Vilain. ‘Theoretical and Computational Linguistics: Toward a Mutual Understanding’. Pages 231–255 in Using Computers in Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Edited by John M. Lawler and Helen Aristar Dry. London: Routledge, 1998. Beasley-Murray, George R. John. 2nd ed. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1999. Beavis, Mary Ann. Mark. Paideia. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2011. Bennett, Paul, Martin Durrell, Silke Scheible, and Richard J. Whitt. ‘Annotating a Multi-Genre Corpus of Early Modern German’. Paper presented at Corpus Linguistics 2009. Liverpool, 2009. Benson, Morton, Evelyn Benson, and Robert Ilson, comps. The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English: Your Guide to Collocations and Grammar. 3rd ed. Revised by Robert Ilson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010. ———, comps. The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations. Rev. ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1997. Benzitoun, Christophe, Solène Bresson, Laure Budzinski, Jeanne-Marie Debaisieux, and Klara Holzheimer. ‘Quand un Corpus Rencontre un Adjectif du Troisième Type. Étude Distributionnelle de Prochain’. Corpus, no. 9 (2010): 245–264. Berglund, Ylva, and Christopher Williams. ‘The Semantic Properties of going to: Distribution Patterns in Four Subcorpora of the British National Corpus’. Pages 107–120 in Corpus Linguistics 25 Years On. Edited by Roberta Facchinetti. LCSPL 62. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007. Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John. ICC. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929. ———. ‘The Second Epistle to the Corinthians’. Pages 1–119 in Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 3. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1903. Berry, George Ricker. The Classic Greek Dictionary in Two Parts: Greek-English and EnglishGreek. New York: Hinds, Noble & Eldredge, 1901.

196

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Berry-Rogghe, Godelieve L. M. ‘The Computation of Collocations and Their Relevance in Lexical Studies’. Pages 103–112 in The Computer and Literary Studies. Edited by A. J. Aitken, R. W. Bailey, and N. Hamilton-Smith. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1973. Best, Ernest. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Ephesians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. ———. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. BNTC. London: Continuum, 1972. Betz, Hans Dieter, ed. Texts. Vol. 1 of The Greek Magical Papyri Including the Demotic Spells. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1992. ———. 2 Corinthians 8 and 9: A Commentary on Two Administrative Letters of the Apostle Paul. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. ———. ‘Dynamis, Δύναμις’. Pages 267–270 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Béjoint, H. ‘On Field-Work in Lexicography’. Pages 67–76 in Lexicography: Principles and Practice. Edited by R. K. K. Hartmann. ALS. London: Academic, 1983. Biber, Douglas, S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan, eds. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman, 1999. Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Randi Reppen. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. CAtL. Cambridge: CUP, 1998. Biber, Douglas, and Susan Conrad. Register, Genre, and Style. CTL. Cambridge: CUP, 2009. Black, David Alan. ‘Discourse Analysis, Synoptic Criticism, and Markan Grammar: Some Methodological Considerations’. Pages 90–98 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Edited by David Alan Black. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1992. Blakemore, Diane. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987. Blois, Reinier de. ‘Lexicography and Cognitive Linguistics: Hebrew Metaphors from a Cognitive Perspective’. DavarLogos 3, no. 2 (2004): 97–116. ———. ‘The Semantic Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: A Bible Dictionary Designed to Be Published Electronically’. Paper presented at BibleTech 2008. Seattle, Wash., 2008. ———. ‘Word Classes in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive Approach’. Paper presented at Society of Biblical Literature. San Diego, Calif., 2007. Blomberg, Craig L. 1 Corinthians. NIVAC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994. ———. Matthew. NAC. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1992. ———. ‘New Testament Genre Criticism for the 1990s’. Themelios 15, no. 2 (1990): 40–49. Blomberg, Craig L., and Miriam Kamell. James. ZECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008. Blutner, Reinhard. ‘Pragmatics and the Lexicon’. Pages 488–514 in The Handbook of Pragmatics. Edited by Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward. BHL. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004.

WORKS CITED

197

Bock, Darrell L. Acts. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007. ———. Luke 9:51–24:53. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1996. Bock, Darrell L., and Gregory J. Herrick, eds. Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2005. Bodine, Walter R. ‘Linguistics and Biblical Studies’. Pages 4:327–433 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 5 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Bortone, Pietro. Greek Prepositions: From Antiquity to the Present. Oxford Linguistics. Oxford: OUP, 2010. Bovon, François. Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51–19:27. Edited by Helmut Koester. Translated by Donald S. Deer. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013. Boyer, James L. ‘First-Class Conditions: What Do They Mean?’ Grace Theological Journal 2, no. 1 (Spring 1981): 75–114. ———. ‘Second-Class Conditions in New Testament Greek’. Grace Theological Journal 3, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 81–88. ———. ‘Third (and Fourth) Class Conditions’. Grace Theological Journal 3, no. 2 (Fall 1982): 163–175. ———. ‘Other Conditional Elements in New Testament Greek’. Grace Theological Journal 4, no. 2 (Fall 1983): 173–188. ———. ‘The Classification of Particles: A Statistical Study’. Grace Theological Journal 5, no. 2 (Fall 1984): 163–179. ———. ‘The Classification of Infinitives: A Statistical Study’. Grace Theological Journal 6, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 3–27. ———. ‘The Classification of Subjunctives: A Statistical Study’. Grace Theological Journal 7, no. 1 (Spring 1986): 3–19. ———. ‘A Classification of Imperatives: A Statistical Study’. Grace Theological Journal 8, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 35–54. ———. ‘The Classification of Optatives: A Statistical Study’. Grace Theological Journal 9, no. 1 (Spring 1988): 129–140. ———. ‘Relative Clauses in the Greek New Testament: A Statistical Study’. Grace Theological Journal 9, no. 2 (Fall 1988): 233–256. Branca-Rosoff, Sonia, Serge Fleury, Florence Lefeuvre, and Max Pires. ‘Discours sur la Ville. Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien des Années 2000 (CFPP2000)’. n. p. (accessed 5 August 2011). Online: http://cfpp2000.univ-paris3.fr/. Brant, Jo-Ann A. John. Paideia. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2011. Bratcher, Robert G., and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Colossians. UBSHSHT. New York: UBS, 1977. ———. A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. UBSHSHT. New York: UBS, 1961. Bredin, Mark. Jesus, Revolutionary of Peace: A Nonviolent Christology in the Book of Revelation. PBTM. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2003. Brodie, Thomas L. The Gospel According to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Oxford: OUP, 1993. Brooks, James A. Mark. NAC. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1992.

198

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Brown, Darrell Richard. ‘Naturalizing Biblical Hermeneutics: A Case for Grounding Hermeneutical Theory in the Sociocognitive Sciences’. PhD thesis. Brunel University/London School of Theology, 2010. Brown, Keith, editor-in-chief. ‘Glossary’. Pages 1–141 in Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 14. 2nd ed. Oxford: Elsevier, 2006. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel according to John (xii–xxi). AB. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966. Bruce, F. F. The Book of the Acts. Rev. ed. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1988. ———. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982. ———. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1984. Bublitz, Wolfram. ‘“I entirely dot dot dot”: Copying Semantic Features in Collocations with Up-scaling Intensifiers’. Pages 11–32 in Making Meaningful Choices in English: On Dimensions, Perspectives, Methodology and Evidence. Edited by Rainer Schulze. LP 16. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1998. Bullinger, Ethelbert W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1898. Burge, Gary M. John. NIVAC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000. Burkhanov, Igor. ‘Pragmatic Specifications: Usage Indications, Labels, Examples; Dictionaries of Style, Dictionaries of Collocations’. Pages 102–113 in A Practical Guide to Lexicography. Edited by Piet van Sterkenburg. TLRP 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. Burton, Ernest De Witt. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. ICC. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920. ———. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898. Busse, Ulrich, and Anne Schröder. ‘Fowler’s Modern English Usage at the Interface of Lexis and Grammar’. Pages 69–87 in Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface. Edited by Ute Römer and Rainer Schulze. SCL 35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. Buth, Randall J. ‘Aramaic’. Pages 86–93 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2000. Callow, Kathleen. Man and Message: A Guide to Meaning-Based Text Analysis. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1998. Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by John Allen. Philadelphia: Philip H. Nicklin, 1816. Campbell, Constantine R. Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008. ———. ‘Breaking Perfect Rules: The Traditional Understanding of the Greek Perfect’. Pages 139–156 in Discourse Studies and Biblical Interpretation: A Festschrift in Honor of Stephen H. Levinsohn. Edited by Steven E. Runge. Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2011. ———. Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2012.

WORKS CITED

199

———. Verbal Aspect and Non-Indicative Verbs: Further Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. SBG 15. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. ———. Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings In the Greek of the New Testament. SBG 13. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Cann, Ronnie. Formal Semantics: An Introduction. CTL. Cambridge: CUP, 1993. Cann, Ronnie, Ruth Kempson, and Lutz Marten. The Dynamics of Language: An Introduction. Syntax and Semantics 35. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005. Cann, Ronnie, Ruth Kempson, and Eleni Gregoromichelaki. Semantics: An Introduction to Meaning in Language. CTL. Cambridge: CUP, 2009. Cappelen, Herman, and Ernie Lepore. Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1996. ———. The Gospel according to John. Pillar. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991. ———. Showing the Spirit: A Theological Exposition of 1 Corinthians 12–14. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1987. Carter, Ronald. ‘Introduction’. Pages 1–6 in Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. Edited with John Sinclair. London: Routledge, 2004. Cermák, František. ‘Source Materials for Dictionaries’. Pages 18–25 in A Practical Guide to Lexicography. Edited by Piet van Sterkenburg. TLRP 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. Chadwick, John. Lexicographica Graeca: Contributions to the Lexicography of Ancient Greek. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. Cheng, Winnie. Exploring Corpus Linguistics: Language in Action. Routledge Introductions to Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge, 2012. Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1965. Chrysostom, John. In Epistulam ad Colossenses (Homiliae 1–12). Vol. 62 of Patrologia graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Migne, 1857–1866. Chrysostom, John. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. Vol. 12 of NPNF1. Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889. Church, Kenneth W., William Gale, Patrick Hanks, and Donald Hindle. ‘Using Statistics in Lexical Analysis’. Pages 115–164 in Lexical Acquisition: Exploiting OnLine Resources to Build a Lexicon. Edited by Uri Zernik. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991. Church, Kenneth W., and Patrick Hanks. ‘Word Association Norms, Mutual Information, and Lexicography’. Computational Linguistics 16, no. 1 (March 1990): 22–29. Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. ‘1 Corinthians’. Pages 695–752 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007. ———. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Pillar. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Ciocchi, David M. ‘Understanding Our Ability to Endure Temptation: A Theological Watershed’. JETS 35, no. 4 (December 1992): 463–479.

200

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Clear, Jeremy. ‘From Firth Principles—Computational Tools for the Study of Collocation’. Pages 271–292 in Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993. Collins, Adela Yarbro. ‘The Function of “Excommunication” in Paul’. HTR 73, no. 1– 2 (January–April 1980): 251–263. ———. Mark: A Commentary. Edited by Harold W. Attridge. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Collins, J. J. ‘Sibylline Oracles’. Pages 1:317–472 in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983. Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. SP. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1999. Colson, F. H., and G. A. Whitaker, trans. Philo in Ten Volumes. Vol. 3. LCL. London: William Heinemann, 1930. Comrie, Bernard. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. CTL. Cambridge: CUP, 1976. ———. Tense. CTL. Cambridge: CUP, 1985. Conzelmann, Hans. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Translated by James W. Leitch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Cotterell, Peter, and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1989. Coulthard, Malcolm. ‘On Beginning the Study of Forensic Texts: Corpus, Concordance, Collocations’. Pages 86–97 in Data, Description, Discourse. Edited by Michael Hoey. London: HarperCollins, 1993. Cresti, Emanuela, and Massimo Moneglia, eds. C-ORAL-ROM: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages. SCL 15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005. Cross, Anthony R. ‘Genres of the New Testament’. Pages 402–411 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2000. Cruden, Alexander. A Complete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. 1st ed. London: Thomas Wadle, 1737 [repr. 10th ed., Philadelphia, 1823]. Cruse, D. Alan. A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2006. ———. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. 3rd ed. OTbL. Oxford: OUP, 2011. Culpepper, R. Alan. The Gospel and Letters of John. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1998. Culy, Martin M. 1, 2, 3 John: A Handbook on the Greek Text. BHGNT. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2004. ———. ‘Review of Constantine R. Campbell, Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008’. JETS 52, no. 4 (December 2009): 851– 853. Culy, Martin M., Mikeal C. Parsons, and Joshua J. Stigall. Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2010.

WORKS CITED

201

Davids, Peter H. 2 Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text. BHGNT. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2011. ———. The Epistle of James: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1982. ———. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. Pillar. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. Davies, Graham I. Corpus and Concordance. Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions 1. New York: CUP, 1991. ———. Corpus and Concordance. Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions 2. West Nyack, N.Y.: CUP, 2004. Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 1997. Day, A. Colin. Collins Thesaurus of the Bible. n.p.: HarperCollins, 2002 [repr. Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Bible Software, 2009]. Decker, Rodney J. ‘Review of Mari Broman Olsen, A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland, 1997’. Journal of Ministry and Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 110– 120. ———. Temporal Deixis of the Greek Verb in the Gospel of Mark with Reference to Verbal Aspect. SBG 10. New York: Peter Lang, 2001. Deissmann, Adolf. Bible Studies. Translated by Alexander Grieve. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901. ———. Light from the Ancient East. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. Demosthenes. Demosthenes: Orations 1–17 and 20, Olynthiacs 1–3, Philippics, Minor Public Orations. Translated by J. H. Vince. Vol. 1 of Demosthenes: Orations. LCL 238. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1930. Deulofeu, José, and Claire Blanche-Benveniste. ‘C-Oral-Rom—French Corpus’. Pages 181–198 in Spoken Language Corpus and Linguistic Informatics. Edited by Yuji Kawaguchi and Toshihiro Takagaki. UBLI 5. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006. Dibelius, Martin. James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Edited by Helmut Koester. Revised by Heinrich Greeven, Translated by Michael A. Williams. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Dietrich, Wolf, Ulrich Hoinkes, Bàrbara Roviró, and Matthias Warnecke, eds. Lexikalische Semantik und Korpuslinguistik. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 2006. Dods, Marcus. ‘The Gospel of St. John’. Pages 653–871 in Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 2. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. New York: George H. Doran, 1903. Dozeman, Thomas B. Commentary on Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. Dubis, Mark. 1 Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text. BHGNT. Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2010. Duhoux, Yves. Le verbe grec ancien. Éléments de morphologie et de syntaxe historiques. 2e éd. revue et augm. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 2000. ———. ‘Etudes sur l’aspect verbal en grec ancien. I: Présentation d’une méthode’. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris 90 no. 1 (1995): 241–299.

202

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Dunbar, George. ‘A Computational Model of the Ambiguity-Vagueness Spectrum’. Pages 13–32 in Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage Patterns. Edited by HansJörg Schmid and Susanne Handl. ACL 13. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2010. Dunn, James D. G. The Epistle to the Galatians. BNTC. London: Continuum, 1993. ———. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996. Durand, Jacque. ‘Préface: Le Français à la Lumière des Corpus’. Journal of French Language Studies 18, no. 1 (March 2008): 1–2. Duvall, J. Scott, and J. Daniel Hays. Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-on Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005. Eadie, John. A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1894 [repr. 1957]. Ebeling, Jarle. ‘Corpora, Corpus Linguistics, and the Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature’. Pages 33–50 in Analysing Literary Sumerian: Corpus-Based Approaches. Edited by Jarle Ebeling and Graham Cunningham. London: Equinox, 2007. Edwards, James R. The Gospel According to Mark. Pillar. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. Elliger, Winfried. ‘σύν’. Pages 3:291–292 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990. Ellingworth, Paul, and Howard A. Hatton. A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians. UBSHSHT. New York: UBS, 1993. Ellis, E. Earle. The Making of the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Ellis, Jeffrey. ‘On Contextual Meaning’. Pages 79–95 in In Memory of J. R. Firth. Edited by C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, and R. H. Robins. LLL. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1966. Ellis, Nick C., Eric Frey, and Isaac Jalkanen. ‘The Psycholinguistic Reality of Collocation and Semantic Prosody (1): Lexical Access’. Pages 89–114 in Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface. Edited by Ute Römer and Rainer Schulze. SCL 35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. Empedocles. The Poem of Empedocles: A Text and Translation with an Introduction. Rev. ed. Translated and edited by Brad Inwood. Phoenix. Supplementary Vol. 39. Phoenix Presocratics 3. Toronto: University of Toronto, 2001. Enkvist, Nils Erik. Linguistic Stylistics. The Hague: Mouton, 1973. Erickson, Richard J. A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Exegesis: Taking the Fear Out of Critical Method. Downer’s Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2005. Esser, Jürgen. ‘Corpus Linguistics and the Linguistic Sign’. Pages 91–101 in Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20), Freiburg Im Breisgau 1999. Edited by Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt. LCSPL 33. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. Euripides. The Plays of Euripides. Translated by E. P. Coleridge. Medford, Mass.: George Bell & Sons, 1891.

WORKS CITED

203

———. VII: Fragments: Aegeus-Meleager. In Euripides. Translated and edited by Christopher Collard and Martin Cropp. LCL 504. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2008. Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2001. Evans, T. V. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch: Natural Greek Usage and Hebrew Interference. Oxford: OUP, 2001. Evans, Vyvyan. How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction. Oxford: OUP, 2009. ———. The Structure of Time: Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Human Cognitive Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004. Evans, Vyvyan, Benjamin K. Bergan, and Jörg Zinken. ‘The Cognitive Linguistics Enterprise: An Overview’. Pages 2–36 in The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. Edited by Vyvyan Evans, Benjamin K. Bergan, and Jörg Zinken. Advances in Cognitive Linguistics. London: Equinox, 2007. Facchinetti, Roberta. ‘Introduction’. Pages 1–8 in Corpus Linguistics 25 Years On. Edited by Roberta Facchinetti. LCSPL 62. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007. Fanning, Buist M. ‘Approaches to Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek: Issues in Definition and Method’. Pages 46–62 in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTSup 80. Sheffield: SAP, 1993. ———. ‘Review of Constantine R. Campbell, Verbal Aspect, the Indicative Mood, and Narrative: Soundings in the Greek of the New Testament. SBG 13. New York: Peter Lang, 2007’. JETS 51, no. 2 (June 2008): 394–397. ———. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. Fano, Robert M. Transmission of Information: A Statistical Theory of Communications. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1961. Fee, Gordon D. The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. ———. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1987. Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés. ‘La Grammaire Dialectale de l’Espagñol à Travers le Corpus Oral et Sonore de l’Espagnol Rural (COSER, Corpus Oral y Sonoro del Espagñol Rural)’. Corpus, no. 9 (2010): 81–114. Finamore, Stephen. God, Order and Chaos: René Girard and the Apocalypse. PBTM. Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2009. Findlay, G. G. ‘St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians’. Pages 727–953 in Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 2. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1903. Firth, J. R. ‘Linguistic Analysis as a Study of Meaning’. Pages 12–26 in Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–1959. Edited by F. R. Palmer. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1968. ———. ‘Modes of Meaning’. Pages 190–215 in Papers in Linguistics, 1934–1951. Edited by J. R. Firth. London: OUP, 1957 [repr. from Essays and Studies (The English Association), 1951].

204

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

———. ‘A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, 1930–55’. Pages 168–205 in Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–1959. Edited by F. R. Palmer. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1968. Fischer, Andreas. ‘Lexical Gaps, Cognition and Linguistic Change’. Pages 1–15 in Lexicology, Semantics and Lexicography: Selected Papers from the Fourth G. L. Brook Symposium, Manchester, August 1998. Edited by Julie Coleman. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000. Fitzer, Gottfried. ‘σφραγίς, σφραγίζω, κατασφραγίζω’. Pages 7:939–953 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Translated and edited by and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1964–1976. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008. Fleming, Dean. Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Missions. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2005. Forbes, A. Dean. ‘Squishes, Clines, and Fuzzy Signs: Mixed and Gradient Categories in the Biblical Hebrew Lexicon’. Pages 105–140 in Foundations for Syriac Lexicography I: Colloquia of the International Syriac Language Project. Edited by A. Dean Forbes and David G.K. Taylor. Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2005. Forbes, Christopher B. ‘Epictetus’. Pages 321–324 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2000. Fradersdorff, J. Wilhelm. A Copious Phraseological English-Greek Lexicon. 5th ed. Revised by Thomas Kerchever Arnold and Henry Browne. London: Rivingtons, 1875. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. Francis, Gill. ‘A Corpus-Driven Approach to Grammar—Principles, Methods and Example’. Pages 137–156 in Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993. Francis, W. Nelson, and Henry Kučera. Frequency Analysis of English Usage: Lexicon and Grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982. Franziska, Maria Hack. ‘Investigating Interrogation in the Northern Italian Area – or What Corpora Can Tell Us and Which Questions They Leave Open’. Corpus, no. 9 (2010): 137–164. Fritz, Kurt von. ‘Epictetus’. Page 390 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd ed. Edited by N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. Fuchs, Anna. ‘Deixis, Relevance, and Tense/Aspect’. Pages 99–123 in The Function of Tense in Texts. Edited by Jadranka Gvozdanović and Theo. A. J. M. Janssen. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Verhandelinged, Afd Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks 144. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1981. Furnish, Victor Paul. ‘Colossians, Epistle to the’. Pages 1:1090–1096 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992. Galton, Herbert. The Main Functions of the Slavic Verbal Aspect. Skopje, Macedonia: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1976.

WORKS CITED

205

Gardiner, Frederic. Leviticus or The Third Book of Moses. Vol. 2 of A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Edited by Peter Lange and Phillip Schaff. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1876. Gardner, Richard B. Matthew. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1991. Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2003. ———. 2 Corinthians. NAC. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1999. ———. Colossians and Philemon. NIVAC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1998. ———. Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel. Reading the New Testament. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys, 2001. Geeraerts, Dirk. ‘Introduction: A Rough Guide to Cognitive Linguistics’. Pages 1–28 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts. CLR. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006. ———. ‘Meaning and Definition’. Pages 83–93 in A Practical Guide to Lexicography. Edited by Piet van Sterkenburg. TLRP 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. ———. ‘Vagueness’s Puzzles, Polysemy’s Vagaries’. Cognitive Linguistics 4, no. 3 (January 1993): 223–272. Geffroy, Annie, P. Lafon, Gill Seidel, and M. Tournier. ‘Lexicometric Analysis of CoOccurrences’. Pages 113–133 in The Computer and Literary Studies. Edited by A. J. Aitken, R. W. Bailey, and N. Hamilton-Smith. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1973. Goddard, Cliff. Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. OTbL. Oxford: OUP, 1998. Godet, F. L. 1 Corinthians Chapters 1–8. Translated by A. Cusin. Vol. 1 of Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1886. ———. 1 Corinthians Chapter 9–End. Translated by A. Cusin. Vol. 2 of Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1886. ———. A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Vol. 2. 5th ed. Translated by E. W. Shalders. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1893. Granger, Sylviane, and Fanny Meunier. Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008. Green, Gene L. Jude and 2 Peter. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2008. ———. The Letters to the Thessalonians. Pillar. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2002. Grice, Herbert Paul. ‘Logic and Conversation’. Pages 22–40 in Studies in the Way of Words. Edited by Herbert Paul Grice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975 [repr. 1989]. Gries, Stefan Th., Stefanie Wulff, and Mark Davies. Corpus-Linguistic Applications: Current Studies, New Directions. LCSPL. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2010. Grosheide, F. W. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1953. Grundmann, Walter. ‘σύν, μετά with Genitive’. Pages 7:766–797 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Translated and edited by and Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Grundy, Peter. Doing Pragmatics. 2nd ed. London: Hodder Arnold, 2000. Gutt, Ernst-August. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome, 2000.

206

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Haenchen, Ernst. John 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 7–21. Trans. & ed. Robert W. Funk. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14–28. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1995. Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd ed. Melbourne: Edward Arnold, 1994. ———. ‘Lexis as a Linguistic Level’. Pages 148–162 in In Memory of J. R. Firth. Edited by C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, and R. H. Robins. LLL. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1966. ———. ‘On Grammar and Grammatics’. Pages 1–38 in Functional Descriptions: Theory in Practice. Edited by Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran, and David Butt. ASTHLS. Series IV. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1996. ———. ‘Quantitative Studies and Probabilities in Grammar’. Pages 1–25 in Data, Description, Discourse. Edited by Michael Hoey. London: HarperCollins, 1993. Halliday, M. A. K., Wolfgang Teubert, Colin Yallop, and Anna Čermáková. Lexicology and Corpus Linguistics. OLS. London: Continuum, 2004. Hamilton, Henry R. An English-Greek Lexicon Containing All the Words in General Use with Their Various Significations Classified. 15th ed. London: Crosby Lockwood & Son, 1904. Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50. NICOT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1994. Handl, Susanne, and Eva-Maria Graf. ‘Collocation, Anchoring, and the Mental Lexicon – An Ontogenetic Perspective’. Pages 119–147 in Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage Patterns. Edited by Hans-Jörg Schmid and Susanne Handl. ACL 13. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010. Hanhart, Robert, ed. Esther. Vol. VIII, 3 of Vetus Testamentum Graecum. AASGE. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Hanks, Patrick. ‘Definitions and Explanations’. Pages 116–136 in Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project. Edited by John Sinclair. London: Collins, 1987. ———. ‘Lexicography’. Page ix in The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics. Edited by Ruslan Mitkov. Oxford: OUP, 2003. Harris, Murray J. Colossians and Philemon. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991. ———. Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2012. ———. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. Hartley, John E. Leviticus. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1992. Harvey, John D. ‘The “with Christ” Motif in Paul’s Thought’. JETS 35, no. 3 (September 1992): 329–340. Haskel, Peggy I. ‘Collocations as a Measure of Stylistic Variety’. Pages 159–168 in The Computer in Literary and Linguistic Research: Papers from a Cambridge Symposium. Edited by R. A. Wisbey. Cambridge: CUP, 1971. Hasselgård, Hilde, and Signe Oksefjell, eds. Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. LCSPL 26. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. Hatzigeorgiu, Nick, Maria Gavrilidou, Stelios Piperidis, and George Carayannis. ‘Design and Implementation of the Online ILSP Greek Corpus’. Paper

WORKS CITED

207

presented at the Institute for Language and Speech Processing. Maroussi, Greece, 2000. Hawthorne, Gerald F. Philippians. Revised & expanded by Ralph P. Martin. WBC. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson, 2004. Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, Ky.: John Knox, 1997. Helyer, Larry R. The Witness of Jesus, Paul and John: An Exploration in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2008. Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Edited by Conrad H. Gempf. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Hendriksen, William. Commentary on Chapters 7–21. Vol. 2 of Exposition of the Gospel According to John. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1953. ———. Exposition of Colossians, and Philemon. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1964. ———. Exposition of Galatians. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1968. ———. Exposition of the Gospel According to Luke. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1978. ———. Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1975. ———. Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1973. Herodotus. The Persian Wars Books 5–7. Vol. 3 of The Persian Wars. Edited by A. D. Godley. LCL 119. Medford, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1922. Héring, Jean. The Second Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians. Translated by A. W. Heathcote and P. J. Allcock. London: Epworth, 1967. Hirst, Graeme. ‘Foreword’. Pages xvii–xix in Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications. Edited by Eneko Agirre and Philip Edmonds. TSLT 33. New York: Springer, 2007. ———. Semantic Interpretation and the Resolution of Ambiguity. Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge: CUP, 1987. Hockey, Susan. ‘Textual Databases’. Pages 101–137 in Using Computers in Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Edited by John M. Lawler and Helen Aristar Dry. London: Routledge, 1998. Hoey, Michael, ed. Data, Description, Discourse: Papers on the English Language in Honour of John McH Sinclair on His Sixtieth Birthday. London: HarperCollins, 1993. ———. ‘Corpus Linguistics and Word Meaning’. Pages 972–987 in Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, vol. 2. Edited by Anke Lüdeling and Merja Kytö. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 29.2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. ———. ‘Corpus-Driven Approaches to Grammar: The Search for Common Ground’. Pages 33–47 in Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface. Edited by Ute Römer and Rainer Schulze. SCL 35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. ———. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge, 2005. ———. Patterns of Lexis in Text. DEL. Oxford: OUP, 1991.

208

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Hoey, Michael, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell. ‘Lexicography, Grammar, and Textual Position’. International Journal of Lexicography 21, no. 3 (2008): 293–309. Hoffmann, Thomas, and Lucia Siebers. World Englishes—Problems, Properties and Prospects: Selected Papers from the 13th International Association for World Englishes (IAWE) International Conference. Varieties of English Around the World G40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. Holmes, Janet. ‘Ladies and Gentlemen: Corpus Analysis and Linguistic Sexism’. Pages 141–155 in Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20), Freiburg Im Breisgau 1999. Edited by Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt. LCSPL 33. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. Hooker, Morna D. The Gospel According to St. Mark. BNTC. London: Continuum, 1991. Horn, Laurence R. ‘Implicature’. Pages 3–28 in The Handbook of Pragmatics. Edited by Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward. BHL. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. Horrocks, Geoffrey. Greek: A History of the Language and Its Speakers. LLL. London: Longman, 1997. Horsley, G. H. R., and John A. L. Lee. ‘A Lexicon of the New Testament with Documentary Parallels: Some Interim Entries, 1’. Filología Neotestamentaria X, no. 19–20 (May–November 1997): 55–84. Horsley, Richard A. 1 Corinthians. ANTC. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1998. Houlden, J. L. Paul’s Letters from Prison: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and Ephesians. Westminster Pelican Commentaries. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. Hsu, Yu-Ling Una, Jing-Shin Chang, and Keh-Yih Su. ‘Computational Tools and Resources for Linguistic Studies’. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 2, no. 1 (February 1997): 1–40. Huang, Yan. Pragmatics. OTbL. Oxford: OUP, 2007. Hudson, R. A. Sociolinguistics. CTL. Cambridge: CUP, 1980. Huff, Darrell. How to Lie with Statistics. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1954. Hughes, Philip E. Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1962. Hunston, Susan. ‘Colligation, Lexis, Pattern, and Text’. Pages 14–33 in Patterns of Text: In Honour of Michael Hoey. Edited by Mike Scott and Geoff Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. ———. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. CAL. Cambridge: CUP, 2002. ———. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. RACL 13. New York: Routledge, 2011. ———. ‘Professional Conflict—Disagreement in Academic Discourse’. Pages 115– 134 in Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993. Hunston, Susan, and Gil Francis. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. SCL 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000. Huther, Joh. Ed. Handbook to the General Epistles of James and John. In CECNT. 5th ed. Translated by Paton J. Gloag and Clarke H. Irwin. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1882. Isocrates. Isocrates. Vol. 3. Translated by George Norlin. LCL 373. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929. Jackson, Howard. Words and Their Meaning. LAL. London: Longman, 1988.

WORKS CITED

209

Jackson, Howard, and Etienne Zé Amvela. Words, Meaning and Vocabulary: An Introduction to Modern English Lexicology. OLS. London: Continuum, 2000. Jannaris, Antonius N. An Historical Greek Grammar: Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity Down to the Present Time. London: MacMillan & Co., 1897. Jebb, Richard C. The Ajax. Vol. VII of Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, with Critical Notes, Commentary, and Translation in English Prose. Cambridge: CUP, 1907. Jeffers, James S. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1999. Jenney, Timothy P. ‘Water’. Pages 1367–1369 in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary on the Book of Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2007. Jobes, Karen H. 1 Peter. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2005. Jobes, Karen H. ‘Distinguishing the Meaning of Greek Verbs in the Semantic Domain of Worship’. Pages 201–211 in Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. By Moisés Silva. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994. Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2000. Johansson, Stig. ‘“Sweetly Oblivious”: Some Aspects of Adverb-Adjective Combinations in Present-Day English’. Pages 39–49 in Data, Description, Discourse. Edited by Michael Hoey. London: HarperCollins, 1993. Johansson, Stig, and Knut Hofland. Tag Frequencies and Word Frequencies. Vol. 1 of Frequency Analysis of English Vocabulary and Grammar: Based on the LOB Corpus. Oxford: Clarendon, 1989. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Gospel of Luke. SP 3. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1991. Johnson, Marion R. ‘A Unified Temporal Theory of Tense and Aspect’. Pages 145–175 in Tense and Aspect. Edited by Philip J. Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen. SS 14. New York: Academic, 1981. Joosten, Jan. ‘Le Vocabulaire de la Septante et la Question du Sociolecte des Juifs Alexandrins le Cas du Verbe εὐλογέω, « Benir »’. Pages 13–23 in Septuagint Vocabulary: Pre-History, Usage, Reception. SBLSCS 58. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. ———. ‘The Vocabulary of the Septuagint and Its Historical Context’. Pages 1–11 in Septuagint Vocabulary: Pre-History, Usage, Reception. SBLSCS 58. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion. Translated by John M. G. Barclay. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. Jewish Antiquities, Vol. 7, Books 16–17. Translated by Ralph Marcus. Vol. 11 of Josephus. LCL 410. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963. ———. The Jewish War, Vol. 3, Books 5–7. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Vol. 4 of Josephus. LCL 210. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961. ———. The Life; Against Apion. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Vol. 1 of Josephus, Vols. 1–9. LCL 186. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961. Kachru, Braj B., Yamuna Kachru, and Cecil L. Nelson, eds. The Handbook of World Englishes. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Kaeding, J. W. Häufigkeitswörterbuch der deutschen Sprache: Festgestellt durch einen Arbeitsausschuss der deutschen Stenographie-Systeme. Berlin: Steglitz, 1897.

210

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Kasch, Wilhelm. ‘συνίστημι, συνιστάνω’. Pages 7:896–898 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Translated and edited by and Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Katz, Jerrold J., Claudia Leacock, and Yael Ravin, eds. ‘A Decompositional Approach to Modification’. Pages 207–234 in Actions and Events: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Edited by Ernest LePore and Brian P. McLaughlin. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1995. Kawaguchi, Yuji. ‘Foundations of Center for Usage-Based Linguistic Information’. Pages 3–28 in Corpus-Based Perspectives in Linguistics. Edited by Yuji Kawaguchi, Toshihiro Takagaki, Nobuo Tomimori, and Yoichiro Tsuruga. UBLI 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007. Kawaguchi, Yuji, and Toshihiro Takagaki, eds. Spoken Language Corpus and Linguistic Informatics. UBLI 5. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006. Kearns, Kate. Semantics. Modern Linguistics. New York: St. Martin’s, 2000. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. ———. Revelation. NIVAC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2000. Keesmaat, Sylvia C. ‘Colossians, Book of’. Pages 119–123 in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2005. Kelly, Edward F., and Philip J. Stone. Computer Recognition of English Word Senses. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975. Kelly, J. N. D. The Epistles of Peter and of Jude. BNTC. London: Continuum, 1969. Kilgarriff, Adam. ‘“I don’t believe in word senses”’. Pages 361–391 in Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Edited by Brigitte Nerlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman, and Clark David D. TLSM 142. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. ———. ‘Word Senses’. Pages 29–46 in Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications. Edited by Eneko Agirre and Philip Edmonds. TSLT 33. New York: Springer, 2007. Kirk, Steven, and Ronald Carter. ‘Fluency and Spoken English’. Pages 25–38 in Exploring New Paths in Language Pedagogy: Lexis and Corpus-Based Language Teaching. Edited by María Moreno Jaén, Fernando Serrano Valverde, and María Calzada Pérez. Equinox English Linguistics and ELT. London: Equinox, 2010. Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of Peter, and Jude. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1987. ———. Exposition of the Book of Revelation. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2001. ———. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1993. ———. Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1997. Kjellmer, Göran. ‘As Is: A New Lexeme in British English?’ Pages 79–92 in Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Edited by Hilde Hasselgård and Signe Oksefjell. LCSPL 26. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999.

WORKS CITED

211

———. A Dictionary of English Collocations: Based on the Brown Corpus. Vol. 1–3. Oxford: Clarendon, 1994. Kling, Christian Friedrich. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Translated by Daniel W. Poor. Vol. VI of the New Testament: Containing the Two Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians of A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1868, [repr. 1960]. ———. The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Vol. VI of the New Testament: Containing the Two Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians of A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1867 [repr. 1960]. Koehn, Philipp. ‘Europarl: A Multilingual Corpus for Evaluation of Machine Translation’. n.p. (accessed 5 August 2011). Online: http://homepages.inf.ed. ac.uk/pkoehn/publications/europarl.pdf. ———. ‘Europarl: A Parallel Corpus for Statistical Machine Translation’. Paper presented at the Machine Translation Summit, 2005. Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2004. Kraft, Robert A. Septuagintal Lexicography. SBLSCS 1. Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1972. Kretzer, Armin. ‘συνίστημι, συνιστάνω’. Page 3:308 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990. Krishnamurthy, Ramesh. ‘Corpus-Driven Lexicography’. International Journal of Lexicography 21, no. 3 (2008): 231–242. ———. ‘Editor’s Preface’. Pages xii–xv in English Collocation Studies: The OSTI Report. By John Sinclair, Susan Jones, and Robert Daley. SCD. London: Continuum, 2004. ———. ‘The Process of Compilation’. Pages 62–85 in Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project. Edited by John Sinclair. London: Collins, 1987. Krovetz, Robert. ‘Lexical Acquisition and Information Retrieval’. Pages 45–64 in Lexical Acquisition: Exploiting On-Line Resources to Build a Lexicon. Edited by Uri Zernik. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991. Kruse, Colin G. The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Leicester, UK: IVP, 2003. Kuçera, Henry, and W. Nelson Francis. Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English. Providence, R.I.: Brown University, 1964. Kuhn, Karl Georg. ‘New Light on Temptation, Sin, and Flesh in the New Testament’. Pages 94–113 in The Scrolls and the New Testament. Edited by Krister Stendahl. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958. Labov, William. ‘The Boundaries of Words and Their Meanings’. Pages 340–73 in New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Edited by C.-J. Bailey and R. Shuy. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1973. Lakoff, George. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1987. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980. Lambrecht, Jan. Second Corinthians. SP 8. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1999. Lambrecht, Knud. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. CSL. Cambridge: CUP, 1994.

212

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Landau, Sidney I. Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography. 2nd ed. Cambridge: CUP, 2001. Langacker, Ronald W. ‘Cognitive Grammar’. Pages 51–54 in Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. Edited by Keith Brown and Jim Miller. Oxford: Pergamon, 1996. Lange, John Peter, and J. J. van Oosterzee. The Epistle General of James. Vol. IX of the New Testament: Epistles General of James, Peter, John and Jude of A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. Translated and edited by J. Isidor Mombert. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1950. Laws, Sophie. The Epistle of James. BNTC. London: Continuum, 1980. Laybutt, Brett. ‘A Corpus Study of “Cup of [Tea]” and “Mug of [Tea]”’. n.p. (accessed 19 August 2011). Online: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/collegeartslaw/cels/essays/corpuslinguistics/ACorpusStudyofCupofteaandMugoftea. pdf Lee, John A. L. A History of New Testament Lexicography. SBG 8. New York: Peter Lang, 2003. ———. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. SBLSCS 14. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1983. ———. ‘The Present State of Lexicography of Ancient Greek’. Pages 66–74 in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor, John A. L. Lee, Peter R. Burton, and Richard E. Whitaker. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004. ———. ‘συνίστημι: A Sample Entry’. Pages 1–15 in Melbourne Symposium on Septuagint Lexicography. Edited by Takamitsu Muraoka. SBLSCS 28. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. Leech, Geoffrey. ‘The Distribution of Function of Vocatives in American and British English Conversation’. Pages 107–118 in Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Edited by Hilde Hasselgård and Signe Oksefjell. LCSPL 26. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. Lehrer, Adrienne. Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. North-Holland Linguistic Series 11. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1974. Leitner, Gerhard, ed. New Directions in English Language Corpora: Methodology, Results, Software Developments. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1992. Lenk, Uta. ‘Stabilized Expressions in Spoken Discourse: Worth Our Time?’ Pages 187–200 in Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20), Freiburg Im Breisgau 1999. Edited by Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt. LCSPL 33. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of 1 Corinthians. Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1946. Levinson, Stephen C. Pragmatics. CTL. Cambridge: CUP, 1983. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. ‘Dynamic Perspective on Antonymous Polysemy’. Pages 121–137 in Making Meaningful Choices in English: On Dimensions, Perspectives, Methodology and Evidence. Edited by Rainer Schulze. LP 16. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1998.

WORKS CITED

213

———. ‘Polysemy, Prototypes, and Radial Categories’. Pages 139–169 in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens. Oxford: OUP, 2007. Lichtenberk, Frantisek. ‘Semantic Change and Heterosemy in Grammaticalization’. Language 67, no. 3 (September 1991): 475–509. Lightfoot, J. B. Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon. 8th ed. CCGNT. London: Macmillan & Co., 1886. Lincoln, Andrew T. The Gospel According to Saint John. BNTC. London: Continuum, 2005. Lloyd, Albert L. Anatomy of the Verb: The Gothic Verb as a Model for a Unified Theory of Aspect, Actional Types, and Verbal Velocity. Studies in Language Companion Series 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1979. Loh, I-Jin, and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Philippians. UBSHSHT. New York: UBS, 1977. Loh, I-Jin, and Howard A. Hatton. A Translator’s Handbook on the Letter from James. UBSHSHT. New York: UBS, 1997. Lohse, Eduard. Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon. 1. Auflage. KEK. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968. ———. A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. Edited by Helmut Koester. Translated by William R. Poehlmann and Robert J. Karris. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Lorente Fernández, Paula. L’aspect verbal en grec ancien: le choix des thèmes verbaux chez Isocrate. Bibliothèque des Cahiers de l’Institut de linquistique de Louvain, 111. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters, 2003. Louw, Bill. ‘Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer?—The Diagnostic Potential of Semantic Prosodies’. Pages 157–176 in Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993. Louw, Johannes P. ‘The Analysis of Meaning in Lexicography’. Filología Neotestamentaria 6, no. 12 (November 1993): 139–148. Luhn, H. P. ‘Keyword-in-Context Index for Technical Literature (KWIC Index)’. Pages 159–167 in Readings in Automatic Language Processing. Edited by David G. Hays. New York: American Elsevier, 1966. Luraghi, Silvia. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2003. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 21–28: A Commentary on Matthew 21–28. Translated by James E. Crouch and Helmut Koester. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Lyons, John. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP, 1968. ———. Language and Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP, 1981. ———. Language, Meaning and Context. Fontana Linguistics. Bungay, UK: Chaucer, 1981. ———. Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP, 1995. ———. Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: CUP, 1977. ———. Structural Semantics: An Analysis of Part of the Vocabulary of Plato. Publications of the Philological Society 20. Oxford: Basic Blackwell, 1963.

214

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

MacDonald, Dennis R. Does the New Testament Imitate Homer?: Four Cases from the Acts of the Apostles. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003. MacDonald, Margaret Y. Colossians and Ephesians. SP 17. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2000. McDonald, H. Dermot. Commentary on Colossians and Philemon. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1980. McArthur, Tom. ‘Thematic Lexicography’. Pages 149–59 in Living Words: Language, Lexicography, and the Knowledge Revolution. Edited by Tom McArthur. Exeter, UK: University of Exeter, 1998. McEnery, Tony, and Andrew Wilson. Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. ETEL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001. McEnery, Tony, Richard Xiao, and Yukio Tono. Corpus-Based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. Routledge Applied Linguistics. London: Routledge, 2006. McKay, K. L. A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek. SBG 5. New York: Peter Lang, 1994. ———. ‘Style and Significance in the Language of John 21:15–17’. NovT 27, no. 4 (October 1985): 319–333. McKeown, Kathleen, and Dragomir R. Radev. ‘Collocations’. Pages 507–23 in Handbook of Natural Language Processing. Edited by Robert Dale, Hermann Moisl, and Harold Somers. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2000. McLay, R. Timothy. The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. McNeile, Alan Hugh. The Gospel According to St. Matthew: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indices. London: Macmillan & Co., 1915. Mair, Christian, and Marianne Hundt. ‘Introduction: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory’. Pages 1–4 in Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20), Freiburg im Breisgau 1999. Edited by Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt. LCSPL 33. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. Malina, Bruce J., and John J. Pilch. Social-Science Commentary on the Letters of Paul. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Markus, Manfred. ‘Wherefore Therefore: Causal Connectives in Middle English Prose as Opposed to Present-Day English’. Pages 215–232 in Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20), Freiburg im Breisgau 1999. Edited by Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt. LCSPL 33. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978. ———. New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2004. Martin, D. Michael. 1, 2 Thessalonians. NAC. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Martin, Ernest D. Colossians, Philemon. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1993. Martin, Luther H. ‘Tyche, Τύχη’. Pages 877–78 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999.

WORKS CITED

215

Martin, Ralph P. 2 Corinthians. WBC 40. Dallas: Word, 1986. ———. Colossians and Philemon. NCB. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1973. ———. James. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1988. Martin, W. J. R., B. P. F. Al, and P. J. G. van Sterkenburg. ‘On the Processing of a Text Corpus: From Textual Data to Lexicographical Information’. Pages 77–87 in Lexicography: Principles and Practice. Edited by R. K. K. Hartmann. ALS. London: Academic, 1983. Martyn, J. Louis. Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Matera, Frank J. Galatians. SP 9. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1992. Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. James: Introduction, Notes and Comments on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. CCGNT. London: Macmillan & Co., 1913. Mel’čuk, Igor. ‘Collocations and Lexical Functions’. Pages 23–53 in Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Edited by A. P. Cowie. OSLL. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Melick, Richard R. Jr. Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. NAC. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1991. Melito of Sardis. ‘On the Passover’. Translated by James T. Dennison Jr. Kerux 4, no. 1 (May 1989): 5–35. Mey, Jacob L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993. Meyer, Charles F. English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Studies in English Language. Cambridge: CUP, 2002. Meyer, H. A. W. First Epistle Ch. I.-XIII. Translated by D. Douglas Bannerman, revised and edited by William P. Dickson. Vol. 1, Epistles to the Corinthians of CECNT. 5th ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1879. ———. First Epistle, Ch. XIV.-XVI.; Second Epistle. Translated by D. Douglas Bannerman and David Hunter, revised and edited by William P. Dickson. Vol. 2, Epistles to the Corinthians of CECNT. 5th ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1879. ———. Handbook to the Epistles to the Philippians and Colossians. In CECNT. 4th ed. Translated by John C. Moore, revised and edited by William P. Dickson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1875. ———. Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew. Translated by Peter Christie, revised and edited by William Stewart. Vol. 2, The Gospel of Matthew of CECNT. 4th ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1879. Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. WBC 49. Dallas: Word, 1988. ———. John. Good News Commentary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984. Mitkov, Ruslan, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics. Oxford: OUP, 2003. ———. Preface’. Page ix in The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics. Edited by Ruslan Mitkov. Oxford: OUP, 2003. Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. SP 4. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1998. Moo, Douglas J. 2 Peter and Jude. NIVAC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996. ———. The Letter of James. Pillar. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. Pillar. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008.

216

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Moon, Rosamund. ‘The Analysis of Meaning’. Pages 86–103 in Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project. Edited by John Sinclair. London: Collins, 1987. ———. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach. OSLL. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. ———. ‘Frequencies and Forms of Phrasal Lexemes in English’. Pages 79–100 in Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Edited by A. P. Cowie. OSLL. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998. Moreno-Sandoval, Antonio, and José M. Guirao. ‘Morpho-Syntactic Tagging of the Spanish C-ORAL-ROM Corpus’. Pages 199–218 in Spoken Language Corpus and Linguistic Informatics. Edited by Yuji Kawaguchi and Toshihiro Takagaki. UBLI 5. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006. Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Pillar. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988. ———. The Gospel According to John. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995. ———. The Gospel According to Matthew. Pillar. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992. Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. WBC 46. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000. Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Murphy, M. Lynne. Lexical Meaning. CTL. Cambridge: CUP, 2010. ———. Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonymy, Synonymy, and Other Paradigms. Cambridge: CUP, 2003. Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. ‘Faith and Resurrection in 2 Cor 4:13–14’. RB 95, no. 4 (1988): 543–550. ———. ‘I Corinthians, V, 3–5’. RB 84 (1977): 239–245. ———. The Theology of the Second Letter to the Corinthians. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: CUP, 1991. Murzaku, Alexander. ‘Does Albanian Have a Third Person Personal Pronoun? Let’s Have a Look at the Corpus…’ Pages 243–255 in Corpus Linguistics Beyond the Word: Corpus Research from Phrase to Discourse. Edited by Eileen Fitzpatrick. LCSPL 60. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007. Mussner, Frank. The Epistle to the Colossians. In New Testament for Spiritual Reading. Edited by John L. McKenzie. Herder & Herder, 1971. Nelleke, Oostdijk. ‘The Spoken Dutch Corpus. Overview and First Evaluation’. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2000). Athens, 2000. Nerlich, Brigitte, and David D. Clark. ‘Polysemy and Flexibility: Introduction and Overview’. Pages 3–30 in Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Edited by Brigitte Nerlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman, and Clark David D. TLSM 142. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. Neusner, Jacob, ed. and trans. The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary. 22 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2011. ———. The Mishnah: A New Translation. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1988. Newman, Barclay M., and Philip C. Stine. A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Matthew. UBSHSHT. New York: UBS, 1988. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1– 36; 81–108. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.

WORKS CITED

217

Nida, Eugene A. Componential Analysis of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantic Structures. Approaches to Semiotics 57. The Hague: Mouton, 1975. ———. ‘Implications of Contemporary Linguistics for Biblical Scholarship’. JBL 91, no. 1 (March 1972): 73–89. ———. ‘Science of Translation’. Pages 79–101 in Language Structure and Translation: Essays by Eugene A. Nida. Language Science and National Development. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969. Nida, Eugene A., and Johannes P. Louw. Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament. Resources for Biblical Study 25. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. Luke 18:35–24:53. WBC 35C. Dallas: Word, 1993. North, Sarah. ‘Glossary’. Pages ix–xxii in Applying English Grammar: Functional and Corpus Approaches. Edited by Caroline Coffin, Ann Hewings, and Kieran O’Halloran. London: Open University Press, 2004. Nunn, H. P. V. The Elements of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: CUP, 1923. O’Brien, Peter T. Colossians–Philemon. WBC 44. Dallas: Word, 2002. ———. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1991. Oakes, Michael P. Statistics for Corpus Linguistics. ETEL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998. O’Donnell, Matthew Brook. Corpus Linguistics and the Greek of the New Testament. New Testament Monographs 6. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2005. O’Donnell, Matthew Brook. ‘Designing and Compiling a Register-Balanced Corpus of Hellenistic Greek for the Purpose of Linguistic Description and Investigation’. Pages 255–297 in Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. JSNTSup. Sheffield: SAP, 2000. Ogden, C. K., and I. A. Richards. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language Upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. 10th ed. International Library of Psychology, Philosophy and Scientific Method. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1949. Olsen, Mari Broman. A Semantic and Pragmatic Model of Lexical and Grammatical Aspect. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics. New York: Garland, 1997. Omanson, Roger L., and John Ellington. A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians. UBSHSHT. New York: UBS, 1993. Ooi, Vincent B. Y. Computer Corpus Lexicography. ETEL. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998. Oosting, Reinoud. The Role of Zion/Jerusalem in Isaiah 40–55: A Corpus-Linguistic Approach. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 59. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Oppentocht, Lineke, and Rik Schutz. ‘Design of Dictionaries’. Pages 215–227 in A Practical Guide to Lexicography. Edited by Piet van Sterkenburg. TLRP 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. Osborne, Grant R. Matthew. ZECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2010. ———. Revelation. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2002. Pagels, Elaine Hiesey. The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

218

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Palmer, F. R. ‘Firth and the London School’. Pages 81–84 in Concise Encyclopedia of Syntactic Theories. Edited by Keith Brown and Jim Miller. Oxford: Pergamon, 1996. Parodi, Giovanni, ed. Academic and Professional Discourse Genres in Spanish. SCL 40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010. Partington, Alan. ‘Corpus Evidence of Language Change—The Case of the Intensifier’. Pages 177–192 in Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli. Philadelphia: Johns Benjamins, 1993. ———. Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. SCL 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998. Patzia, Arthur G. Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians. Good News Commentary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1984. Peake, A. S. ‘The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians’. Pages 475–547 in Expositor’s Greek Testament, vol. 3. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. New York: George H. Doran, 1903. Pearson, Brook W. R., and Stanley E. Porter. ‘The Genres of the New Testament’. Pages 131–166 in Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Pedersen, Ted. ‘Unsupervised Corpus-Based Methods for WSD’. Pages 133–166 in Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications. Edited by Eneko Agirre and Philip Edmonds. TSLT 33. New York: Springer, 2007. Penner, Ken, and Michael S. Heiser, eds. Old Testament Greek Pseudepigrapha with Morphology. Bellingham, Wash.: Logos Research Systems, 2008. Peters, Melvin K. H. ‘Septuagint’. Pages 5:1093–1104 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992. Philip, Gil. Colouring Meaning: Collocation and Connotation in Figurative Language. SCL 43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011. Philo. On the Creation; Allegorical Interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. A. Whitaker. Vol. 1 of Philo. LCL 226. London: William Heinemann, 1929. ———. On the Decalogue. On the Special Laws, Books 1–3. Translated by F. H. Colson. Vol. 7 of Philo. LCL 320. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1937. Plato. De Mundo. Translated by E. S. Forster. Oxford: OUP, 1914. ———. Platonis Opera. Translated by John Burnet. Medford, Mass.: OUP, 1903. ———. Republic, Vol. 1, Books 1–5. Translated by Paul Shorey. Vol. 5 of Plato. LCL 237. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969. Plevnik, Joseph. ‘The Destination of the Apostle and of the Faithful: Second Corinthians 4:13b–14 and First Thessalonians 4:14’. CBQ 62, no. 1 (January 2000): 83–95. Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915. ———. The Gospel According to S. John. CGTSC. Cambridge: CUP, 1896. ———. The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. CGTSC. Cambridge: CUP, 1903.

WORKS CITED

219

Poesio, Massimo. ‘Semantic Analysis’. Pages 93–122 in Handbook of Natural Language Processing. Edited by Robert Dale, Moisl Hermann, and Harold Somers. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2000. Polybius. Historiae. Edited by Theodorus Büttner-Wobst and L. Dindorf. Medford, Mass: Teubner, 1893. Popkes, W. ‘πειράζω’. Pages 3:64–67 in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990. Porter, Stanley E. ‘Aspect Theory and Lexicography’. Pages 207–222 in Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography: Essays in Honor of Frederick W. Danker. Edited by Bernard A. Taylor, John A. L. Lee, Peter R. Burton, and Richard E. Whitaker. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004. ———. ‘The Functional Distribution of Koine Greek in First-Century Palestine’. Pages 53–78 in Diglossia and Other Topics in New Testament Linguistics. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. JSNTSup 193. SNTG 6. Sheffield: SAP, 2000. ———. ‘Greek Language and Linguistics’. Pages 7–20 in Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. SBG 6. New York: Peter Lang, 1996. ———. ‘Greek of the New Testament’. Pages 426–435 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2000. ———. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Biblical Languages: Greek 2. Shefffield: SAP, 1994. ———. ‘In Defence of Verbal Aspect’. Pages 26–45 in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTSup 80. Sheffield: SAP, 1993. ———. ‘Linguistic Issues in New Testament Lexicography’. Pages 49–74 in Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. SBG 6. New York: Peter Lang, 1996. ———. ‘Septuagint/Greek Old Testament’. Pages 1099–1106 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2000. ———. ‘Tense Terminology and Greek Language Study: A Linguistic Re-Evaluation’. Pages 39–48 in Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. SBG 6. New York: Peter Lang, 1996. ———. ‘Vague Verbs, Periphrastics, and Matthew 16:19’. Pages 104–123 in Studies in the Greek New Testament: Theory and Practice. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. SBG 6. New York: Peter Lang, 1996. ———. ‘Verbal Aspect and Discourse Function in Mark 16:1–8: Three Significant Issues’. Pages 123–137 in Studies in the Greek Bible: Essays in Honor of Francis T. Gignac, S.J. Edited by Jeremy Corley and Vincent Skemp. CBQMS 44. Washington, D.C., 2008. ———. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood. SBG 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Porter, Stanley E., Jeffrey T. Reed, and Matthew Brook O’Donnell. Fundamentals of New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010.

220

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Preisendanz, Karl, ed. Papyri graecae magicae: Die griechischen Zauberpapyri. 2 vols. Munich: K. G. Saur, 1928 [repr. 2001]. Quinn, Jerome D., and William C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary. ECC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. Rademaker, Adriaan. Sophrosyne and the Rhetoric of Self-Restraint: Polysemy and Persuasive Use of an Ancient Greek Value Term. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Ravin, Yael. ‘Synonymy from a Computational Point of View’. Pages 397–419 in Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Edited by Adrienne Lehrer and Eva Feder Kittay. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992. Ravin, Yael, and Claudia Leacock. ‘Polysemy: An Overview’. Pages 1–29 in Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Edited by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock. Oxford: OUP, 2000. ———. Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Oxford: OUP, 2000. ———. ‘Preface’. Pages v–vi in Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Edited by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock. Oxford: OUP, 2000. Reichenbach, Hans. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Macmillan, 1947. Reid, Daniel G. ‘Satan, Devil’. Pages 862–867 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1993. Reiling, J., and J. L. Swellengrebel. A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. UBSHSHT. New York: UBS, 1971. Renouf, Antoinette. ‘Corpus Development’. Pages 1–40 in Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project. Edited by John Sinclair. London: Collins, 1987. ———. ‘Corpus Development 25 Years On: From Super-Corpus to Cyber-Corpus’. Pages 27–49 in Corpus Linguistics 25 Years On. Edited by Roberta Facchinetti. LCSPL 62. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007. ———. ‘Lexical Signals of Word Relations’. Pages 36–54 in Patterns of Text: In Honour of Michael Hoey. Edited by Mike Scott and Geoff Thompson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. Renouf, Antoinette, and Andrew Kehoe, eds. The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. LCSPL 55. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2006. Reyburn, William D., and Euan McG. Fry. A Translator’s Handbook on Genesis. UBSHSHT. New York: UBS, 1998. Riemer, Nick. The Semantics of Polysemy: Reading Meaning in English and Warlpiri. CLR 30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005. Riley, Greg J. ‘Demon, Δαίμων, Δαιμόνιον’. Pages 234–240 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. Robertson, A. T., and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. ICC. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911. Roloff, Jürgen. The Revelation of John. Translated by John E. Alsup. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Ropes, James Hardy. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle of St. James. ICC. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1916.

WORKS CITED

221

Rosner, Brian S. Paul, Scripture & Ethics: A Study of 1 Corinthians 5–7. AGJU. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Römer, Ute, and Rainer Schulze, eds. Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface. SCL 35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. Ruhl, Charles. On Monosemy. SUNY Series in Linguistics. Albany, N.Y.: SUNY, 1989. Rydbeck, Lars. ‘What Happened to New Testament Greek Grammar After Albert Debrunner?’ NTS 21, no. 3 (April 1975): 424–427. Rydberg-Cox, Jeffrey A. ‘Co-Occurrence Patterns and Lexical Acquisition in Ancient Greek Texts’. Literary and Linguistic Computing 15, no. 2 (2000): 121–129. Ryken, Leland, ed. The New Testament in Literary Criticism. A Library of Literary Criticism. New York: F. Ungar, 1984. ———. How to Read the Bible as Literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Academie, 1984. Ryken, Leland, and Tremper Longman III, eds. A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1993. Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2000. Sailhamer, John H. ‘Introduction’. Pages i–xv in A New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible, Hebrew and Aramaic Roots, Words, Proper Names, Phrases and Synonyms. By Abraham Even-Shoshan. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1990. Salkie, Raphael. ‘The Chomskyan Revolutions’. Pages 105–117 in Routledge Critical Dictionary of Semiotics and Linguistics. Edited by Paul Copley. Florence, Ky.: Routledge, 2000. Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. London: Duckworth, 1916 [trans. 1983]. Savage, Timothy B. Power Through Weakness: Paul’s Understanding of the Christian Ministry in 2 Corinthians. SNTSMS 86. Cambridge: CUP, 1996. Schank, Roger C., and Robert P. Abelson. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry Into Human Knowledge Structures. The Artificial Intelligence Series. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977. Schmeller, Thomas. ‘Epictetus’. Pages 2:558–559 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 5 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Schmidt, Thomas. ‘Discipline’. Page 217 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1993. Schmied, Josef. ‘To Choose or not to Choose the Prototypical Equivalent: A Study on English With and German mit in English-German Translations’. Pages 207–222 in Making Meaningful Choices in English: On Dimensions, Perspectives, Methodology and Evidence. Edited by Rainer Schulze. LP 16. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1998. Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. NAC. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 2003. ———. Galatians. ZECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2010. Schweizer, Eduard. The Letter to the Colossians: A Commentary. Translated by Andrew Chester. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1982. Scott, Mike. WordSmith Tools 5.0. Lexical Analysis Software, 2010. Scott, R. B. Y. ‘Wisdom in Creation: The ’Amôn of Proverbs Viii. 30’. VT 10, no. 2 (April 1960): 213–223. Searle, John R. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: CUP, 1983.

222

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Seesemann, Heinrich. ‘πειράζω, πειρασμός et al.’ Pages 6:23–37 in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, Translated and edited by and Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Sextus Empiricus. Against the Logicians. Translated and edited by Richard Bett. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge: CUP, 2005. Silva, Moisés. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1983. ———. Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics. Revised and expanded ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994. ———. God, Language and Scripture: Reading the Bible in the Light of General Linguistics. Vol. 3 of Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996. ———. ‘The Pauline Style as Lexical Choice: ΓΙΝΩΣΚΕΙΝ and Related Verbs’. Pages 184–207 in Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to Professor F.F. Bruce. Edited by Donald A. Hagner and Murray J. Harris. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1980. ———. Philippians. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2005. ———. ‘A Response to Fanning and Porter on Verbal Aspect’. Pages 74–82 in Biblical Greek Language and Linguistics: Open Questions in Current Research. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and D. A. Carson. JSNTSup 80. Sheffield: SAP, 1993. ———. ‘Review of Buist M. Fanning, Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990, and Stanley E. Porter, Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament: With Reference to Tense and Mood. SBG 1. New York: Peter Lang, 1989’. WTJ 54, no. 1 (1992): 179–183. Sim, Margaret G. ‘The Genitive Absolute in Discourse: More Than a Change in Subject.’ Pages 313–326 in Reflections on Lexicography. Edited by Richard A. Taylor and Craig E. Morrison. Perspectives on Linguistics and Ancient Languages 4: Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2014. ———. Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek: New Light from Linguistics on the Particles ἵνα and ὅτι. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2010. Simpson, E. K., and F. F. Bruce. Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1957. Sinclair, John. ‘Basic Computer Processing of Long Texts’. Pages 185–203 in Computers and the English Language. Edited by Geoffrey N. Leech and Christopher Gandlin. London: Longman, 1986. ———. ‘Beginning the Study of Lexis’. Pages 410–430 in In Memory of J. R. Firth. Edited by C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, and R. H. Robins. LLL. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1966. ———. Collins COBUILD Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs. London: HarperCollins, 1989. ———. Collins COBUILD English Grammar. London: HarperCollins, 1990. ———. Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary. London: HarperCollins, 1987. ———. Collins COBUILD Essential English Dictionary. London: HarperCollins, 1988. ———. ‘Computational Text Analysis at the University of Birmingham’. Newsletter of the International Computer Archive of Modern English (ICAME), no. 4 (September 1980): 13–16. ———. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. DEL. Oxford: OUP, 1991.

WORKS CITED

223

———. ‘Corpus Processing’. Pages 179–193 in A Practical Guide to Lexicography. Edited by Piet van Sterkenburg. TLRP 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. ———. ‘Naturalness in Language’. Pages 203–210 in Corpus Linguistics: Recent Developments in the Use of Computer Corpora in English Language Research. Edited by Jan Aarts and Willem Meijs. Costerus New Series. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1984. ———. Reading Concordances: An Introduction. London: Pearson, 2003. ———. ‘Reflections on Computer Corpora in English Language Research’. Pages 1–6 in Computer Corpora in English Language Research. Edited by Stig Johansson. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities, 1982. ———. ‘Shared Knowledge’. Pages 489–500 in Linguistics and Language Pedagogy: The State of the Art. Edited by James E. Alatis. GURTLL 1991. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1991. ———. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. Edited with Ronald Carter. London: Routledge, 2004. ———. ‘A Way with Common Words’. Pages 157–175 in Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Edited by Hilde Hasselgård and Signe Oksefjell. LCSPL 26. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. Sinclair, John, ed. Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project. London: Collins, 1987. Sinclair, John, editor-in-chief. Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. Glasgow: HarperCollins, 2001. Lingea Software 3.0, 2003. ———, editor-in-chief. Collins COBUILD English Grammar. Glasgow: HarperCollins, 2001. Lingea Software 3.0, 2003. ———, editor-in-chief. Collins COBUILD English Usage. Glasgow: HarperCollins, 2001. Lingea Software 3.0, 2003. ———, editor-in-chief. Collins COBUILD Thesaurus. Glasgow: HarperCollins, 2001. Lingea Software 3.0, 2003. ———, editor-in-chief. Collins COBUILD Wordbank. Glasgow: HarperCollins, 2001. Lingea Software 3.0, 2003. Sinclair, John, Susan Jones, and Robert Daley. English Collocation Studies: The OSTI Report. SCD. London: Continuum, 2004. Sinclair, John, and Susan Jones. ‘English Lexical Collocations’. Cahiers de Lexicologie 24, no. 1 (1974): 15–61. Sinclair, John, Susan Jones, and Robert Daley. English Lexical Studies. Office for Scientific and Technical Information. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, 1970. Skandera, Paul. ‘Research Into Idioms and the International Corpus of English’. Pages 339–353 in Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20), Freiburg Im Breisgau 1999. Edited by Christian Mair and Marianne Hundt. LCSPL 33. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999. Smith, Carlota S. ‘Semantic and Syntactic Constraints on Temporal Interpretation’. Pages 213–237 in Tense and Aspect. Edited by Philip J. Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen. SS 14. New York: Academic, 1981. Smith, David Raymond. ‘Hand This Man Over to Satan’: Curse, Exclusion and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5. LNTS 386. London: T&T Clark, 2008.

224

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Spears, Richard A. NTC’s Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs and Other Idiomatic Verbal Phrases. Lincolnwood, Ill.: National Textbook Company, 1993. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. Stathi, Katerina. ‘Korpusbasierte Analyse der Semantik von Idiomen’. Neue Theoretische und Methodische Ansätze in der Phraseologieforschung. Linguistik Online 27, no. 2 (2006). n.p. (accessed 20 September 2011). Online: http://www.linguistik-online.de/27_06/stathi.html. Stein, Achim. ‘Syntactic Annotation of Old French Text Corpora’. Corpus, no. 7 (2008): 157–171. Stein, Robert H. Mark. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2008. Sterkenburg, Piet van. ‘Onomasiological Specifications and a Concise History of Onomasiological Dictionaries’. Pages 127–143 in A Practical Guide to Lexicography. Edited by Piet van Sterkenburg. TLRP 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. Stewart, Dominic. Semantic Prosody: A Critical Evaluation. RACL. New York: Routledge, 2010. Strawson, P. F. ‘Intention and Convention in Speech Acts’. Pages 149–169 in LogicoLinguistic Papers. Edited by P. F. Stawson. London: Metheun & Co., 1971. Stubbs, Michael. ‘British Traditions in Text Analysis—From Firth to Sinclair’. Pages 1– 36 in Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993. ———. ‘Corpora and Texts: Lexis and Text Structure’. Language and Computers 75, no. 1 (August 2012): 223–230. ———. ‘An Example of Frequent English Phraseology: Distributions, Structures and Functions’. Pages 89–105 in Corpus Linguistics 25 Years On. Edited by Roberta Facchinetti. LCSPL 62. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007. ———. ‘Technology and Phraseology: With Notes on the History of Corpus Linguistics’. Pages 15–31 in Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface. Edited by Ute Römer and Rainer Schulze. SCL 35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. ———. Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-Assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Language in Society. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. ———. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Sumney, Jerry L. Colossians: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Sun, Maosong, Honglin Sun, Changning Huang, Pu Zhang, Hongbing Xing, and Qiang Zhou. ‘Hua Yu: A Word-Segmented and Part-of-Speech Tagged Chinese Corpus’. Paper presented at the 2nd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2000). Athens, 2000. Svartvik, Jan. ‘Corpus Linguistics 25+ Years On’. Pages 11–25 in Corpus Linguistics 25 Years On. Edited by Roberta Facchinetti. LCSPL 62. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007. Swanepoel, Piet. ‘Dictionary Typologies: A Pragmatic Approach’. Pages 44–69 in A Practical Guide to Lexicography. Edited by Piet van Sterkenburg. TLRP 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. Talbert, Charles H. Ephesians and Colossians. Paideia. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2007. ———. Matthew. Paideia. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2010.

WORKS CITED

225

———. Reading Corinthians: A Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. New York: Crossroad, 1987. Tarn, William Woodthorpe. ‘Arrian’. Pages 122–123 in The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd ed. Edited by N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard. Oxford: Clarendon, 1970. Taylor, John R. Linguistic Categorization. 3rd ed. OTbL. New York: OUP, 2003. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000. Thomas, Jenny. Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. LAL. Harlow, UK: Longman, 1995. Thrall, Margaret E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. 2 vols. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 1994. Thucydides. The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Edited by Thomas Hobbes. Medford, Mass.: Bohn, 1843. ———. Thucydides Translated Into English: With Introduction, Marginal Analysis, Notes, and Indices. Vol. 1. Edited by Benjamin Jowett. Medford, Mass.: Clarendon, 1881. Titrud, Kermit. ‘The Function of καί in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2 Peter’. Pages 239–270 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis. Edited by David Alan Black. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 1992. Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. Corpus Linguistics at Work. SCL 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001. ———. ‘Interpretative Nodes in Discourse—Actual and Actually’. Pages 193–212 in Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Edited by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1993. ———. ‘Working with Corpora: Issues and Insights’. Pages 11–24 in Applying English Grammar: Functional and Corpus Approaches. Edited by Caroline Coffin, Ann Hewings, and Kieran O’Halloran. London: Open University Press, 2004. Towner, Philip H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. NICNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. Trask, R. L. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. London: Routledge, 1999. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Richard B. Dasher. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: CUP, 2002. Tucker, Gordon H. ‘Cultural Classification and System Networks: A Systemic Functional Approach to Lexical Semantics’. Pages 533–566 in Meaning and Choice in Language: Studies for Michael Halliday. Edited by Margaret Berry, Robin Fawcett, Christopher Butler, and Guowen Huang. Advances in Discourse Processes LVII. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1996. ———. ‘So Grammarians Haven’t the Faintest Idea: Reconciling Lexis-Oriented and Grammar-Oriented Approaches to Language’. Pages 145–178 in Functional Descriptions: Theory in Practice. Edited by Ruqaiya Hasan, Carmel Cloran, and David Butt. Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science. Series IV. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1996. Tuggy, David. ‘Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness’. Cognitive Linguistics 4, no. 3 (January 1993): 273–290.

226

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

———. ‘Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness’. Pages 167–184 in Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts. CLR 34. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2006. ———. ‘Schematicity’. Pages 82–116 in The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Edited by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens. Oxford: OUP, 2007. Turner, David L. ‘The Gospel of Matthew’. Pages 3–390 in Matthew and Mark. Vol. 11 of Cornerstone Biblical Commentary. Edited by Philip W. Comfort. Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale, 2005. ———. Matthew. BECNT. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2008. Turner, Max. ‘Modern Linguistics and the New Testament’. Pages 146–174 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995. ———. ‘Modern Linguistics and Word Study in the New Testament’. Pages 189–217 in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. 2nd ed. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Tyler, Andrea, and Vyvyan Evans. The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Scenes, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP, 2003. Ullmann, Stephen. Words and Their Use. New York: Philosophical Library, 1951. Van Keulen, P.S.F., and W.Th. Van Peursen, eds. Corpus Linguistics and Textual History: A Computer-Assisted Interdisciplinary Approach to the Peshitta. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 48. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 2006. Varantola, Krista. ‘Linguistic Corpora (Databases) and the Compilation of Dictionaries’. Pages 228–239 in A Practical Guide to Lexicography. Edited by Piet van Sterkenburg. TLRP 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2003. Verkuyl, H. J. On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects. Foundations of Language Supplementary Series 15. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1972. Wahlde, Urban C. von. Commentary on the Gospel of John. Vol. 2 of The Gospel and Letters of John. ECC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. ———. Introduction, Analysis, and Reference. Vol. 1 of The Gospel and Letters of John. ECC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010. Walker, Donald D. ‘Lucian of Samosata’. Pages 654–656 in Dictionary of New Testament Background. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2000. Wall, Robert W., and Richard B. Steele. 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. The Two Horizons New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1996. Waltner, Erland. ‘1 Peter’. Pages 13–200 in 1–2 Peter, Jude. By Erland Waltner and J. Daryl Charles. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, Penn.: Herald, 1999. Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990. Wendland, E., and Eugene A. Nida. ‘Lexicography and Bible Translating’. Pages 1–52 in Lexicography and Translation: With Special Reference to Bible Translation. Edited by Johannes P. Louw. Cape Town: Bible Society of South Africa, 1985.

WORKS CITED

227

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. London: John Murray, 1908. Wevers, John William, ed. Numeri. Vol. III, 1 of Vetus Testamentum Graecum. AASGE. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Wilkins, Michael J. Matthew. NIVAC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004. Wilks, Yorick. ‘Foreword’. Pages iii–ix in Lexical Ambiguity Resolution: Perspectives from Psycholinguistics, Neuropsychology, and Artificial Intelligence. Edited by Steven L. Small, Garrison W. Cottrell, and Michael K. Tanenhaus. San Mateo, Calif.: Morgan Kaufmann, 1988. ———. ‘Senses and Texts’. Pages 393–409 in Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language. Edited by Brigitte Nerlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman, and David D. Clark. TLSM 142. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003. Williams, A. Lukyn, ed. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians and to Philemon. CGTSC. Cambridge: CUP, 1907. Willis, Wendell Lee. Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. SBLDS 68. Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1985. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. ‘Relevance Theory’. Pages 607–632 in The Handbook of Pragmatics. Edited by Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward. BHL. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. ‘A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts’. Pages 230–259 in Pragmatics. Edited by Noel Burton-Roberts. PAL. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. Wilson, R. McL. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon. ICC. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Winograd, Terry. ‘What Does It Mean to Understand Language?’ Pages 175–191 in Issues in Cognitive Modeling. Edited by A. M. Aitkenhead and J. M. Slack. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1985. Wise, Michael O. ‘Languages of Palestine’. Pages 434–444 in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2000. Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg Jr., and Edward M. Cook, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. New York: HarperOne, 2005. Witherington, Ben III. 1 and 2 Thessalonians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. ———. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995. ———. The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001. ———. Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. ———. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1–2 Peter. Vol. 2. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2007.

228

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

———. The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians and the Ephesians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Captivity Epistles. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007. Wolde, Ellen van. Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Woodhouse, S. C. English-Greek Dictionary: A Vocabulary of the Attic Language. London: Routledge, 1932. Wright, N. T. 1 Corinthians. Paul for Everyone. London: SPCK, 2003. ———. 2 Corinthians. Paul for Everyone. London: SPCK, 2004. ———. The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians and to Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary. TNTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986. ———. Jesus and the Victory of God. Vol. 2 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. London: SPCK, 1996. ———. The New Testament and the People of God. Vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God. London: SPCK, 1992. ———. Part 2: Chapters 11–21. In John for Everyone. London: SPCK, 2004. ———. Part 2: Chapters 16–28. In Matthew for Everyone. London: SPCK, 2004. ———. Paul: Fresh Perspectives. London: SPCK, 2005. ———. The Prison Letters: Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon. Paul for Everyone. London: SPCK, 2004. Wu, Andi. ‘From “the Same Form” to “the Same Meaning”: Intelligent Search of Biblical Texts Based on Syntax and Semantics’. Unpublished paper, 2011. Xenophon. Anabasis. Translated by Carleton L. Brownson. Vol. 3 of Anabasis. LCL 90. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1922. ———. Cyropaedia Books 1–4. Translated by Walter Miller. Vol. 1 of Cyropaedia. LCL 51. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914. ———. Cyropaedia Books 5–8. Translated by Walter Miller. Vol. 2 of Cyropaedia. LCL 52. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1914. ———. Memorabilia, Oeconomicus, Symposium, Apology. Translated by E. C. Marchant and O. J. Todd. Vol. 4 of Xenophon. LCL 168. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1923. ———. Scripta Minora. Translated by E. C. Marchant and G. W. Bowersock. Vol. 7 of Xenophon. LCL 183. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1925. Yonge, Charles Duke. An English-Greek Dictionary. London: Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans, 1849. Zerwick, Max. Biblical Greek: Illustrated by Examples. Translated and edited by Joseph Smith. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1963. Zerwick, Max, and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Unabridged, 5th rev. ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1996. Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Genesis. Vol. I of Vetus Testamentum Graecum. AASGE. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974. Zipf, George Kingsley. Selected Studies of the Principles of Relative Frequency in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932.

INDEX BIBLICAL REFERENCES Old Testament Genesis 1:1 22:1 26:19 Exodus 6:26 7:4 7:19 20:6 32:1 36:10 Leviticus 3:9 14:5 14:6 14:50 14:51 14:52 15:3 Numbers 1 1:3 1:20 1:22 1:24 1:26 1:28 1:30 1:32 1:34 1:36 1:38 1:40 1:42 1:45 1:52

45, 179 109 117 129 45, 108, 133–134 132, 133 134 162 108 162 122 45, 129 184 129 129 129 129 129 158 45, 133, 134 133 133, 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 132 133

2 2:31 2:32 5:17 10 10:12 10:14 10:18 10:22 10:25 16:3 33:1 Deuteronomy 4:19 5:10 6:5 7:5 13:3 19:16–20 Judges 5:31 20:44 Ruth 1 Samuel 1 Kings 22:19 2 Kings 17:16 21:3 21:5 23:4 2 Chronicles 24:24 30:6 Nehemiah 5:8

229

133 132 134–135 130 133 185 133 132–133 133 133 162 133 45, 108 139 108 108, 125 108 117 146 121 108 120–121 45 8 139

139 139 139 139

99, 142 185 120 120

230

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Esther Job 2:6 27:21 33:26 Psalms 92:14 96:10 106:36 117:27 Proverbs 3:19–20a 8 8:30 Ecclesiastes 1:14 3:10 8:17 Isaiah 5:26 13:2–4 18:3 36:2 49:10 Jeremiah

New Testament Matthew 1:18 13:6 16:27 18:20 22:29 24:29 24:30 24:31 26:47 26:64 27:38 Mark 2:26 6:25 8:27 9:1 13:26 13:27 14:43 14:48 14:62 Luke

45, 184 45 151 187 123 159 31 108 159 159 87 177 177 177–178

2:13 8:2 18:17 51:27 Lamentations Ezekiel 38:15 Daniel 7:9 7:13–14 7:22 Hosea 12:1 Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah 14:8 Malachi

129 139 187 139 42, 45 45 99, 142 45 139 138, 139 139 45 187 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45, 129 129 45

27, 41, 46, 137 76 187 141 147 138 139 136–139, 141–142 136 137 138 111 27, 37, 41, 46, 137–139 112 137 112 138, 143 136–138, 141–142 139 137 137 138 27, 33, 37, 46, 104, 112, 137, 142

5:9 7:12 8:38 9:32 12:3 20:1 21:27 22:52 24:21 24:29 John

111 80, 112, 112 111 3 111–112 136–137, 142 137 120 112 27, 46, 105, 106, 108, 109, 129, 130–131 129 129 106 66 111 137 106 105–108 46, 152, 111 121–122, 148

109 109 109 45 139 139 139 135 187 45

4:10 4:11 7.38 10 11:31 12:2 18:3 18:34–37 21:15–17 Acts 5:21 7:35

INDEX 7:38 8:1 8:20 8:9–24 13:17 13:4–12 14:5 16:16–21 19:18–19 20 21 21:26 23:1 26:12 26:29 27 27:2 27:2–28:11 27:41 Romans 1:4 3:5 6:4 6:8 8:32 8:38 11:32 15:13 15:19 1 Corinthians 1:2 2:5 4:20 5:4 5:5 10:13

11:18 11:20 11:32 15:20 15:23 15:24 16:22 16:3 2 Corinthians 1:21 3:1 4:10–11 4:13 4:14

130, 132 112 111 152 136 152 184–185 152 152 104 104 111 181 136 3 104 112 104 104 46 143 155, 163 127–128 125 118, 125 151 76 143 131 46, 144 125 143 143 112, 122, 128, 134–135, 143, 144, 148–153, 143 5, 110–111, 113–114, 117–118, 125, 144 144 118 119 119 151 108 186 46, 131 118 163 128 127 113, 118–119, 122,

231 8:18 8:19 10:12 10:18 12:11 13:4

Galatians 2:18 3:9 5:24 Ephesians 1:21 1:3 4:31 Philippians 1:1 1:23 1:28 4:21 Colossians 1 1:13–20 1:15–20 1:16 1:16–17 1:17

2:13 2:20 3:1 3:3 3:4 3:9 1 Thessalonians 4:14 4:17 5:10 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 1:5 1:20 3:9 2 Timothy 1:3 Titus 1:15 Hebrews 1:3 10:2 10:22

125, 127 185 185, 187 163 163 163 110–111, 125, 127– 128, 129, 131, 153 36, 46 155, 163 118 118, 184, 187, 188 46 151 27 120 46 125, 184, 185 125 71 125 125 179 179–180 179 174 179 155, 157, 162–163, 166, 168, 170–180 118, 125 125 128 125 118, 125 118, 187, 189 36–37, 46 118, 125 112, 118, 125 125 37, 46 46 181 148, 150 181 37, 46 181 46, 181 181 46 173 180, 181 181

232

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

12:17 13:18 James 1:11 1:13 1 Peter 1:5 2:19 3:16 3:21 3:22 2 Peter 1:18

137 181 46, 187–188 187–189 114 37, 46 143 180–182 181 181 151 37, 46, 179 112

ANCIENT SOURCES Aeschylus Ag. 819 Apollodorus Library and Epitome Apostolic Fathers

Barn. Barn. 19.12 1 Clem. 1 Clem. 1.3 1 Clem. 2.4 1 Clem. 27.4 1 Clem. 41.1 1 Clem. 45.7 2 Clem. 2 Clem. 16.2 Did. Did. 4.14 Did. 7:1 Diogn. Fragments of Papias Hermes, Shepherd of Herm. Mand. Herm. Mand. 3.4 Herm. Sim. Herm. Vis. Ign. Eph. Ign. Magn. Ign. Phld. Ign. Pol. Ign. Pol. 5.2 Ign. Rom. Ign. Smyrn. Ign. Trall. Ign. Trall. 6.2 Mart. Pol.

3:5 1 John 2 John 3 John 2 5 11 15 Jude 9 Revelation 7:17

130–131 47 47 28, 46–47, 155–156 46 181 46 181 180, 182 178 181 181 46 181 46 181 129 46 46 52 46 181 46 46 46 46 46 46 181 46 46 46 181 46

155, 157, 163, 179 46 46 46 106 106 106 106 46 45 46, 134 129

Pol. Phil. Trad. Of Elders Appian

46 46 47, 52, 140 Bell. Civ. 47 Bell. Civ. 2.50 125 Bell. Civ. 5.35 141 Hist. rom. 47, 52 Arataeus 29, 47 Cur. acut. 47 Cur. diut. 47 Sign. acut. 47 Sign. diut. 47 Aristeas 121 Let. Arist. 239 121 Aristides 166 Apology 1, 5 166 Aristotle 33, 165, 177 Eth. Nic. 165 165 Eth. nic. 1141b 2 Bacchylides 131 Cassius Dio 133 Historiae Romanae 133 Historiae Romanae 48.18.2 133 Historiae Romanae 49.38.1 133 Historiae Romanae 118.9 133 Historiae Romanae 176.13 133 Historiae Romanae 230.26 133 Historiae Romanae 284.28 133 Historiae Romanae 288.16 133 Historiae Romanae 312.27 133 Chrysostom, John 40, 140, 145, 174– 175, 180 Hom. 1 Cor. 1:15 145

INDEX Hom. Col. p. 319, lines 32–53 174 Hom. Col. p. 320, lines 5–6 174, 180 Hom. Matt. LXXVI 140 Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians, 2:3 175 Cicero 130 Att. 2.12.2 130 Cyril of Jerusalem 140 Cat. Lect. 15.21 140 Dead Sea Scrolls 140 1Q33 col. Iv.7 140 1QM 3:13–4:17 140 Demosthenes 167 Chers. 8.17 168, 170 Chers. 8.46 168, 170 Orations 1–17 and 20, Olynthiacs 1–3, Philippics, Minor Public Orations. 169, 170 Dio Chrysostom 40 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 40 Ant. rom. 9.61.2 133 Empedocles 167 Fragmenta 35.6 170 Epictetus 38, 47 Diatr. 47 Gnon. 47 Ench. 47 47 Euripides 130, 167 Bacch. 8 130 Fragmenta 910.6 166–167 Iph. aul. 87 168–169 Eusebius 151 Hist. eccl. 1.13.9 151 Galen 47 On the Natural Faculties 47 Herodotus 167–169, 171, 178 Hist. 3.84.1 168 Hist. 6.74.1 168 Hist. 7.225.1 178 Hist. 103.1 168 Homer 17, 33, 104–105 Il. 3.439 124 Il. 9.572 149 Odyssey 9.148, 546 104 Inscriptions I. Nikaia I.87 151 IG 3.3.108 149

233 Isocrates

Phili. 30.5.1–6 John of Damascus De Fide Orth. 4.11 Josephus

Ag. Ap. Ag. Ap. 1.35 Ag. Ap. 2.118 Ag. Ap. 2.190 Ag. Ap. 2.241 Ant. Ant. 1.227 Ant. 3.145 Ant. 3.35 Ant. 4.153 Ant. 5.180 Ant. 5.239 Ant. 5.268 Ant. 6.161 Ant. 6.175 Ant. 6.275 Ant. 6.364 Ant. 7.22 Ant. 7.100 Ant. 7.215 Ant. 8.93 Ant. 9.224 Ant. 9.23 Ant. 9.29 Ant. 9.46 Ant. 10.21 Ant. 10.168, 173 Ant. 11.98 Ant. 11.323 Ant. 12.149 Ant. 12.311 Ant. 12.365, 393, 420 Ant. 13.11 Ant. 13.23 Ant. 13.95 Ant. 14.119 Ant. 14.268 Ant. 14.280 Ant. 14.329 Ant. 14.393 Ant. 14.457

17, 167– 169 168 140 140 28, 46–47, 65, 120, 133, 155– 158, 160– 162, 174, 184 46, 160 157 160 174 162 46, 162 185 187 123 160 123 111 124 157 160 123 111 160 135 113 187 112 113 184 112 184 113 111 162 185 111 113 112 113 111 111 160 160 185 134–135 132

234

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Ant. 15.121 Ant. 15.383 Ant. 16.212 Ant. 16.235, 253 Ant. 16.271 Ant. 16.284 Ant. 16.318 Ant. 17.44 Ant. 17.122 Ant. 17.171 Ant. 17.260 Ant. 17.277 Ant. 17.335 Ant. 18.181 Ant. 19.182 Ant. 19.254 Ant. 20.161 J.W.

J.W. 1.1 J.W. 1.15 J.W. 1.51 J.W. 1.218 J.W. 1.225 J.W. 1.255 J.W. 2.10 J.W. 2.55 J.W. 2.56, 59, 80 J.W. 2.252 J.W. 2.258 J.W. 2.261 J.W. 2.266 J.W. 3.449 J.W. 4.135 J.W. 4.193 J.W. 4.240 J.W. 4.353, 362–63, 371–76, 388–97. J.W. 4.480 J.W. 5.20–27 J.W. 5.368 J.W. 5.426 J.W. 6.289 J.W. 6.411 J.W. 7.254 Life Life 1.116 Life 42 Life 330 Lucian of Samosata Dial. Mort.

160 121 181 161 160 113 124 160 162 120 162 161 160 160 124 113 161 46, 133, 158, 162 160 157 135 160 160 160 161 161–162 162 184 160–161 161 160 111 161 181 162 161 162 161 112 158 140 124 161 46 135 120 111 39–40 39

Apocrypha & Septuagint Bar 5:9 Bel Let Jer 1 Esd 1:29 2 Esd 11:5 4 Ezra 6:6 Jdt 1 Macc 1:2, 18 1 Macc 11:63 1 Macc 12:24 1 Macc 2:32 1 Macc 3:3 1 Macc 4:9 2 Macc 12:3 2 Macc 14:13 2 Macc 15:28 2 Macc 3:62 2 Macc 4:9 3 Macc 1:22 3 Macc 2:26 3 Macc 4:16 3 Macc 5:36 3 Macc 6:35 Psalms and Odes Sir Sir Sir 1:10 Sir 43:26 Sus Tob

Tob 9:5 Tob 13:14 Wis

Wis 1:7 Pss Sol Martyr, Justin 1 Apol. 2 Apol. Dial. Epistle to Diognetus Epistle to Diognetus Melito of Sardis Paschal Homily 91, 681 Mishnah m. Miqw. 1:4 m. Miqw. 1:8 Origen Comm. Matt. 14.1.135

35 123 45 45 160 108 139 45 160 135 135 160 160 142 112 111 187 159 159 120 160 159 159 159 45, 52 45 45, 108, 177, 179 108 177, 179 45 42, 45, 108, 187 187 108 45, 177– 178 177 45 49 49 49 49 46 49 164 164 130 130 130 152 152

INDEX Comm. Matt. 17.14.79 Comm. Matt. 17.14.84 Fr. 1 Cor. 24, n3–n4 Hom. Jer. 19.14.133 Or. 31.5.22 OT Pseudepigrapha Ahiqar Apoc. Dan. Apoc. Sedr. Apoc. Zeph. Apocr. Ezek. Apos. Con. Aris. Ex. Aristob. Artap. 2 Bar. 3 Bar. 3 Bar. 16:3 4 Bar. 4 Bar. 9:3 Cl. Mal. Dem. El. Mod. 1 En. 1 En. 41:9 1 En. 61:1 1 En. 61:10 1 En. 82:8 2 En. 1:94 2 En. 20:1 Eup. Ezek. Trag Gk. Apoc. Ezra Hist. Jos. Hist Rech Jan. Jam. Jos. Asen Jub. 45 L.A.E Let. Aris. Let. Aris. 1 Let. Aris. 13 Let. Aris. 154 Let. Aris. 176 Liv. Pro. 4 Macc. 4 Macc 10:7 Mart. Ascen. Isa. Odes Sol. Ph. E. Poet Pr. Jac.

152 152 152 152 152 28, 45, 47, 155–156 45 45 45 45 45, 52 45 45 45 45 45 45 120 45 129 45 45, 48–49 45 45 139 139 139, 151 139 173 151 45 45, 52 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 157 111 164 185 45 45 121 45 45 45 45, 139

235 Pr. Jos. Pr. Man. Pss. Sol. Pss. Sol. 4:25 Pseudo-Callisthenes Ps.-Eup. Ps.-Hec. Ps.-Orph. Ps.-Phoc Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles Sib. Or. 1:340 Sib. Or. 1.217–218 Sib. Or. 12.260 T. 12 Patr. T. Ab. T. Ab. 3:3 T. Adam T. Job T. Job 15:29 T. Jud. 10.4 T. Mos. T. Sim. 3:6 T. Sol. T. Sol. 23.2 T. Sol. 25.9 Theod. Theophilus PGM - Papyri Graecae Magicae Papyri Graecae Magicae (PGM) PGM IV.1275 PGM IV.1769 PGM XIVa.9 PGM XII.238 PGM XXIIb – Prayer of Jacob PGM LXXI. 1–5 Papyri 49, 166 P. Oxy. 11, 1380, 183–185 Pausanias Descr. Descr. 2.9.5 Descr. 9.26.2 Philo

Abraham Abraham 238

45, 52 45 45 108 45 45 45 45 45, 48 45 111 111 111 160 45, 52 45 108 45 45 163 113 45 108 45 124 124 45 45 150

139 139 166 150 150

139 150

179 47 47 125 133 28, 42, 46, 47, 123, 136, 155– 160, 162– 163, 178 46 160

236

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Abraham 240 Agriculture Alleg. Interp. 1 Alleg. Interp. 1.107 Alleg. Interp. 2 Alleg. Interp. 2.37 Alleg. Interp. 2.45 Alleg. Interp. 2.5 Alleg. Interp. 3 Alleg. Interp. 3.14 Alleg. Interp. 3.113 Alleg. Interp. 3.124 Alleg. Interp. 3.155–158 Alleg. Interp. 3.192 Alleg. Interp. 3.202 Cherubim Cherubim 91 Cherubim 102 Confusion Contempl. Life Contempl. Life 85 Creation Creation 26 Creation 67a Creation 95 Creation 97 Creation 103 Creation 134 Decalogue Dreams 1 Dreams 2 Drunkenness Drunkenness 69 Drunkenness 91 Drunkenness 190 Embassy Embassy 68 Embassy 246 Embassy 336 Eternity Eternity 4 Eternity 8 Eternity 60 Flaccus Flight Flight 27 Flight 112 Giants Good Person Heir Heir 23

160 46 46 160 46 134 187 163 46 136 160 121 123 121 136 46 159 159 46 46 159 46 159 159 157 157 158 157 46 46 46 46 157 160 121 46 160 123 123 46 157 159 163 46 46 123 178, 179 46 46 46 179

Heir 58

Heir 152 Heir 188 Heir 281

Heir 282 Heir 311 Hypothetica Hypothetica 7.12 Joseph Joseph 107 Joseph 56 Migration Moses 1 Moses 2 Moses 2.99 Moses 2.125 Names Planting Planting 6 Planting 9 Planting 14 Posterity Posterity 87 Posterity 117 Posterity 173 Posterity 185 Prelim. Studies Providence 1 Providence 2 Rewards Sacrifices Sobriety Special Laws 1 Spec. Laws 1.211 Spec. Laws 1.268 Spec. Laws 2 Spec. Laws 2.190–192 Spec. Laws 2.214 Spec. Laws 2.231 Spec. Laws 2.4 Spec. Laws 2.49 Spec. Laws 3 Spec. Laws 4 Unchangeable Virtues Virtues 43 Virtues 124 Worse Worse 2

164, 178, 179 157 178 157, 178, 179 157 157, 179 46 123 46 123 160 46 46 46 123 159 46 46 165 178 139 46 123 160 163 160 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 157 184 46 178 162 123 139 181 46 46 46 46 162 181 46 161

INDEX Worse 120 Worse 146 Worse 160 Pindar Isthm. 3.5 Plato

Laws 7.817b [Mund.] 6, 2 Resp. 412a Resp. 530a Tim. 54 Tim. 56b Plutarch Adol. poet. aud. Adul. amic. Adv. Col. Aem. Aem. 13.2 Aem. 25.4 Ag. Cleom. Ages. Ages. 24.2 Ages. 28.3 Alc. Alex. Alex. fort. Am. prol. Amat. Amat 20 [Amat. Narr.] Amic. mult. [An. ignis.] An. corp. An. procr. An. procr. epit. An. recte dictum sit latenter esse vivendum An seni An virt. doc. An vit. Ant. [Apoph. lac.] Arat. Arat. 2.3 Arist. Art. Brut. Brut. an. Caes. Caes. 35.1

123 181 163 130 130 75, 166, 177 178 166, 179 170–171 166, 179 165 165 44, 48, 140 48 48 48 48 141 141 48 48 141 141 48 48 48 48 48 125 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 125 48 48 48 48 48 141

237 Caius Gracchus Caius Marius Cam. Cat. Maior 12.2 Cat. Min. Cat. Min 56.3 Cic. Cim. Cleom. Cohib. Ira. Comm. not. Comp. Aem. Tim. Comp. Ag. Cleom. cum Ti. Gracch. Comp. Ages. Pomp. Comp. Alc. Cor. Comp. Arist. Cat. Comp. Arist. Men. compend. Comp. Dem. Cic. Comp. Demetr. Ant. Comp. Dion. Brut. Comp. Lyc. Num. Comp. Lys. Sull. Comp. Nic. Crass. Comp. Pel. Marc. Comp. Per. Fab. Comp. Phil. Flam Comp. Sol. Publ. Comp. Thes. Rom. Comparison of Lucullus & Cimon Comparison of Sertorius & Eumenes Compendium argumenti stoicos absurdiora poetis dicere Conj. praec. [Cons. Apoll.] Cons. ux. Crass. Cupid. divit. Curios. De esu De se ipsum citra invidiam laudando Def. orac. Dem. Demetr. Demetr. 7.2 (English) Demetr. 8.2 Demetr. 15.2 Demetr. 46.4 Dion

48 48 48 141 48 141 48 48 48 48 48 48

48 48 48 48 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 48 48 48

48

48

48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48

48 48 48 48 141 141 141 141 48

238

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT E. Delph. Eum. Eum. 3.6 Exil. Fab. Fac. Fat. Flam. Fort. Fort. Rom. Frat. amor. Galb. Garr. Gen. Socr. Glor. Ath. Her. Mal. Inim. util. Instituta Laconica Inv. od. Is. Os. Lacaenarum apoph. [Lib. Ed.] Luc. Luc. 8.5 Luc. 17.1 Lyc. Lys. Marc. Marcus Cato Max. princ. Mulier. Virt. Nic. Num. Oth. Parallela Minora Pel. Pel. 26.2 Pel. 29.1 Per. Phil. Phoc. Pomp Pomp. 6.1 Praec. ger. rei publ. Prim. frig. Princ. iner. Publ. Pyrrh. Pyth. orac. Quaest conv. Quaest gr.

48 48 141 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 141 141 48 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 141 141 48 48 48 48 141 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48

Quaest nat. Quaest plat. Quaest rom. Rect. rat. aud. [Reg. imp. apophth.] Reg. imp. apophth. 50.8 Rom. Sept. sap. conv. Sera Sert. Sert. 12.4 Sol. Soll. an. Stoic. rep. Suav. viv. Sull. Sull. 6.6 Superst. Them. Thes. Tiberius Gracchus Tim. Tranq. an. Tu. san. Un. rep. dom. Virt. mor. Virt. prof. Virt. vit. Vit. aere.al. Vit. pud. [Vit X. orat.] Polybius Hist. Hist. 2.24.6 Hist. 3.42.6 Hist. 15.5.5 Sextus Empiricus Math. 7.109 Math. 7.109.1–6 Sophocles Oed. tyr. 45 Oed. tyr. 482 Ant. 457 Fr. 790 Tr. 1169 Strabo Geogr. Talmud b. Nid. 5:1 Tatian 164 Oratio ad Graecos 30.1 Thucydides

48 48 48 48 48 141 48 48 48 48 141 48 48 48 48 48 141 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 49, 167 49 168 168 167 165 165 165 130–131 130 130–131 130 130–131 130 49, 140 49, 141 158

164 167, 169

INDEX Hist. 6.16 Hist. 8.48 Xenophon Cyr. 2.4.18 Anabasis 3.4.32 Hell. 3.5.2

AUTHORS

168 166 152, 164– 165, 168– 171 137 152 168

Aarts, Jan 13 Abegg, Martin G. Jr. 140 Abelson, Robert P. 66–68 Achtemeier, Paul J. 181 Adamson, James B. 187 Adolphs, Svenja 2, 11, 24, 87 Agirre, Eneko 70–71, 78–79 Al, B. P. F. 10, 53 Albright, W. F. 138 Alexander, Patrick H. 45 Alford, Henry 105, 117, 119, 144, 146– 147 Allison, Dale C. 138, 140 Almela, Moisés 52, 70, 75–76, 86–87 Altenberg, Bengt 12 Amvela, Etienne Zé 3 Andersen, Francis I. 17, 173 Armstrong, David 175 Arndt, William F. 139 Arnold, Clinton E. 139, 149–152 Asher, Nicholas 67 Atkins, Sue 59 Augendre, Sandra 16 Aune, David E. 28, 134, 150 Austin, John L. 65 Ayscough, Samuel 8 Ayto, J. R. 64, 80 Bader, Markus 16 Baker, Mona 11 Barbieri, Louis A. Jr. 140 Barclay, John M. G. 157, 160 Barnbrook, Geoff 9, 103 Barnett, Paul 152 Barr, James 80, 114, 172, 178 Barrett, C. K. 104, 108, 115, 128, 131, 144, 147–151, 185 Barth, Markus 120 Bauckham, Richard J. 179 Bayer, Samuel 8 Beasley-Murray, George R. 105–106 Beavis, Mary Ann 140, 150

239 Mem. 3.6.14 Cyr. 6.1.26 Cyr. 6.1.54 Cyn. 6.12 Anabasis 7.4.21 Anab. 7.6.26

165 168 170–171 164 152 168–169

Béjoint, H. 23 Bennett, Paul 16 Benson, Evelyn 87–88 Benson, Morton 87–88 Benzitoun, Christophe 16 Bergan, Benjamin K. 73 Berglund, Ylva 28 Bernard, J. H. 106, 131 Berry, George Ricker 62 Berry-Rogghe, Godelieve, L. M. 10, 52, 62, 102–103 Best, Ernest 37, 108 Betz, Hans Dieter 151, 166, 185, 188 Biber, Douglas 7, 12–13, 40, 43 Black, David Alan 41 Blakemore, Diane 67, 183 Blanche-Benveniste, Claire 16 Blois, Reinier de 1, 61–62 Blomberg, Craig L. 28, 115, 138–139, 188 Bloomfield, Leonard 8 Blutner, Reinhard 63 Bock, Darrell L. 138, 150, 152 Bodine, Walter R. 31 Bortone, Pietro 109–110, 122, 132, 149 Bovon, François 3 Boyer, James L. 17 Branca-Rosoff, Sonia 16 Brant, Jo-Ann A. 105 Bratcher, Robert G. 138, 168, 173 Bredin, Mark 140 Brenton, Lancelot Charles Lee 120– 121, 133–134, 158–159, 162 Brodie, Thomas L. 106 Brooks, James 138, 140 Brown, Darrell Richard 66 Brown, Keith 2, 218 Brown, Raymond E. 105–106 Brownson, Carleton L. 169 Bruce, F. F. 36, 104, 172–173, 177–178 Bublitz, Wolfram 67, 97

240

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Bullinger, Ethelbert W. 38 Burge, Gary M. 105, 108 Burkhanov, Igor 61, 88, 183 Burton, Ernest De Witt 175, 189 Busquets, Joan 67 Busse, Ulrich 124 Buth, Randall J. 41 Callow, Kathleen 87 Calvin, John 117 Campbell, Constantine R. 122, 125, 131, 175–177 Cann, Ronnie 6, 60, 65, 67, 73 Cappelen, Herman 18 Caragounis, Chrys C. 35, 176 Čarnić, Emilijan M. 137 Carson, D. A. 64, 81, 105 Carston, Robyn 66 Carter, Ronald 14, 24, 87 Cermák, František 13, 15 Čermáková, Anna 14 Chadwick, John 175 Chang, Jing-Shin 16 Charo, Hugo de S. 7 Chaucer 33 Cheng, Winnie 19, 26–27, 30, 43, 53, 57, 86 Chomsky, Noam 23 Church, Kenneth W. 52, 55, 101–102, 104 Ciampa, Roy E. 115, 144–146 Ciocchi, David M. 114–115 Clark, David D. 78, 98 Clear, Jeremy 9, 55, 85–86, 88 Collins, Adela Yarbro 138, 147–148, 150–151 Collins, J. J. 111 Collins, Raymond F. 116 Colson, F. H. 158, 160, 162 Comrie, Bernard 175 Conrad, Susan 7, 12, 40 Conzelmann, Hans 115, 118, 144 Cook, Edward M. 140 Cotterell, Peter 12, 31, 65, 69 Coulthard, Malcolm 11 Cresti, Emanuela 16 Cross, Anthony R. 28 Cruden, Alexander 7–8 Cruse, D. Alan 6, 63 Culpepper, R. Alan 105 Culy, Martin M. 41, 138, 177 Daley, Robert 6, 10, 26, 53–54, 77, 90, 98

Dasher, Richard B. 34 Davids, Peter H. 37, 179, 188 Davies, Graham I. 17 Davies, Mark 14 Davies, W. D. 138, 140 Day, A. Colin 9, 34, 61 Debrunner, Albert 1 Decker, Rodney J. 176–177 Dehoux, Yves 17–18 Deissmann, Adolf 38–39, 148–151 Deulofeu, José 16 Dibelius, Martin 187–188 Dickens, Lessing & Cooper 103 Dietrich, Wolf 16 Dods, Marcus 105 Dozeman 162 Dubis, Mark 181 Dunbar, George 71–73 Dunn, James 36–37, 125, 172 Durand, Jacque 16 Duvall, J. Scott 64–65 Eadie, John 188 Ebeling, Jarle 17 Edmonds, Philip 70–71, 78–79 Edwards, James R. 138 Elberfelder, Revidierte 137 Elliger, Winfried 120, 122 Ellington, John 119, 127 Ellingworth, Paul 109, 147 Ellis, E. Earl 35 Ellis, Jeffrey 59 Ellis, Nick C. 68 Enkvist, Nils Erik 37, 40–41, 88 Erickson, Richard J. 64 Esser, Jürgen 19 Evans, Craig A 138 Evans, T. V. 35, 42, 175 Evans, Vyvyan 24, 32, 67, 69–70, 73– 74, 77, 81–82, 175 Facchinetti, Roberta 124 Fanning, Buist M. 41, 175–177 Fano, Robert M 101 Fee, Gordon D 36–37, 113, 116, 144– 148, 150 Feldman, Louis H. 160 Fernández-Ordóñez, Inés 16 Finamore, Stephen 140 Findlay, G. G. 108, 115, 144, 146 Firth, J. R. (John Rupert) 8–10, 55, 86, 88, 97, 101 Fischer, Andreas 33 Fitzer, Gottfried 158

INDEX Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 144, 147–148, 151 Fleming, Dean 180 Forbes, Christopher B. 38 Forbes, Dean A 17 Fradersdorff, J. Wilhelm 62 France, R. T. 138 Francis, Gill 11, 13, 20–21, 56, 66, 69, 83, 87–88, 90, 93, 124 Francis, W. Nelson 9 Franziska, Maria Hack 16 Frey, Eric 68 Fritz, Kurt von 38 Fry, Euan McG. 130 Fuchs, Anna 81–82, 177 Furnish, Victor Paul 179 Galton, Herbert 33, 175 Gardiner, Frederic 158 Gardner, Richard B. 138 Garland, David E. 115, 127–128, 138, 140, 144–145, 147, 172, 174, 177 Geeraerts, Dirk 60–61, 63, 72, 93, 171 Geffroy, Annie 10 Goddard, Cliff 75 Godet, F. L. 116–118, 120, 144, 146– 148, 150–151, 153 Graf, Eva-Maria 9 Granger, Sylviane 14 Green, Gene L. 37, 179 Gregoromichelaki, Eleni 6, 73 Grice, Herbert Paul 66 Gries, Stefan Th. 14 Grosheide, F. W. 112, 144 Grosvenor, Mary 105, 145, 172, 181, 186 Grundmann, Walter 124 Grundy, Peter 63 Guirao, José M. 16 Gutt, Ernst-August 66 Haenchen, Ernst 105 Hagner, Donald A. 138 Halliday, M. A. K. 9, 11, 14, 40, 70, 87, 98, 101 Hamilton, Henry R. 62 Hamilton, Victor P. 130 Handl, Susanne 9 Hanhart, Robert 45 Hanks, Patrick 2, 4, 52, 55, 76, 92, 101– 102 Harris, Murray J. 8, 119, 122, 127–131, 172, 174, 186 Harris, Zellig 8 Hartley, John E. 158

241 Harvey, John D. 127–128 Haskel, Peggy I. 10 Hasselgård, Hilde 16 Hatton, Howard A 109, 117, 147, 179, 188 Hatzigeorgiu, Nick 16 Hawthorne, Gerald F. 184 Hays, J. Daniel 64–65 Hays, Richard B. 115–116, 144 Heiser, Michael S. 45 Helyer, Larry R. 128, 139–140 Hemer, Colin J. 104, 152 Hendriksen 105, 138, 140, 173, 188 Héring, Jean 127–128 Herrick, Gregory J. 150 Hirst, Graeme 71, 78 Hockey, Susan 26–27, 29 Hoey, Michael 11, 13, 20, 41, 51, 56, 66, 68, 163, 183–184 Hoffmann, Thomas 65 Hofland, Knut 10 Holmes, Janet 31 Hooker, Morna D. 138 Horn, Laurence R. 66 Horrocks, Geoffrey 35, 37, 39–40, 42, 47 Horsley, G. H. R. 79 Horsley, Richard 115 Houlden, J. L. 180 Hsu, Yu-Ling Una 16 Huang, Chang 16 Huang, Yan 63–64 Hudson, R. A. 37–38, 40–41, 43 Huff, Darrel 25, 28 Hughes, Phillip E. 127, 131 Hundt, Marianne 7 Hunston, Susan 11, 13–15, 20, 24, 43, 50–51, 53, 55–56, 66, 83, 87–90, 93, 99–100, 102, 124 Huther, Joh 188 Ilson, Robert 87–88 Jackson, Howard 3, 52–53, 81, 93 Jalkanen, Isaac 68 Jannaris, Antonius N. 35, 109, 150, 175 Janzten, Herbert 137 Jebb, Richard C. 125 Jeffers, James S. 150, 184 Jenney, Timothy P. 130 Jewett, Robert 150 Jobes, Karen H. 35, 37–38, 47, 75, 134, 181 Johansson, Stig 10–12, 16

242

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Johnson, Luke Timothy 120 Johnson, Marion R. 177 Johnson, Mark 76 Jones, Susan 6, 10, 26, 53–54, 77, 90, 98 Joosten, Jan 35, 38 Kachru, Braj B. 65 Kachru, Hamuna 65 Kaeding, J. W. 8 Kamell, Miriam 188 Karadžić, Vuk Stef. 137 Kasch, Wilhelm 155, 157–158, 170 Katz, Jerrold J. 71 Kawaguchi, Yuji 15–17 Kearns, Kate 2, 53, 72, 74–75 Keener, Craig S. 138, 140 Keesmaat, Syvia C. 179 Kehoe, Andrew 14 Kelly, Edward F. 10 Kelly, J. N. D. 179, 181 Kempson, Ruth 6, 65, 67, 73 Kilgarriff, Adam 71, 79, 81–82 Kircher, Conrad 7 Kirk, Steven 87 Kistemaker, Simon J. 64, 114, 140, 147– 148, 179, 182, 185 Kjellmer, Göran 12–13 Kling, Christian Friedrich 115, 117, 127 Knežević, Ruben 137 Koehn, Philipp 17 Köstenberger, Andreas J. 106 Kraft, Robert A. 42, 137 Kretzer, Armin 155, 170 Krishnamurthy, Ramesh 7, 44, 88, 93, 101 Krovetz, Robert 67, 91 Kruse, Colin G. 105 Kučera, Henry 9 Kuhn, Karl Georg 116 Labov, William 75 Lakoff, George 24, 73, 75–76 Lambrecht, Jan 122, 127 Lambrecht, Knud 67 Landau, Sidney I. 12, 60, 63, 80 Lang, Peter 177 Langacker, Ronald W. 70, 73, 75 Lange, John Peter 187 Laws, Sophie 188 Laybutt, Brett 75 Le Draoulec, Anne 67 Leacock, Claudia 13, 69, 71, 77, 79 Lee, John A. L. 1, 31–32, 42, 79, 91, 100–101, 155, 158, 161–162, 167, 191

Leech, Geoffrey 13, 24 Lehrer, Adrienne 81 Leitner, Gerhard 11 Lenk, Uta 87 Lenski, R. C. H. 144, 148 Lepore, Ernie 18 Levinson, Stephen C. 63 Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara 30, 70–71, 74 Lichtenberk, Frantisek 77 Lightfoot, J. B. 152, 168, 173, 178 Lincoln, Albert L. 105 Lloyd, Albert L. 177 Loh, I-Jin 117, 185, 188 Lohse, Eduard 168, 172–174, 177–179 Longman, Tremper III 28, 92, 141 Lorente Fernández, Paula 17 Louw, Bill 11, 76, Louw, Johannes 1, 63, 80, 83, 130 Luhn, H. P. 9 Luraghi, Silvia 94–95, 122, 124 Luther, Martin 137 Luz, Ulrich 138, 150 Lyons, John 2, 6–7, 37, 41, 53, 60, 62– 63, 66, 76, 78, 81, 175 MacDonald, Dennis R. 33 MacDonald, Margaret Y. 168, 172–173, Mair, Christian 7 Malina, Bruce J. 115, 146–147, 150 Mann, C. S. 138 Markus, Manfred 31 Marshall, I. Howard 139–140 Marten, Lutz 65, 67 Martin, D. Michael 140 Martin, Ernest D. 174 Martin, Luther H. 150 Martin, Ralph P. 127, 177, 186–187 Martin, W. J. R. 10, 53 Martyn, J. Louis 188 Mason, Steve 112, 120, 160–162 Matera, Frank J. 36–37 Mayor, Joseph B. 188 McArthur, Tom 61 McDonald, H. Dermot 172, 174 McEnery, Tony 8, 14, 56, 101–102 McKay, K. L. 106, 108, 176 McKeown, Kathleen 87 McLay, R. Timothy 35 McNeile, Alan Hugh 141–142 Mel’čuk, Igor 12 Melick, Richard R. Jr. 125, 173–174 Meunier, Fanny 14

INDEX Mey, Jacob L. 63 Meyer, Charles F. 25, 29, 34, 36, 40, 64 Meyer, H. A. W. 114, 117, 119, 127– 128, 141, 144, 146–147, 153, 166– 168, 173–174, 178, 186 Michaels, J. Ramsey 105, 182 Miller, Walter 137, 170 Mitkov, Ruslan 2, 13 Moloney, Francis J. 105 Moneglia, Massimo 16 Moo, Douglas J. 64, 125, 172, 174–177, 179, 188 Moon, Rosamund 12, 76, 87 Moreno-Sandoval, Antonio 16 Morris, Leon 105–106, 125, 138 Moulton, James Hope 39, 133 Mounce, William D. 37 Muraoka, T. 120, 123, 134–135, 158, 185 Murphy, M. Lynne 15, 26–27, 62–63, 71, 74–75, 80–81, 93, 110, 127, 144– 146, 171 Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome 127, 147 Murzaku, Alexander 17 Mussner, Frank 173 Nathan, Mordecai (Isaac) 7 Nelleke, Oostdijk 16 Nelson, Cecil L. 65 Nerlich, Brigitte 78, 98 Neusner, Jacob 130, 158 Newman, Barclay M. 91, 117, 120, 131, 157, 159, 161, 163 Nickelsburg, George W. E. 150 Nida, Eugene A. 1, 63, 75–77, 80, 83, 113–114, 130, 138, 168, 173, 182, 184–185, 188 Nolland, John 41, 112, 138 North, Sarah 87 Nunn, H. P. V. 39 Oakes, Michael P. 12, 53, 83, 101–103 O’Brien, Peter T. 125, 172, 174–175, 177, 185 O’Donnell, Matthew Brook 2–3, 13, 17–19, 23–24, 26, 28–29, 35–36, 41, 46, 50–51, 53–55, 83, 98, 100, 102, 117, 124, 156, 163, 175–176, 183 Ogden, C.K. 63 Oksefjell, Signe 16 Olsen, Mari Broman 176–177 Omanson, Roger L. 119, 127 Ooi, Vincent B. Y. 3, 12 Oosterzee, J. J. van 187

243 Oosting, Renoud 17 Oppentocht, Lineke 62 Osborne, Grant R. 138, 140 Pagels, Elaine Hiesey 179 Palmer, F. R. 9 Palmer, H. E. 8 Parodi, Giovanni 16 Parsons, Mikeal C. 138 Partington, Alan 11, 24, 54, 83–84 Patzia, Arthur G. 172–173 Peake, A. S. 174 Pearson, Brook W. R. 28 Pedersen, Ted 56, 87, 101–103 Penner, Ken 45 Peters, Melvin K. H. 42 Philip, Gil 14, 76 Pilch, John J. 115, 146–147, 150 Plevnik, Joseph 122 Plummer, Alfred 105, 118–119, 128, 144 Poesio, Massimo 71 Popkes, W. 115 Porter, Stanley E. 4, 12, 19, 28, 35, 40– 42, 59, 145, 175–177 Preisendanz, Karl 166 Preuschen, Erwin 100 Quinn, Jerome D. 37, 148 Rademaker, Adriaan 6, 74–75 Radev, Dragomir 87 Ravin, Yael 11, 13, 69, 71, 77, 79 Reed, Jeffrey T. 175–176 Reichenbach, Hans 60 Reid, Daniel G. 147–148 Reiling, J. 112, 138 Renouf, Antoinette 10, 13–15, 34–35 Reppen, Randi 7, 12 Reyburn, William D. 130 Richards, I. A. 63 Riemer, Nick 77, 79 Riley, Greg J. 149–150 Robertson, A. T. 38–39, 104, 118, 120, 137, 144, 148–151, 155 Roloff, Jürgen 140 Römer, Ute 14 Ropes, James Hardy 188 Rosner, Brian S. 115, 144–146 Ruhl, Charles 18, 23, 70, 93 Rundell, Michael 59 Rydbeck, Lars 1 Rydberg-Cox, Jeffrey A. 54–55 Ryken, Leland 28, 141 Sailhamer, John H. 61

244

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

Salkie, Raphael 23 Sánchez, Aquilino 52, 70, 75–76, 86–87 Šarić, Ivan 137 Sato, Hiroaki 59 Saussure, Ferdinand de. 31 Savage, Timothy B. 131 Schank, Roger C. 66–68 Schmeller, Thomas 38 Schmidius, Erasmus 7 Schmidt, Thomas 151 Schmied, Josef 92 Schreiner, Thomas R. 36, 179, 181 Schröder, Anne 124 Schulze, Rainer 14 Schutz, Rik 62 Schweizer, Eduard 166, 173–174, 177– 178 Scott, Mike 27, 50, 52, 101–102 Scott, R. B. Y. 177–178 Searle, John R. 81–82 Seesemann, Heinrich 115 Shakespeare, William 8, 27–28, 31, 166 Siebers, Lucia 65 Silva, Moisés 4, 10, 12, 31, 35, 37, 41, 80, 82, 91–92, 121, 176–177, 185 Sim, Margaret 31–32, 35, 46–47, 66–67, 108, 133–134, 160 Simpson, E. K. 173 Sinclair, John McHardy 2, 6, 10–11, 14, 19–21, 26, 30, 50–55, 63, 66, 68–69, 76–77, 85–88, 90, 93, 98, 124, 183– 184 Skandera, Paul 130 Smith, Carlota S. 177 Smith, David Raymond 147 Spears, Richard A. 11 Sperber, Hans 66–67, 97 Stathi, Katerina 16, 32 Steele, Richard B. 37 Stefanović, Dimitrije 137 Stein, Achim 16 Stein, Robert H. 138–139 Stephens, Henry 7 Sterkenburg, Piet J. G. van 10, 53, 61– 62, 198, 199, 205, 217, 223, 224(2), 22 Stewart, Dominic 14, 76 Stigall, Joshua J. 138 Stine, Philip C. 117 Stone, Philip J. 10 Strawson, P. F. 66 Stubbs, Michael 8–9, 11–13, 19–20, 23– 24, 30, 32, 34, 52, 54, 63, 87, 89, 93

Su, Keh-Yih 16 Sumney, Jerry L. 189 Sun, Honglin 16 Sun, Maosong 16 Svartvik, Jan 14 Swanepoel, Piet 92 Swellengrebel, J. L. 112, 138 Takagaki, Toshihiro 15 Talbert, Charles H. 138–139, 147, 172– 173, 177–179 Tarn, William Woodthorpe 38 Taylor, John R. 74 Teubert, Wolfgang 14 Thackeray H. St. J. 157–158, 160 Thayer, Joseph Henry 91, 110, 117, 120, 131, 133, 136–137, 157, 162–163, 189 Thiselton, Anthony C. 115–116, 144– 145, 147 Thomas, Jenny 63, 66, 109, 166 Thrall, Margaret E. 119, 128 Titrud, Kermit 179 Tognini-Bonelli, Elena 1, 11, 13, 40, 42–43, 54–57, 85–86, 93, 121 Toilus & Criseyde 33 Tono, Yukio 14, 56 Towner, Philip H. 37 Trask, R. L. 2, 14 Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 34 Trommius, Abraham 8 Trudgill, Peter 109 Tucker, Gordon H. 6, 87, 124 Tuggy, David 71–74 Turner, David L. 138, 140 Turner, Max 12, 31, 40, 65, 69, 81, 114 Tyche, Agathe 150–151 Tyler, Andrea 24, 32, 74, 77, 81 Ullmann, Stephen 33 Van Keulen, P. S. F. 17 Van Peursen, W. Th. 17 Varantola, Krista 62 Verkuyl, H. J. 177 Vince, J. H. 170 Wacker, William C. 37, 148 Wahlde, Urban C. von 41, 106 Walker, Donald 39 Wall, Robert W. 37, 40 Wallace, Daniel B. 35, 83, 137, 175 Waltner, Erland 182 Wanamaker, Charles A. 36 Wendland, E. 113–114 Westcott, Brooke Foss 105 Wevers, John William 133

INDEX Whiston, William 112, 158, 160–161, 184 Whitaker, G. A. 158, 160, 162 Wilhoit, James C 28, 141 Wilkins, Michael J. 138, 140–141 Wilks, Yorick 79, 98 Williams, A. Lukyn 163 Williams, Christopher 28 Willis, Wendell Lee 116 Wilson, Andrew 8, 101–102 Wilson, Deidre 66–67 Wilson, R. McL. 166, 172–173, 177–179 Winer, G. B. 120, 145, 155, 175 Winograd, Terry 66 Wise, Michael O. 40, 140 Witherington, Ben III. 37, 104, 115, 139, 141, 172, 177, 179, 189 Wolde, Ellen van 1, 62, 74

SUBJECTS

accusative 107, 109, 117, 138 adjective 6, 16, 20, 51, 54, 56, 98, 107, 121, 129, 135, 143, 180–182 Alexander the Great 35 Alexandrian Jews 38 algorithm 53–54, 72 allosemy 71 ambiguity 70–74, 78, 82, 98, 115, 143 analyses 20, 46 anaphora 51, 71 anarthrous 19, 123, 125 angel 131, 139–143, 148, 150, 173 ANLEX 120, 131 annotation 16, 27, 44, 50–51, 107 Apollo 125, 160 Arabic 40 Aramaic 17, 41, 61, 105, 163, 173 ARCHER 34 ART 72 article 9–10, 12–13, 15, 18, 27, 63, 88, 91–92, 111, 118, 124–125, 132, 134– 135, 142, 152, 163, 188 Athena 150 BBE 114, 137, 186 BBI 87–88 BNC 15, 19, 29, 34 BoE 15, 99–100, 102, 192 Brown Corpus 9–10, 12, 15, 25, 30 cases 95, 122, 124 CERF 16 chi-square 101

245 Woodhouse, S. C. 62 Wright, N. T. 105, 115, 128, 138, 140, 172, 175, 177, 185 Wu, Andi 81, 87 Wulff, Stefanie 14 Xiao, Richard 14, 56 Xing, Hongbing 16 Yallop, Colin 14 Yonge, Charles Duke 62, 134, 158, 160, 162, 164–165 Zerwick, Max 105, 145, 172, 175, 181, 186 Zhang, Pu 16 Zhou, Qiang 16 Ziegler, Joseph 109 Zinken, Jörg 73 Zipf, George Kingsley 31, 63 CL

2, 3, 4, 5, 7–22, 23–57, 64–66, 69– 70, 75–76, 83–84, 86, 89, 93, 97, 101, 104, 108–109, 117, 125, 164, 186, 191–192 COBUILD 4, 10–11, 20–21, 40, 44, 53, 60, 64, 86, 91–93, 95, 109, 121, 137, 156, 186, 192 cognitive linguistics 1, 14, 33, 61–62, 73–74 coherence 67, 163–168, 170–175, 177– 179, 182 colligation 2, 5, 7, 13, 17–21, 69–70, 89–91, 97, 99–101, 103, 105–107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123–125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139, 141, 143, 145, 147, 149, 151, 153, 155, 157, 159, 161, 163, 165, 167, 169, 171, 173, 175, 177, 179–182, 184, 191–192 collocation 2, 5–6, 8–12, 17–21, 25–26, 30, 33, 41, 52–55, 57, 61, 65–66, 68– 70, 75–77, 81, 83–84, 86–93, 97–107, 109, 111–113, 115, 117, 119, 121– 123, 125, 127, 129, 131–135, 137– 139, 141–143, 145, 147–151, 153, 155–165, 167, 169–171, 173, 175, 177, 179–185, 188–189, 191–192 compositional 170–171, 177 concepts 42, 61, 66–67, 73, 75, 83, 125 connotation 60, 62–64, 76, 81, 84, 107, 109, 161–162

246

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

COSER 16 cotext 85, 89, 124, 136, 174 Daemon / daemon 150 DCPSE 34 DDbDP 49, 133, 149, 151 delimitation 70, 86, 88, 90, 104, 153, 192 demon 124, 148–151 denotation 62–64, 81, 84, 107, 148 devil 148 diachronic 30–35, 78, 122 dialect 31, 37–38, 41–42, 57, 65, 81 diglossia 40, 42 disambiguation 3, 5, 17–18, 20, 54, 57, 67–71, 84, 89–90, 97–99, 101–103, 113, 132, 153, 180, 191 Englishes 30, 65 Ephesus 152 EPNC 16 Europarl 17 ergativity 156 fixed expressions (FE) 69, 87, 132, 135, 191 fixedness 88 FrameNet 59 frames 89 framework 17, 89 frozen collocations 87–88 function 19, 50, 51, 63, 82, 85, 111, 122, 160, 185, function words 53, 63, 110, functional variation 40 fuzzy boundary 37, 56, 72, 75, 80–81, 83, 88, 113 genitive 83, 100, 109, 117, 121, 124, 129, 136, 138, 144, 148, 160, 181–182 genre 9, 10, 14, 16, 25, 28, 39, 40, 50 gloss 4, 60–61, 80, 91, 100, 105, 131, 151, 156, 159, 161–163, 167–170, 172, 180 granularity 78–79, 84 Greek, Attic 39–40, 57, 149 Greek, Byzantine 30, 35 Greek, Classical 30, 35, 39, 62, 170, 175, 179 Greek, Hellenistic 4, 13, 18, 20, 24, 29– 30, 32–33, 35–36, 38–42, 49, 54–57, 61–62, 65, 84, 104, 112, 152, 163, 166, 170–171, 175, 192 Greek, Koinē 35, 39–40, 42, 105 Greek, Mycenaean 31 Hebrew 1, 7, 17, 31, 42, 52, 61, 173,

heteronym 78 heterosemy 77 homograph 54, 78–79 homonym 77–79 homophones 78 hypernym 6, 100 hyponym 2, 6, 62 ICAME 7, 12, 14–15 ICE 29–30, 34, 40 idiolect 41–42, 57, 163 idiom 6, 11, 16, 32, 54, 66, 69, 84, 87– 88, 130, 135, 145, 148–150, 171 intransitive 156 isoglosses 38 kataphora 51 KWIC Index 9, 49–50, 53–55, 84, 91, 109, 123, 136, 156, 164, 169, 192 Lampeter Corpus 34 Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen Corpus (LOB) 10, 30, 34 LCCM 69 LCSPL 14 LDCE 92 lemma 5–6, 20, 27, 49–51, 55, 61, 90– 91, 99, 105, 142, 156, 179, 192 lexeme 6, 12, 18–19, 26, 49, 55–57, 61, 69, 71, 75, 78, 80, 82, 84–92, 117, 124, 132, 171, 180, 183, 189 lexicogrammatical 2, 11, 20–21, 44, 51, 56, 192 lexicographer 1–7, 9–13, 15, 17–19, 21, 23, 30, 32–33, 38–40, 42, 51–52, 55, 59–62, 77, 79–80, 88, 91–93, 100– 101, 113–114, 117, 135, 156, 163– 164, 175–176, 183, 191–192 lexicology 2–6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16–18, 20– 21, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90–94, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 122, 124, 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, 138, 140, 142, 144, 146, 148, 150–152, 156, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 168, 170, 172, 174, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, 186, 188, 191–192 lexis 9–10, 13–14, 20–21, 41–42, 54, 66, 90, 98, 124 London-Lund Corpus 10 LREC 15 lumping 70, 79–80, 82, 113, 137

INDEX manner 19, 92, 94–95, 123–125, 136– 139, 142–144, 153, 156, 166 Meaning (also ‘meanings’) 2–10, 12, 14– 15, 18–20, 23–28, 30–33, 37–38, 40– 42, 50–54, 56–57, 59–95, 97–100, 104–114, 116, 119, 121–122, 124– 125, 128–136, 138–139, 142–143, 145, 147–153, 155–156, 158–166, 169–175, 177–183, 185–186, 188, 191–192 / meanings 3–5, 8, 12, 17, 19, 25, 30–32, 34, 41, 53, 57, 61, 65, 67–70, 72–73, 76–79, 81–86, 91–92, 95, 97–100, 102–103, 106, 108–109, 113–114, 124–125, 132–133, 156, 163, 170–171, 178, 183 metalanguage 60 metalexicography 61 metalinguistic 59–60, 63 metaphor 31, 76–77, 88, 122–123, 130, 137, 139, 162 metonymy 77 mutual information (MI) 101–102, 107, 125 MICASE 40 monosemy 18, 23, 70, 93 morpheme 171 morphology 45, 51 node 11, 26, 50, 52–53, 91, 102–103, 107, 169, 183–184, 192 nominal 4, 51, 88, 90, 107, 110, 143 nominative 69, 107 OEC 15 OED 30, 92 onomasiological 61–62, 93 ORAL 16 parsing 25, 50–51 Paul 33, 36–38, 47, 104,112, 115, 119, 122, 125, 127–131, 134, 140, 143– 148, 150–153, 155, 185–186 Pauline 29, 36–37, 41, 125, 146, 155 Perseus 18, 30, 49–50 Peshitta 17 Peter 37, 39, 105, 108–109 PHI - Packard Humanities Inscriptions 49 phrasal 87, 121 phrasal lexemes 87 phrasal verbs 121 phraseology 56, 87 polysemy 13, 18, 20, 69–73, 77–79, 114 POS 90 postmetaphor 77

247 postmetonymy 77 preposition 4, 24, 32, 50–51, 56, 68, 74, 77, 81, 86, 89–90, 92, 95, 99, 109– 110, 119, 122, 124, 128, 132, 144, 148–149, 151–152, 186 priming 41, 66, 68–69, 84, 183–184 Prototype Theory 10, 73–76, 78 psycholinguistics 16, 68 RACL 14 register 13–14, 18, 29, 34, 40–43, 57 Relevance Theory 66–69, 84 Satan 145–149, 152 schema 73–75, 114 schematicity 73, 114 semantic prosody 14, 56, 76, 86, 91, 119, 160, 162 semantic zeugma 72–73 semantics 1–3, 5–6, 8, 12–14, 16–18, 20–21, 23–29, 31–41, 43, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55–57, 59–64, 66–81, 83, 86– 87, 91, 97, 100, 106, 110, 114, 119, 124, 130, 160, 162, 171–172, 175– 178, 183–185, 187, 189, 191–192 semasiological 61–62, 84, 93 sense 3–10, 17–20, 24–26, 28, 30–33, 38, 41–42, 49–50, 54–57, 59, 61–65, 67–73, 75–86, 89–94, 97–100, 102– 103, 109–125, 128–132, 134–135, 137, 139, 142–151, 153, 156–172, 174–175, 178–189, 192 sentential definition 18, 60–61, 84, 91, 109–110, 112, 135, 156 similonyms 5, 103 Slavonic 173 sociolinguistic 7, 14, 36–38, 40–41, 43, 109 span 31, 39, 52, 101–103 structure 2, 7, 9, 23–25, 34, 60, 62–63, 66, 69–70, 90, 92, 107, 124, 128, 132, 151, 175, 179, 183, 191 structural indicators 89–91, 131 structural lexicology 109, 123, 156, 161 style 10, 28, 37, 40–41, 45, 47, 61, 81, 88, 105–106, 108, 149, 163 supervised method 54–55, 57, 103, 125, 155–156, 180 syncategorematic expressions 53 synchronic 10, 25, 30–34, 57, 78, 167 synonymous 5, 11, 18, 38, 55, 61–62, 80–81, 97, 103, 105–108, 125, 147, 191 syntax 2, 20, 25, 117, 124, 175–176

248

STRUCTURAL LEXICOLOGY AND THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT

tense, tense-form 17, 19, 42, 50, 78, 82, 156, 175–177, 192 TLG 28–29, 44, 49–50, 133, 151 tokens 27, 29–30, 41, 44–49, 57, 98, 101–104, 151, 156, 192 transitive 156 UCL 15 UCREL 15

unsupervised method 54–55, 57, 103, 105, 107, 125 utterance 4, 8, 41, 59, 65–69, 84, 98–99 WordSmith 18, 27, 50–52, 101–102 WSD 5, 20–21, 54–57, 70, 82, 84, 99– 100, 104, 153 WSPD 70, 90–91, 99, 109, 113, 132, 153, 191

GREEK WORDS ἀγαθός ἀγαπάω ἀγγεῖον ἄγγελος αἰδώς αἷμα αἰχμάλωτος ἀναλογία ἀνίστημι ἀριθμός βασιλεία βασίλειον βασιλεύς βέβαιος βεβαιόω γῆ γυνή δαιμόνιον δαίμων δεξιός δεσμός διάβολος δίκη δόξα δύναμις

ἐγείρω ἔκβασις ἐπὶ ζάω ζητέω

149, 181 55, 103, 105–109, 125 129–130 121, 139, 141, 148 123–124 184 104 157 55 163, 165 138, 143, 160 161 111, 123, 135 123 118 109, 130, 132, 139, 157, 165, 179–180 56, 160 112, 149–150 124, 149–150 111, 138 178 151 123–124 118, 136, 138, 141–142 55, 90, 99, 111–112, 121, 127–128, 131–139, 142–143, 145, 151–153, 162, 168, 173, 187 18, 55, 118, 122 5, 111, 113, 115–116, 118, 125 111, 129, 133, 136, 141–142, 144, 161–162, 168, 180 55, 90, 111, 127–131, 153, 164 120

ζωή ζωπυρέω ζῷον ἥλιος θάλασσα θεός

Ἰβηρίη ἵππος ἵστημι καύσων κόσμος κτίζω κύριος μέγας μέρος μετά ναῦς ναυτικός νεφέλη ξυνίστημι ὅλος οὐράνιος οὐρανός πάντῃ* πάντοτε παραδίδωμί πᾶς πειράζω

118, 129 164, 178 157 139, 187 104, 124 27, 107–108, 111, 113, 118, 121, 123–125, 127, 132, 136, 138, 143, 149–152, 159, 163–164, 166, 174, 178, 181 141* 104, 142 164, 170 187–188 118, 123, 157, 165–166 174, 179–180 27, 107–108, 112, 118, 122– 123, 128, 134, 143–144, 146–147, 149, 151–153, 159 123, 130, 141–142, 168 157, 165, 168, 178 94, 109, 111, 123–124, 131– 133, 135–138, 141–143, 149, 152–153, 181–182, 185 55–56, 72, 103–105, 125 133 111, 136, 138, 142 155, 166, 168, 178 157, 184 111 109, 112, 136, 138–139, 142, 157, 166, 179–180 165 112 143–145, 147–148, 150–152 111, 118, 121, 123–124, 142, 165–167, 170, 172–174, 178, 180 111, 113, 115, 117

INDEX πειρασμός πλοῖον ποιέω πολεμέω πολέμιος πόλεμος πόλις πολύς πόνος πυρρός ῥάβδος ῥύσις σαφήνεια σελήνη σεμνός στῖφος στράτευμα στρατεύω στρατηγέω στρατηγός στράτιος στρατιώτης στρατός συγκαλέω σύγκειμαι συζεύγνυμι σύμπας συμπέμπω σύν

5, 111, 113–118, 125 55–56, 72, 103–105, 125 5, 111, 113–117, 129, 151 124, 135, 161 104, 162 104, 141, 160–162, 164 112, 130, 141, 165, 168, 184 132–136, 138, 141–142, 165, 187 123 133 39 158 121 139 181 161–162 168, 170 161, 162 141 132–133, 135, 141 162 141 104, 111, 168–169 111 177–178 163 174 185 4–5, 19, 53–56, 76, 80, 84, 90–91, 93–95, 99, 107, 109– 113, 115–125, 127–128, 131–135, 137, 141–153, 170–171, 178, 183–189

249 112, 128, 134, 143–147, 152–153, 178 συνείδησις 55, 107, 155, 180–182 συνεκτικός 157 συνἐπίσκοπος 184 συνέρχομαι 76, 144 συνέχω 177–179 συνθνήσκω 130 συνιστάνω 155, 157–160, 163, 170 συνιστάω 155–157, 159–161, 163–164, 168, 170 συνίστημι 5, 32, 42, 55–56, 76, 84, 90– 91, 107, 155–174, 176–180, 182 συνορέω 141 συντελέω 160 συντίθημι 187 σύστασις 164 σφίγγω 178 σφραγίζω 18 σφραγίς 158, 187 σχίσμα 144 σῶμα 157–158, 181–182 σωφρονέω 6, 75 σωφροσύνη 6, 75 σώφρων 6, 75 τύχη 149–150 ὕδωρ 129–130, 157, 165, 167 φιλέω 55, 103, 105–109, 123, 125 φίλος 135 χαρίζομαι 118 χάρις 114, 141, 181, 185–186 χάρισμα 114 ψυχή 151, 157, 181 συνάγω