QOTD: Cicero via Wheelock

I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to share this quote. It’s quite amusing, at least to me:

Nasica ad poetam Ennium venit. Cum ad ianuam Ennium quaesivisset et serva respondisset eum in casa non esse, sensit illam domini iussu id diisse et Ennium vero esse in casa. Post paucos dies, cum Ennius ad Nasicam venisset et eum ad ianuam quaereret, Nasica ipse exclamavit se in casa non esse. Tum Ennius “Quid?” inquit, “Ego non cognosco vocem tuam?” Hic Nasica mero cum sale respondit: “Vae, homo es impudens! Ego, cum te quaererem, servae tuae credidi te non in casa esse; nonne tu mihi ipsi nunc credis?”

Nasica came to the poet Ennium. When he had asked for Ennium at his door, a servant girl answered that he was not in the house. After a few days, when Ennius came to Nasica, and he asked for him at his door, Nasica himself shouted to him that he was not in the house. Then Ennius said, “What? Do I not recognize your voice?” Nasica, with undiluted wit, answered thus, “Oh dear, you are and imprudent man! I, when I sought you, believed your servant that you were not in the house; will you not believe me myself?”

Posted in Latin | Leave a comment

A.T. Robertson’s Greek Final

I found this over at SBCheritage.com. It is John Broadus’ final exam, assisted by A.T. Robertson.

I thought I might give some of the questions a try without study, lexicon, or other helps. Let’s see how it goes!

1) 1 Macc 11:63–74:

63 καὶ ἤκουσεν Ιωναθαν ὅτι παρῆσαν οἱ ἄρχοντες Δημητρίου εἰς Κηδες τὴν ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ μετὰ δυνάμεως πολλῆς βουλόμενοι μεταστῆσαι αὐτὸν τῆς χρείας. 64 καὶ συνήντησεν αὐτοῖς, τὸν δὲ ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ Σιμωνα κατέλιπεν ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ. 65 καὶ παρενέβαλεν Σιμων ἐπὶ Βαιθσουρα καὶ ἐπολέμει αὐτὴν ἡμέρας πολλὰς καὶ συνέκλεισεν αὐτήν. 66 καὶ ἠξίωσαν αὐτὸν τοῦ δεξιὰς λαβεῖν, καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἐξέβαλεν αὐτοὺς ἐκεῖθεν καὶ κατελάβετο τὴν πόλιν καὶ ἔθετο ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν φρουράν. 67 καὶ Ιωναθαν καὶ ἡ παρεμβολὴ αὐτοῦ παρενέβαλον ἐπὶ τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ Γεννησαρ· καὶ ὤρθρισαν τὸ πρωὶ εἰς τὸ πεδίον Ασωρ. 68 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἡ παρεμβολὴ ἀλλοφύλων ἀπήντα αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ καὶ ἐξέβαλον ἔνεδρον ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν, αὐτοὶ δὲ ἀπήντησαν ἐξ ἐναντίας. 69 τὰ δὲ ἔνεδρα ἐξανέστησαν ἐκ τῶν τόπων αὐτῶν καὶ συνῆψαν πόλεμον. 70 καὶ ἔφυγον οἱ παρὰ Ιωναθου πάντες, οὐδὲ εἷς κατελείφθη ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν πλὴν Ματταθιας ὁ τοῦ Αψαλωμου καὶ Ιουδας ὁ τοῦ Χαλφι ἄρχοντες τῆς στρατιᾶς τῶν δυνάμεων. 71 καὶ διέρρηξεν Ιωναθαν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπέθετο γῆν ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ καὶ προσηύξατο. 72 καὶ ὑπέστρεψεν πρὸς αὐτοὺς πολέμῳ καὶ ἐτροπώσατο αὐτούς, καὶ ἔφυγον. 73 καὶ εἶδον οἱ φεύγοντες παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπέστρεψαν ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐδίωκον μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἕως Κεδες ἕως τῆς παρεμβολῆς αὐτῶν καὶ παρενέβαλον ἐκεῖ. 74 καὶ ἔπεσον ἐκ τῶν ἀλλοφύλων ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ εἰς ἄνδρας τρισχιλίους. καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν Ιωναθαν εἰς Ιερουσαλημ.

Translation

63 And Jonathan heard that the rulers of Demetrius were present in Kedes, which is in Galilee, with a great force desiring to depose him from duty. 64 And he gathered with them, and he left his brother Simon in the country. 65 And Simon encamped in Baithsoura and he warred against it for many days and he shut it up. 66 And they considered it in order to receive the right hand, and he gave [it] to them. And he left them there and he overtook the city and he placed in it _____. 67 And Jonathan and the his camp encamped upon the sea of Gennesar. And they _____ in the early morning into the plain of Asor. 68 And behold the camp of foreigners went out to him in the plain and they cast a _____ on him in the mountains, and they went out before him. 69 And the ______ rose up from their places and they made war. 70 And all fled from Jonathan, and not one was left from them except Mattathias, the son of Apsalomo, and Joudas, the son of Chalphi, the rulers of the army of the forces. 71 And Jonathan tore his garments and put land/dirt upon his head and he prayed. 72 And he turned to them in war, and he _____ them, and fled. 73 And those who were fleeing from him saw and they turned to him and they pursued with him until Kedes up to their camp and they encamped there. 74 And they fell from the foreigners in that day into 3,000 men (they killed 3,000 of the enemy that day), and Jonathan to Jerusalem. 

2) Translate into Greek

The man who thinks that he knows it all, probably does not know much about anything. Yet we must seek to know the truth in order that we may not preach falsehood. Do not follow those who profess to know more about spiritual things than the Bible reveals. If God had not shown us the way of life, we should not have known what to do to be saved from our many sins. See to it that you be true to the promise you made to God to declare his will to men.

ο ανθρωπος ος δοκει οτι γινωσκει αυτον παν, ____ ου γινωσκει πολυ περι _____. ετι οφειλομεν γινωσκειν την αληθειαν ινα μη κηρυσσωμεν ψευδην διδαχην. μη ακολουθειτε εκεινους ους μαρτυρουσιν γινωσκειν μαλλον περι πνευμακτικων του βιβλου αποκαλυπτει.

[Okay, this is painful, for you and me, so I will move on to question 3]

3) Acts 26:24–33

24 Ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀπολογουμένου ὁ Φῆστος μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ φησιν· μαίνῃ, Παῦλε· τὰ πολλά σε γράμματα ⸆ εἰς μανίαν περιτρέπει. 25 ὁ δὲ Παῦλος· οὐ μαίνομαι, φησίν, κράτιστε Φῆστε, ἀλλὰ ἀληθείας καὶ σωφροσύνης ῥήματα ἀποφθέγγομαι. 26 ἐπίσταται γὰρ περὶ τούτων ὁ βασιλεὺς πρὸς ὃν °καὶ παρρησιαζόμενος λαλῶ, λανθάνειν γὰρ αὐτόν ⸀[τι] τούτων οὐ πείθομαι °1οὐθέν· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἐν γωνίᾳ πεπραγμένον τοῦτο. 27 πιστεύεις, βασιλεῦ Ἀγρίππα, τοῖς προφήταις; οἶδα ὅτι πιστεύεις. 28 ὁ δὲ Ἀγρίππας πρὸς τὸν Παῦλον· ἐν ὀλίγῳ ⸂με πείθεις⸃ ⸀Χριστιανὸν ⸁ποιῆσαι. 29 ὁ δὲ Παῦλος· ⸀εὐξαίμην ἂν τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐν ὀλίγῳ καὶ ἐν ⸁μεγάλῳ οὐ μόνον σὲ ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντάς μου σήμερον γενέσθαι τοιούτους ὁποῖος καὶ ἐγώ εἰμι παρεκτὸς τῶν δεσμῶν τούτων. 30 ⸂Ἀνέστη τε⸃ ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ ὁ ἡγεμὼν ἥ τε Βερνίκη καὶ οἱ συγκαθήμενοι αὐτοῖς, 31 καὶ ἀναχωρήσαντες ἐλάλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους λέγοντες °ὅτι οὐδὲν θανάτου ἢ δεσμῶν ἄξιόν °1[τι] πράσσει ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος. 32 ⸂Ἀγρίππας δὲ τῷ Φήστῳ ἔφη· ἀπολελύσθαι ἐδύνατο ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος⸃ εἰ μὴ ἐπεκέκλητο Καίσαρα. ⸆

Translate

 24 And when he was defending himself, Festus said with a great voice, “You are insane, Paul. The great learning drives you into insanity.” 25 And Paul says, “I am not insane, most excellent Festus, but I ____ true and ____ words. 26 For the king knows about these things to whom I am speaking boldly, for I am not persuaded that he has _____ these things. For it is not in _____ that he has done this. 27 Do you believe, king Agrippa, in the prophets? I know that you believe. 28 And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short [time] you think to make me a Christian?” 29 And Paul said, “I pray to God, whether in a short time or in a long time, not only you but also all who hear me today might become of such a manner as I am, except for these chains. 30 Then the king arose, and the leader, and also Bernice and those sitting with them, 31 and those who departed were speaking with one another saying that this man did nothing worthy of neither death nor chains. 32 And Agrippa said to Festus, “This man was able to depart except he called upon Caesar.”

Though there is more to the quiz, I need to get back to my Latin studies. Afterwards, though, and as this quiz made abundantly clear, I need to brush up on some Greek!

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Latin QOTD: Augustine

et quis locus est in me, quo veniat in me deus meus ? quo deus veniat in me, deus, qui fecit caelum et terram? itane, domine deus meus, est quicquam in me, quod capiat te? an vero caelum et terra, quae fecisti et in quibus me fecisti, capiunt te ?

-Augustini Confessionum Liber 1.2

And what place is there in wherein my God might dwell in me? wherein God might dwell in me, God, who made the heaven and the earth? Is it so, my Lord, is there anything in me that might contain you? Truly, are heaven and earth, which you have created and in which you have created me, able to contain you?

-Augustine, Confessions, Book 1.2

Posted in Latin | Leave a comment

About a Certain Youth (De Quodam Iuvene)

We are translating a very interesting passage in Latin today. I must say that I have enjoyed this class. Both Wheelock and Dr. Williams supply readers with a variety of readings that keep the translator entertained and drives him to complete the story. I’ll give you the text first, and then supply you with my translation.

Narravit abba Iohannes, qui manebat in loco qui dicitur Petra, de abbate Daniele Aegyptio dicens, quia cum ascendisset senex in locum qui dicitur Terenuthi ut venderet opus manuum suarum, iuvenis quidam accessit deprecans eum dicens: “Propter Deum te rogo, pater, ut venias in domum meam et facias orationem super uxorem meam, quia sterilis est.” Senex autem victus a prece iuvenis, eo quod per nomen Dominin eum adiuraverat, abiit cum eo. Et facta oratione super uxore eius recessit et abiit in cellam suam.

Non post multum vero tempus concepit mulier. Quod ut viderunt pravi homines Deum non timentes, detrahebant seni dicentes: “Vere scimus quia iuvenis ingenerabilis est et non generat, sed de abbate Daniel concepit mulier.” Devenit autem haec fama usque ad senem. Quod cum audisset, misit ad virum mulieris dicens: “Cum genuerit uxor tua, notifica illud mihi.”

Quando vero genuit mulier, nuntiatum est a iuvene abbati Danieli in Cithi, quia cum Dei adiutorio et orationibus tuis genuit mulier. Tunc abiit abbas Daniel dixitque iuveni: “Fac prandium et invita omnes parentes et amicos tuos.” Cum autem omnes pranderent, accepit senex infantem in manibus suis et coram omnibus dixit ei: “Quis est pater tuus, o infans?” Dixit puer: “Iste est, domine mi,” demonstrans iuvenem digito manus suae. Erat enim puer dierum viginti quinque. Quod videntes omnes qui aderant glorificaverunt Deum. Ex tunc obstrusa sunt labia loquentium iniqua, qui Dei homini detraxerant.

–Johannes Monachus

Abbott John, who lived in a place which was called Petra, told a story about Abbott Daniel in Egypt saying that when an old man went up in a place called Terenuthi to sell the work of his hands, a certain youth came begging him, saying, “I ask you in the name of God, father, that you come in my house and make a prayer over my wife, because she is sterile.” And the old man, being conquered by the youth’s entreaty, because he adjured him by the name of the Lord, came with him. And after he made a prayer over his wife, he withdrew and went into his cell.

Not after much time, the woman conceived. When evil men saw, not fearing God, they slandered the old man, saying, “Truly we know that the young man is impotent and is not able to beget, but the woman conceived by Abbott Daniel.” This rumor, however, reached the old man. When he heard, he sent to the husband of the woman saying, “When your wife gave birth, make it known to me.”

When indeed the woman gave birth, it was announced by the young man to Abbott Daniel in Cithi, that the woman gave birth with the help of God and your prayers. Then Abbott Daniel departed and said to the young man, “Make lunch and invite all your relatives and your friends.” And when they were eating lunch, the old man took the infant in his hands and before all, he said to him, “Who is your father, o child?” The boy said, “He is that one, my lord,” pointing a finger of his hand at the young man. Now the boy was 25 days old. When all who were present saw, they glorified God. From that time the lips of those who speak iniquity, who had slandered the man of God, were thrust from them,

–Johannes Monachus

Posted in Latin | Leave a comment

Two and a Half Weeks and Counting

Well, the time to move is quickly approaching. Mary Beth and I have about two and a half weeks left here in Holly Springs, NC. Things are starting to fall into place. We found an apartment in Bellingham, hired a nanny, put everything we aren’t taking into storage, installed a trailer hitch, changed our mailing address, painted the house, cleaned the carpets, and found a renter.

Yep, you heard me right. We have a renter to move into our house while we are away in Bellingham. Once all the paperwork is signed, it will be locked into place! This is quite the blessing. Now we won’t have to float a mortgage while paying for rent in Washington!

So…what’s left? Well, I’ve started power washing the house. Here’s a look at what the back of the house looked like before I started:

photo 1 (1)

Elijah loved watching daddy power wash. Here he is getting dinner and a show all at once:

IMG_20140427_192954

Here’s what it looks like now!

photo 2 (1)

I’d say it’s a marked improvement. Wouldn’t you?

Now, I just need to finish power washing the rest of the house, power wash the driveway, pull weeds, general lawn care, fix a tub drain, repair a facet leak, replace two light fixtures, pack the rest of my belongings that will stay and go, take a Latin quiz, pass my Latin comps, and say our goodbyes.

Things to look forward to, and in no particular order,:

  • Seeing the country. Though I have been out of the country (Germany and France), I haven’t gone further west than Chicago. (I have been to the Grand Canyon before as a child, but I vaguely remember it, so I don’t think it counts.).
  • Rainy days.
  • Bicycling to work.
  • Losing weight because I’m bicycling to work.
  • Good food.
  • Working alongside a highly qualified and talented group of interns.
  • Working with Dr. Runge on 1 Thessalonians
  • Driving cross country with my wife, a baby, and two dogs in the car
  • Seeing Dustin Crowe (college room mate)
  • Seeing Kyle Talbot (college room mate)
  • Watching a Mariners Braves game in Seattle
  • Visiting a ton of parks

And the list could just keep going!

Keep us in your prayers as we pack, move, settle in, and as I get to have an adult summer camp for language nerds that I don’t have to pay to attend…in fact I get paid to attend.

Posted in Greek, Life | 8 Comments

Congeniality, Scholarship, and the PA Conference

Dr. Black’s post on his unblog on the Pericope Adulterae conference reminded me of a very important aspect that I completely forgot…

Each of the presenters disagreed with one another. They each argued clearly, concisely, passionately, and adamantly for their positions. And yet, I have not seen 5 scholars in disagreement that expressed more grace than these 5. At a number of points during the symposium, the presenters offered supporting arguments for one another. They each recognized that some of the evidence they brought to be table could support their “opponent’s” theory. Instead of suppressing evidence that conflicted with their theory thus creating a straw man, they each were confident enough in their scholarship and theories that they allowed all evidence to be given a fair shake.

This is an example for both scholars and aspiring scholars to follow. Our job is to find all available evidence, analyze, and create theories that make sense of that evidence. In so doing, our theories have a firm footing. Furthermore, we should engage with our interlocutors with grace and mercy helping to support their theories where evidence is available and pointing out weaknesses where present in order to come closer to the truth of the matter.

My thanks to Drs. Punch, Wasserman, Knust, Keith, and Robinson for exemplifying excellent scholarship, grace, mercy, friendship, and levity throughout the conference!

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Debriefing the Pericope Adulterae

BmGeLLcIcAA6Ld1Well, the PA conference is over now. It was a rather unique experience for me. This was the first time I’ve ever live blogged. Added to that, I was tweeting, taking pictures, and manning the mic for the Q&A sessions. I think that I can say that I learned how to multi-task. Now I just need to learn to live blog without making any typos…

Now to the true nature of the post…

In the individual posts on the presenters’ papers I got into some of the details but failed to provide you with the general positions of the presenters. The main two questions of the conference were: is the PA original and should the PA be preached. In this post, I intend to provide a summary of each panelists views.

Dr. Punch: Dr. Punch argued on the basis of the context, syntax/grammar, and the patristic evidence (Augustine’s contention that the PA was suppressed by pious scribes that did not want to provide an excuse for adulterous wives to act with license) that the PA was original. Since the text is original, it should also be preached and taught. Dr. Punch advises us to make sure, in our preaching, that we inform our congregations and students of the various difficulties surrounding the text (as we should with any text that contains significant textual difficulties).

Dr. Wasserman: Dr. Wasserman contends that the PA is not authentic to Johannine composition on the basis of the early manuscript witnesses. Wasserman observes, citing Royce, that the scribes were more likely to omit than to add words. This principle, however, does not apply to lengthy sections of scripture. A word, two, three, and in extreme instances 7 words are omitted, but not 12 lines of text. Furthermore, the scribes of the early papyri display a meticulous concern for the accurate preservation of the text. Therefore, it is unlikely that the PA was omitted from John’s Gospel. Dr. Wasserman, along with Dr. Knust as will be discussed next, however, believes that the text should be preached. It is, after all, a part of the received text. That is to say, it has been accepted as canonical.

Dr. Knust: Dr. Knust explores the patristic side of the Wasserman-Knust defense for the unoriginality of the PA. According to Knust, the overwhelming consensus among the patristic writers was that intentional omissions or additions to the biblical text was unacceptable. Even in cases where the scribes were highly suspicious of the originality of a particular text, scribes refused to excise spurious readings. Instead, these readings would be marked with a text-critical notation. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that the PA was original. Nevertheless, the text has been accepted as canonical. It has been highly treasured by the church throughout the centuries and should not be relegated to obscurity or unimportance in our texts. It should be preached, taught, and commented upon.

Dr. Keith: Dr. Keith argues that the PA is a later interpolation and is thus not authentic to John. Dr. Keith claims that the interpolator has intentionally crafted the PA (as writers were taught to do in the ancient schools) in accordance with Johannine style. The evidence Dr. Punch uses to show similarities between the PA and the overall context and grammatical features of John is turned on its head. These similarities are to be expected. The interpolator did his job and did it well. Again, much like Drs. Knust and Wasserman, Dr. Keith advocates the continued preaching of the text within the church context. Though it might not have been original to John, it is a significant gospel witness to Jesus’ life and ministry. The church has accepted it and should continue to accept it as part of the gospel witness to Jesus’s life and ministry.

Dr. Robinson: I think we all know where Dr. Robinson stands. He argues for the originality of the PA. The lack of early manuscript evidence, according to Robinson, is due to the lectionary traditions. The text slipped out of two passages that were used in the Pentecost lectionary reading. Dr. Robinson also argued on the basis of internal evidence that the PA was original. Robinson claims that a network of connections (themes, vocabulary, etc) are created within a written work. While an author seeking to mimic another’s style might be able to match certain features, it is altogether unlikely to find that he has matched as many connections as are present in the PA. On the basis of the originality of the PA, Robinson argues that it should be preached.

To sum up:

  • Punch: original/preach
  • Wasserman: not original/preach
  • Knust: not original/preach
  • Keith: not original/preach
  • Robinson: original/preach

Despite the various positions each presenter takes, they all believe that the passage should be preached and taught.

Wasserman, Knust, and Keith have no problem affirming the necessity of teaching the passage because they do not place the criteria for inspiration (if we can speak generally and apply this category to the speakers) in the author. Instead, the canonical reception of certain texts bears witness to the inspiration of the texts. [note: I do know that I am making generalizations here. I do not know if Wasserman, Knust, and Keith would use confessional terminology such as inspiration as descriptions of their theological convictions. I merely use the term as it was brought up within the Q&A sessions and it serves to set up my next question].

Is there room, however, for the confessionally minded individual–I’m thinking specifically of one who believes in the Chicago statement–to claim that the text was unoriginal to John but a part of the received compositional text of John and should therefore be preached and taught. I ask because I find myself leaning towards this position. The closest example that comes to mind is the way we often talk about textual criticism of the Old Testament. Elements like the record of Moses’ death are attributed to the final composition of the book and are therefore excluded from Textual Critical conversations [Again I am speaking generally and not making a claim of authorship]. We do not try to excise that passage in order to get back to what the original author of the book wrote. Instead, it is accepted as a part of the final form–whatever that form might be–of the text. In that vein, I don’t think that John wrote the PA. I do think that it was artfully crafted, inserted into the Gospel,  received, affirmed, preached, and taught within the church. I am not resolved on this position. This is simply me thinking out loud, and I am open to persuasion.

Use the comments section to correct any misrepresentations I might be guilty of or any thoughts you might have on the discussion. I’m happy to hear them!

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments