Dr. Stanley Porter's new commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: A brief description and some positive thoughts

Dr. Stanley E. Porter, of McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, is well-known for his contributions to the study of New Testament Greek and biblical hermeneutics (among other topics). Although I don't always agree with him on Greek grammar and linguistics (though I have become somewhat more sympathetic to his views on Verbal Aspect Theory now than I was 15 years ago), I respect his immense contributions to our study of Scripture. Also, his commentary on Romans (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), is quite good, and I would consider it among my "top 5" recommendations for a well-rounded, English-speaking/reading, evangelical pastor's library (along with Moo, Longenecker, Barth, and Cranfield).

Since I co-teach the Pastoral Epistles in our small college with my father (who was for 30+ years a missionary to Japan), I was excited to hear of Porter's new commentary and made sure our library acquired it: The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023). The price is normally a bit hefty (at $70), but students and impulse-buyers should note that it is only $26.44 on Amazon right now [3:15pm on Wednesday, 11/27]; hurry before the sale ends!!!!!! 

Anyways, the reader should know that this rigorous, 800+ page commentary (not counting the bibliography) is focused specifically on the Greek text. You will find less of background matters here (e.g., Ephesus and Crete), but you will find intense discussions  of virtually every nuance of the Greek words and syntax. Indeed, the commentary's raison d'etre is summed up here by Porter:

"My major criticism against conventional commentary writing is that most of them offer little that is new in interpretation, to a large extent because they have departed from the major purpose of a commentary on an ancient text: to help in understanding the language of the text and thereby its situational context" (p. 1).

As noted above, this commentary is not the sort of commentary you turn to for extensive background information, nor is it the sort of commentary that rigorously discusses the various viewpoints on a particular topic (the very long and rigorous section on "saved through childbearing" was a bit disappointing in that regard). It is, however, the sort of commentary you turn to for an intense analysis of the actual Greek text of the Pastorals, and as such it will prove to be an extremely valuable addition to any library. 

I offer the following as a positive example of this (from page 219, discussing 1 Timothy 2:6, to which he devotes 10 paragraphs):

"The prefixed form ἀντίλυτρον in Paul must be considered with the preposition that is used int he adjunctive prepositional phrase. The Markan context [Mark 10:45] uses the simplex form along with ἀντί (in place of), the clear preposition of substitution; Paul uses the prefixed form indicating ransom in place of along with the preposition ὑπέρ (on behalf of). The first construction is clearly substitutionary, but the second may indicate nothing more than benefit. However, the latter preposition was often used in a substitutionary way in Greek texts contemporary with the NT, as evidenced in numerous documentary papyri (e.g., P.Tebt. 104.39–40; P.Hamb. 4.14–15), where a scribe would write 'on behalf of' (ὑπέρ) one who did not know how to write (S. Porter 1994: 176–77; cf. Radermacher 1925: 139; Robertson 1934: 630–32). There was benefit, to be sure, but there was also substitution of a literate person for someone illiterate. Thus, the general overall sense of both constructions is the same; both indicate substitution, although the Pauline text lacks the elegance of the Markan one" (p. 219).

The above paragraph shows Porter's thoroughness but also warns the reader to be prepared for some very technical terminology. Elsewhere, in what may have set some kind of record, Porter devotes 9 and a half pages to discussing 1 Timothy 2:12 (just that one verse!).

Two other points of appreciation. (1.) The introduction section of the commentary, spanning 88 pages, has one of the most rigorous defenses of Pauline authorship of the PE that you will ever see, including a brilliant discussion on the logical problems of assuming pseudonymity for the PE (specifically, pages 33–35). (2.) Pages 88–93 contain a very detailed overview (complete with comparisons of the Greek text) of "Early Church Attestation" of the PE.

Porter's commentary is not for the faint of heart, and he makes it very clear early on that he holds to both monosemy and verbal aspect theory, which will affect his interpretation to some degree (how much of a difference that makes in contrast to other commentaries remains to be seen). For those looking for a fresh perspective grounded solidly in the original language of the New Testament, however, the commentary has much to commend it.

Mounce's Greek Grammar, 4th ed.: A mini-review

Full disclosure: I teach Greek Syntax and advanced seminary Greek, but not 1st year Greek Grammar. I have, however, taught beginning Greek in the past and also tutored students in Greek.

400,000 purchaser's can't all be wrong! I think that this would be a fair observation regarding William D. Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 4th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2019). It's been approximately 20 years since I first cracked open my copy of Mounce's 1st edition back in my Maranatha days; it served me well enough back then, and it has continued to serve other students well through three more iterations.

Now, here's the thing about 1st year Greek grammars: (1.) Theres a ton of them out there, and (2.) like sports teams, everybody has their favorite, which they can defend vociferously because     . . . well, just because. What I'm trying to say is, there's a level of subjectivity involved with this kind of analysis, and the ultimate bottom line is, "Did the grammar help you read your Greek New Testament?" All other issues are secondary.

From that perspective, Mounce's grammar is a raging success, but then so are most grammars with a halfway competent teacher and a group of students who are not forced into the class against their will. What sets apart Mounce, to a certain degree, is (1.) a heavy focus on memorization and paradigms, (2.) a straightforward "nouns-to-verbs" approach in progression, and (3.) an effective integration with online material such as "FlashWorks."

The first two points can be somewhat controversial. There is nothing "fancy" about Mounce's pedagogical perspective, and I'm actually quite ok with that (many may wish to look elsewhere for "total immersion" methods, etc.) The paradigm layout, in my opinion, is effective enough, though intelligent teachers may wish to adapt them somewhat (it's easy enough to make one's own charts on MS Word).

As to Mounce's decision to complete nouns, adjectives, and pronouns before even dipping the toe into present indicative, this stands in stark contrast with many other grammars these days, including that of my own Doktorvater David Alan Black, who introduces verbs on chapter 2, and Stanley Porter, who introduces 1st Aorist verbs in chapter 4 (and before present tense! Which, to be fair, from his linguistic perspective actually makes sense). I have mixed feelings about that, but naturally the inventive professor is free to adjust the schedule in which his or her class tackles those chapters, anyways.

The third point is an ongoing, cumulative improvement since the first edition, and the range of possibilities inherent within "FlashWorks" is incredible, for those willing to get their hands a bit dirty (I will confess, however, that a couple aspects of the Hebrew vocab version of FlashWorks drives me nuts; I haven't used the Greek side as much, and not at all as a teacher, so I can't comment too much on it).

Now, one point of critique (and this critique applies equally well to other grammars). The discussion of "aspect" (e.g., page 155)  is, I believe, potentially misleading. Mounce, like others, conflates "aspect" with "aktionsart" (at least in my opinion), which has the potential to cause confusion for students going on to deeper study. In addition, since we are using the "imperfect" label for a tense (ch. 21), it seems needlessly confusing to use "imperfective" as an aspectual label (ch. 27) when referring to the present tense, when, in fact, we're really talking about aktionsart anyways. There's got to be a better way. (And, again, the Greek verbal system is probably the most controversial aspect of the Koine language in the NT, so good people may differ).

Overall, though, Mounce's Grammar is a significant improvement over previous editions of what has already been a top-tier introduction to biblical Greek. The book looks better than the oddly-tall 3rd edition (which wasn't bad, really, just a bit cumbersome), the layout of the chapters is better (e.g., the "halftime review"), and it integrates well with the free "FlashWorks" software. Kudos to Mounce and Zondervan Academic for their excellent work!

Teaching a Directed Study on the Septuagint

I have the privilege of doing a one-on-one directed study on the Septuagint with one of our seminary students here at BTS. I'm obviously not a Septuagint scholar nor a specialist (though I have contributed two published academic pieces on the NT use of the LXX, including an article in BBR) Consequently, this is somewhat of a learning experience for me as well.

Obviously the starting point is Septuaginta: A Reader's Edition, and the entire world of biblical academia owes Gregory Lanier and William Ross a debt of gratitude for their hard work on this! I required my student to purchase that, as well as the classic work by Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 2nd ed., as well as Jennifer Dines' The Septuagint. In addition, I just acquired a copy of Takamitsu Muraoka's incredible achievement, A Syntax of Septuagint Greek, and I will be making it available to my student (for obvious reasons he doesn't have to buy it; it's not cheap!)

From there I have given him a ton of outside reading from other sources, some quizzes, one test, and two major projects. This is a directed study, so not how I would handle a regular class. With that in mind, here's what my syllabus looks like:

[Please don’t mind the formatting; it’s tough to copy and paste directly from a Word doc. to a blog and still retain the formatting]

[Also: I’m interested in feedback, especially if I’ve missed some “must-read”English sources].

Introduction to the Septuagint (OT 745)

Theme Scripture: LXX Isaiah 53:5—αὐτὸς δὲ ἐτραυματίσθη διὰ τὰς ἀνομίας ἡμῶν καὶ μεμαλάκισται διὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν^.παιδεία εἰρήνης ἡμῶν ἐπ᾽αὐτόν, τῷ μώλωπι αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν.

                                                                                                

A. Description: “An introduction to the Septuagint with emphasis on its social and theological significance and how it compares with the Masoretic text. The course addresses the origins of the LXX, its use by the NT writers, translation technique and theology in the LXX when compared to the MT, its theological significance for modern Christians, and its use in textual criticism.”

*Prerequisites: AL511 (“Introduction to New Testament Exegesis”) and AL632 (“Principles of Hebrew Exegesis”). Septuagint OT 745 should be considered an advanced M.Div. OT elective or, alternatively, a Th.M. class.

B.  Course objectives. Having taken this class, the student should be able to competently:

1. Explain the basic facts about the existence of the Septuagint.

2. Read and translate the Septuagint (with appropriate helps).

3. Analyze the Septuagint theologically and linguistically in comparison to the Hebrew Masoreti

text and New Testament citations (with, at a minimum, an awareness of the Dead Sea Scrolls).

4. Grapple honestly with the theological significance of both the existence and the preservation of

the Septuagint.

5. Discuss key New Testament citations that utilize the Septuagint when it differs from the MT, 

offering a reasonable rationale (when possible) for why the inspired NT author did this.

6. Know the major works that have contributed to modern scholarship on the Septuagint, and those areas where work still needs to be done.

C. Required textbooks 

1. Septuaginta: A Reader’s Edition, eds. Gregory R. Lanier and William A. Ross 

(Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 2018).

2. Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015).

3. Jennifer M. Dines, The Septuagint, Understanding the Bible and Its World (London: T&T Clark, 2004).

*There will be a significant amount of reading from other books and articles, but the 

above three books are those that the student should personally own.

*Digital formats for all books are acceptable.

*Throughout the class the student will be required to utilize T. Muraoka, A Syntax of 

Septuagint Greek (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2016).

D. Grading

1. LXX translation quizzes (5%)

2. LXX and MT comparative analysis quizzes (5%)

3. LXX overview exam (5%)

4. Reading (15%)

*Total reading is approx. 1,090 pages plus 17 chapters of reading in the LXX 

(with one of those chapters read side-by-side with the Hebrew), plus portions of 

five letters between Augustine and Jerome.

5. Project 1: Textual and Translation Analysis (30%)

6. Project 2: Theology of the NT Use of the LXX (30%)

7. Memorization (3%)

8. Participation (5%)

9. Guest lecture in the professor’s Spring class “Elements of Hebrew Syntax” on “The Septuagint: What it is and why it matters.” (2%) [If this lecture does not work out, grading will be recalculated accordingly]. 

E. Class progression and projects: The class is divided into four “phases” revolving around four meetings between student and teacher. Each phase will focus on specific aspects of Septuagint research and knowledge, and each phase will contain its own cluster of requirements.

Meeting 1

This meeting will focus on the expectations of the class, the required projects, and the basic facts about the Septuagint and its significance. In addition, the professor and student will together spend some time reading and analyzing select LXX texts (initially, we will focus strictly on the Greek, not yet on the Hebrew). The professor will at this point make sure the student is up to speed on some developments in the study of Koine Greek, especially verbal aspect theory and deponency, and will discuss how this may or may not be relevant for the study of the LXX. Finally, the professor will provide the student with a study guide for the sole exam in this class.

Phase 1: Introduction

This phase is meant to introduce the student to the basic facts about the LXX and its importance. The student will familiarize himself with the Septuagint by reading it in the Greek. The reading will introduce the student to the basic issues surrounding the LXX and its significance for the early church.

Assignments for Phase 1

1. Jobes and Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 2^nd ed., in its entirety (approx. 380 pages).

2. Genesis 1–3 and Psalms 1–2 in the Septuaginta: A Reader’s Edition.

3. The exchange between Augustine and Jerome:

a. Augustine, Letter 28 (to Jerome), chapter 2.

b. Augustine, Letter 71 (to Jerome), chapters 2–3.

c. Jerome, Letter 72 (to Augustine), chapter 3.

d. Jerome, Letter 75 (to Augustine), chapter 1 (part 1) and chapters 6–7.

e. Augustine, Letter 82 (to Jerome), chapter 5.

4. Timothy E. Miller, “An Evangelical Apology for the Septuagint,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journalvol. 22 (2017): 35–55.

5. David A. deSilva, “Five Papyrus Fragments of Greek Exodus,” Bulletin of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies(BIOSCS) vol. 40 (2007): 1–29.

6. Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva, “Response to James Barr’s Review of Invitation to the Septuagint,” BIOSCS vol. 35 (2002): 43–46.

7. Karen H. Jobes, “When God Spoke Greek: The Place of the Greek Bible in Evangelical Scholarship,” Bulletin for Biblical Researchvol. 16.2 (2006): 219–236. 

8. W. Edward Glenny, “The Septuagint and Biblical Theology,” Themeliosvol. 41.2 (August 2016): 263–278.

Meeting 2

During this meeting, the student and professor will discuss the material read during phase 1, as well as the various issues involved in the study of the LXX. The professor and student will spend more time reading and discussing passages from the LXX together, this time with reference to the Hebrew text. 

Phase 2: Reading, translating, and appreciating the LXX

During this phase, the student should spend a significant amount of time reading and analyzing the LXX Greek text, gain a solid understanding of the history of the LXX, its key manuscripts, and the key figures involved in its reception, begin to grapple with LXX lexicography, and develop a working knowledge of the Apocrypha and its significance for NT studies.

Assignments for Phase 2:

1. Read all of Dines, The Septuagint(approx. 150 pages).

2. Read LXX Genesis 4–10.

3. Take three quizzes (proctored) on basic LXX translation and syntactical analysis. The student will be allowed to use Muraoka’s Syntax of Septuagint Greekand oneNT syntax of his or her choice.

4. Take an exam covering the basic facts of the LXX (any time before meeting #3). No helps allowed. A study guide will be provided during “Meeting 1.”

5. Harold P. Scanlin, “Charles Thomson: Philadelphia Patriot and Bible Translator,” BIOSCS vol. 39 (2006):115–132.

6. Chapter 4, “Staying Jewish: Language and Identity in the Greek Bible,” from Tessa Rajak, Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora(20 pages).

7. Jan Joosten, “Varieties of Greek in the Septuagint and the New Testament,” pages 22–45 in The New Cambridge History of the Bible: From the Beginnings to 600, eds. James Carleton Paget and Joachim Schaper (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2013).

8. Cameron Boyd–Taylor, “Lexicography and Interlanguage—Gaining our Bearings,” BIOSCS vol. 37 (2004): 55–62.

9. Martha L. Wade, “Evaluating Lexical Consistency in the Old Greek Bible,” BIOSCSvol. 33 (2000): 53–75.

10. John A. L. Lee, “Ἀποσκεγη in the Septuagint,” Journal of Theological Studies

vol. 23.2 (Oct 1972): 430–437.

11. Dirk Büchner, “A Cultic Term (ἁμαρτία) in the Septuagint: Its Meaning and Use from the Third Century B.C.E. until the New Testament,” BIOSCSvol. 42 (2009).

12. Takamitsu Muraoka, “How to Analyse and Translate the Idiomatic Phrase 

יִתֵּן מִי,” BIOSCS vol. 33 (2000): 47–52.

13. Jonathan T. Pennington, “‘Heaven’ and ‘Heavens’ in the LXX: Exploring the Relationship between שָׁמַיִםand οὐρανός,” BIOSCSvol. 36 (2003): 39–59.

14. David Lincicum, “The Epigraphic Habit and the Biblical Text: Inscriptions as a Source for the Study of the Greek Bible,” BIOSCSvol. 41 (2008): 84–92.

Meeting 3

During this meeting, the professor and student will discuss the material read during “phase 2” and the methodology for cross-textual analysis. The professor and student will put this into practice by analyzing together various texts in both their Greek and Hebrew forms, discussing such matters as translator style and faithfulness (or lack thereof) to the source text, anomalies in how the LXX might differ from the Hebrew, possibilities of a different Vorlage, etc. In the process, the professor and student will discuss Hebrew vs. Greek syntax, and how the former might be appropriately rendered into the latter. Finally, the professor and student will begin to discuss the significance of NT use of the OT when such usage is clearly LXX.

Phase 3: Cross-textual analysis

At this point, the student should begin to gain competency in analyzing the Greek side-by-side with the Hebrew MT and begin to develop a methodology for analyzing NT use of the LXX including possible NT interaction with the Apocrypha.

Assignments for Phase 3:

1. Read LXX Genesis 11–15. The LXX of Genesis 15 should be read in conjunction with the Hebrew MT.

2. Three quizzes on cross textual analysis between the LXX and the MT. The student should utilize Muraoka’sSyntax, one Hebrew syntax of his choice, and one Greek syntax of his choice.

3. Anssi Voitila, “Some Remarks on the Perfect Indicative in the Septuagint,” BIOSCSvol. 26 (1993): 11–16.

4. David Cleaver–Bartholomew, “One Text, Two Interpretations: Habakkuk OG and MT Compared,” BIOSCSvol. 42 (2009): 52–67.

5. P. J. Williams, “The LXX of 1 Chronicles 5:1–2 as an Exposition of Genesis 48–49,” Tyndale Bulletinvol. 49.2 (1998): 369–71.

6. Deborah Levine Gera, “Translating Hebrew Poetry into Greek Poetry,” BIOSCSvol. 40 (2007): 107–120.

7. Arie van der Kooij, “A Short Commentary on Some Verses of the Old Greek of Isaiah 23,” BIOSCSvol. 15 (1982): 36–50.

8. Nicholas Peterson, “An Analysis of Two Early LXX Manuscripts from Qumran: 4QLXXNum and 4QLXXLeva in the Light of Previous Studies,” Bulletin for Biblical Research vol. 19.4 (2009): 481–510.

9. Chapter 2, “Identifying a Source as Greek or Hebrew,” in R. Timothy McLay, The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research(40 pages).

10. Paul A. Himes, “Why Did Peter Change the Septuagint? A Reexamination of the 

Significance of the Use of Τίθημιin 1 Peter 2:6,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 

vol. 26.2(2016): 71–111.

11. Jonathan A. Linebaugh, “Announcing the Human: Rethinking the Relationship Between Wisdom of Solomon 13–15 and Romans 1.18–2.11,” New Testament Studies vol. 57 (2011):  214–237.

12. Paul A. Himes, “Wisdom and the Sojourning Saints or Christ and the Wandering Sinners? The Wilderness Wandering Motif in Hebrews as a Reaction to Wisdom of Solomon,” pages 227–249 in Getting into the Text: New Testament Essays in Honor of David Alan Black, eds. Daniel L. Akin and Thomas W. Hudgins (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2017).

13. Edmon L. Gallagher, “Augustine on the Hebrew Bible,” The Journal of Theological Studiesvol. 67.1 (April 2016): 97–114.

14. Matthew Flannagan, “Feticide, The Masoretic Text, and the Septuagint,” Westminster Theological Journal vol. 74.1 (Spring 2012): 59–84.

15. Paul D. Wegner, “Current Trends in Old Testament Textual Criticism,” Bulletin for Biblical Researchvol. 23.4 (2013): 461–480.

16. Martin Rösel, “The Text-Critical Value of Septuagint-Genesis,” BIOSCSvol. 31 (1998): 62–70.

17. William A. Ross, “Text-Critical Question Begging in Nahum 1,2–8: Re-evaluating the Evidence and Arguments,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft vol. 127.3 (2015): 459–74.

18. Albert Pietersma, “Septuagint Research: A Plea for a Return to Basic Issues,” Vetus Testamentumvol. 35.3 (July 1985): 296–311.

Meeting 4

During this meeting, the professor and student will chart a path for “Project A” and “Project B,” paying special attention to the theological relevance of the LXX both for the NT era and for today. The professor will encourage the student towards a balanced perspective on the LXX that avoids the two extremes of ignoring it on the one hand (or, even worse, denying its existence) and replacing the Hebrew with it as the authoritative OT text on the other hand. Finally, the professor and student will discuss the relevance (if any) of the LXX for textual criticism of the Old Testament. If there is time, the professor and student will discuss the professor’s own LXX-related projects.

Assignments for Phase 4:

1. “Project A”: A thorough textual and translation analysis of a significant portion of the LXX in comparison with the Hebrew. [A chapter from one of the minor prophets]

2. “Project B”: The development of a coherent “theology of the Septuagint” that appropriately grapples with its role in Hebrew History, its use by NT authors, and its relevance for today, all fitting within a strong independent Baptist perspective on inerrancy.

*The student is encouraged to consult with the professor and/or provide updates in the process of working on these two projects.

Guidelines for the two projects

A. Textual and syntactical analysis of an LXX passage.

1. The student will choose one chapter from one of the minor prophets that contains a NT citation (a citation that is most likely from the LXX instead of the MT, or at least a citation that could have been either). The student is free to use Archer and 

Chirichigno’s Old Testament Quotations in the New(or any other secondary sources) 

as a guide for finding a suitable chapter.

2. The point of this paper is to provide a full-scale analysis of the LXX as compared to the MT.

3. After an introductory overview of this particular book of “The Twelve” in LXX form (appropriately citing the major scholarly sources), the student will go verse-by-verse, commentary-style, and analyze the LXX in relation to the Hebrew (full Hebrew and Greek text should be provided for each verse in the paper). The student is seeking to answer the following questions:

 a. Does the LXX translation exhibit any unique characteristics?

 b. Are there any lexical or syntactical oddities? If so, would such an oddity be 

 best explained via translator style, theological interpretation, a different 

 Vorlage, or some combination of the above?

 c. Does the LXX translator exhibit any unique perspectives compared to the MT, 

 especially theological perspectives? In other words, would a sermon from the 

 LXX preach differently than a sermon from the MT?

 4. The student will pay close attention to any passage(s) cited by a New Testament 

 author, seeking to answer the following questions:

 a. Why did the NT author cite the LXX instead of the MT? The simple answer 

 may be “because it was the translation his audience was using”; however, the 

 student should be open to more complicated explanations, as well.

 b. What role does this verse play in the NT author’s theology?

 c. Does the NT author seem to be drawing from the broader context of the LXX 

 verse under discussion?

 5. The conclusion will focus on general observations that the student feels he can make about the passage, including any areas that are unresolved and need further study.

6. There is no minimum or maximum page limit. The student is expected to take as long as necessary to provide a solid analysis.

7. There is no specific required number of sources. However, the student will be expected to utilize both LXX and Hebrew syntaxes as well as the best critical commentaries (especially those that discuss the LXX). In addition, the student should evidence awareness of key articles, monographs, or dissertations which discuss this particular chapter. In other words, grading will depend less on the number of sources and more on whether or not the student has evidenced knowledge of the most important sources for this kind of work.

8. Generally speaking, the student should follow BTS formatting and guidelines for this paper. When laying out the text of Greek and Hebrew for a particular verse, however, the student should make sure they are side-by-side, either using a “Table” in MS Word or using two columns via an “insert section” option.

9. The student is strongly encouraged to use Unicode front for Greek and Hebrew (e.g., Tyndale or SBL), in order to ensure that the fonts will show up properly when the project is sent as a MS Word document to the professor.

B. The Theological Significance of the LXX

1. The student will write an essay discussing the theological significance of the LXX for Christianity in both the 1^st and the 21^st centuries AD.

2. The student will do his best to explain how the NT writers approached the 

LXX, being careful not to generalize but also looking for any broad trends.

3. In the process, the student will analyze the following passages and explain why, in 

each case, the NT author (or speaker) went with the LXX over the MT (if he did), and 

why it matters:

a. Isaiah 42:1–4 in Matthew 12:18–21

b. Genesis 11:12–13 cited in Luke 3:36.

c. Habakkuk 2:4 cited in Romans 1:17.

d. Psalm 2:9, cited in Revelation 2:27.

e. Psalm 96:7 [MT 97:7] in Hebrews 1:6.

f. Amos 9:12 in Acts 15:17 (part of a longer quotation).

4. The student will then discuss the significance of the LXX for today (21^st century), 

including any relevance it might have for pastoral and missions work.

5. There is no page limit, over or under. The student should simply ensure that he has 

adequately dealt with the topic.

6. There is no minimum number of required sources. However, the student should 

make sure he or she interacts with key articles (e.g., Glenny, “Septuagint and Biblical Theology”) and monographs (e.g., Law, When God Spoke Greek) that discuss the theological significanceof the Septuagint. When discussing the NT citations of the OT, the student should plan on consulting the top two or three commentaries for each citation, both on the side of the NT and on the side of the OT.

Bibliography: Some relevant English books for Septuagint study

*In addition to the books listed below, the student should be aware of 

(1.) “The Septuagint Commentary” series (not completed yet). The series so far has 13 books out (both canonical and non-canonical LXX). E.g., W. Edward Glenny, 

Micah: A Commentary based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus. The series is published 

by Brill (and thus, unfortunately, prohibitively expensive!).

(2.) The Göttingen Septuagintaseries (published by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), an ongoing project which is probably the most important source for any study of the 

Septuagint that involves textual criticism. The series is approximately 2/3 complete.

1. Brotzman, Ellis R., and Eric J. Tully. Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. 2^nded. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016.

2. Carson, D. A., and G. K. Beale. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

3. Chamberlain, Gary Alan. The Greek of the Septuagint: A Supplemental Lexicon. Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 2011.

4. Conybeare, F. C., and St. George Stock. Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With Selected Readings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes. Reprint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

5.Dines, Jennifer M. The Septuagint. Understanding the Bible and Its World. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

6. Evans, T. V. Verbal Syntax in the Greek Pentateuch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

7. Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament. 2^nded. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998.

8. Hengel, Martin. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.

9. Hiebert, Robert J. V., ed. “Translation Is Required”: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 56. Atlanta: SBL, 2010.

10. Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.

11. Jobes, Karen H., eds. Discovering the Septuagint: A Guided Reader. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2016.

12. Jobes, Karen H., and Moisés Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint, 2^nded. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015.

13. Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

14. Lee, J. A. L. A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch. SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983.

15. Longenecker, Richard N. Biblical Exegesis of the Apostolic Period. 2^nded. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999.

16. Marcos, Natalio Fernández. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible. Trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson. Atlanta, SBL: 2009.

17. McLay, R. Timothy.  The Use of the Septuagint in New Testament Research. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.

18. Muraoka, T. A Syntax of Septuagint Greek. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2016.

19. Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2009.

20. Muraoka, T. A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two-way Index to the Septuagint. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2010.

21. Olofsson, S. God Is My Rock: A Study of Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis in the Septuagint. Coniectanea Biblical Old Testament 31. Stockholm: Amqvist & Wiksell, 1990.

22. Rajak, Tessa. Translation and Survival: The Greek Bible of the Ancient Jewish Diaspora. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

23. Swete, H. B. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. 2^nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914.

24. Taylor, Bernard, ed. Analytical Lexicon to the Septuagint. Peabody, MS: Hendrickson, 2009.

25. Thackeray, Henry St. John. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek. Vol. 1: Introduction, Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. Note that Thackeray only completed the first volume.

26. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015.

Introducing the Solid Rock Greek new Testament (ed. McCollum and Brown)

I am excited to draw your attention to a new type of Greek New Testament, The Solid Rock Greek New Testament (see here for purchase on Amazon, and here for Logos pre-pub). The editors are James J. McCollum (who introduced this at the recent Bible Faculty Summit) and Stephen L. Brown.

The basic premise of this edition of the Greek New Testament is, in a nutshell, a Byzantine-based Greek Bible (close to, but not identical with Robinson/Pierpont 2005) that compares the readings to other critical Greek editions. In other words, the Solid Rock Greek New Testament (which we'll call the SRGNT) is to the Byzantine text what the new SBL GNT is to the eclectic text. In McCollum's own words (from his presentation at the BFS), the SRGNT
"Was developed with the purpose of offering a comparative overview of prominent NT editions . . . . Because it does not collate the readings of individual manuscripts directly, it is not a critical edition in the strict sense. Rather, it is a digest of other critical editions intended to give pastors, translators, and researchers a compact and accessible snapshot of trends in scholarly opinion over the last few centuries."

In other words, the SRGNT gives you the Byzantine text, but then notes where other Greek New Testament editions differ, specifically:
1. Robinson-Pierpont's Byzantine
2. Pickering's f35
3. Stephanus' 1550 edition of Erasmus' Textus Receptus (to be clear, the TR is, in a sense, a "critical text" because it was not based on one manuscript but multiple manuscripts and Erasmus had to make choices between them when they disagreed)
4. Tyndale House's corrected edition of Tregelles's Greek NT
5. Westcott and Hort's Greek NT
6-8. Nestle-Aland 25th, 27th, and 28th edition.
9-10. The Greek text behind the 1973 and 2011 versions of the NIV (which is not technically identical to any one Greek NT, though similar to the Nestle-Aland)
11. The SBL Greek New Testament
12. For (some) Pauline epistles only, the Greek text assumed by John Eadie's commentaries.
13. For Galatians only, the Greek text assumed by Stephen C. Carlson.
14. For Philemon only, the Greek text argued for by Matthew Solomon in his recent dissertation at NOBTS.
15. For Jude only, the work by Tommy Wasserman in The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission. [Though fairly recent, I get the impression that this is now considered the definitive work on textual criticism in Jude, and Wasserman has definitely established himself as a tier-1 textual critic].
So, in regards to those 15 different Greek texts, the SRGNT includes the variants where any of them might disagree with the base text of the SRGNT itself.

The only significant omission here is the Hodges-Farstad The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Besides Hodges-Farstad, I cannot think of any other edition of the Greek New Testament that really matters at this point for actually figuring out what the Apostles originally wrote, so McCollum and Brown have almost covered all the bases! (And Hodges-Farstad would probably not have too many variants that were not reflected somewhere in the other editions McCollum and Brown compare with their text).

As a Byzantine priority guy myself, I'm excited to see an edition of the Byzantine Greek New Testament that nonetheless provides the differences between it and [almost] all the other major Greek texts out there, including the TR. Furthermore, if the reader will permit some theological speculation on the nature of preservation, because of the scope of material it covers as a result of being a "comparative-critical edition of critical editions," so to speak, based on the Byzantine text, I will tentatively suggest that (at least from my perspective) the SRGNT has a higher probability of having preserved all the original words of the apostles somewhere in its text than any other version/edition in existence (let alone any single ancient mss)! If a variant reading does not occur somewhere in the text or apparatus of the SRGNT, then it probably isn't worth considering as legit, no matter what your views on preservation.

I ordered my copy of the SRGNT today, and I'm excited about the possibilities of utilizing this text in my seminary "Introduction to Greek Exegesis" course. I already have my students read my Doktorvater David Alan Black's New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide, and the SRGNT would potentially add to their understanding of the practical ramifications of textual criticism along with that.

Reflections on having taught "Reading and Syntax in the Prison Epistles"

This past Spring semester I had the privilege of teaching a graduate-level class, "Reading and Syntax of the Prison Epistles" (NT 531), for the first time at Baptist Theological Seminary (Menomonee Falls, WI). The prerequisite for the class was 5 semesters of Greek (including grad-level "Introduction to NT Exegesis").

For this class, I tried something different. Although my lectures covered all four books, each student was required to choose their own "track," the options being (1.) Ephesians, (2.) Philippians + Philemon, or (3.) Colossians + Philemon (the latter two options are about equal in length to the first five chapters of Ephesians). The "track" they choose to focus on determined:

1. The textbooks they would purchase

2. Their research paper (which culminated in a sermon outline and in-class presentation).

3. Their final exam (customized for each track)

4. Their article review (each student had to analyze an academic journal article by a scholar and present its pros and cons in class). 

For the required reading for Ephesians and Philippians, I had a general idea of what they should be interacting with, but for Colossians I initially had no clue. I am pleased to report, however, that David Pao's "Zondervan Exegetical Commentary" on Colossians is excellent, at the exegetical, theological, and practical level (I have noted in a previous post that this commentary even mentions the 1950 Wheaten Student Revival).

The required, main textbooks were:

1. For those on the Ephesians track: 

(a.) Harold Hoehner's stand-alone commentary (still the standard!) and 

(b.) Clinton Arnold's Zondervan Exegetical Commentary. 

2. For those on the Philippians track:

(a.) Gordon Fee's NICNT

(b.) The revised WBC by Hawthorne and Martin (2nd ed.; it was initially just Hawthorne's). I generally am not a fan of the WBC format or content (though Mounce on the Pastorals is one of the best), but I had heard good things about this particular commentary.

3. For Colossians (both of these commentaries also covered Philemon):

(a.) David Pao's Zondervan Exegetical Commentary

(b.) Douglas Moo's Pillar NT Commentary

In addition, there was plenty of supplemental reading required (to balance things out, I had the "Philippians" group read the "Philemon" section in N. T. Wright's small Tyndale commentary of  Colossians and Philemon).

Now, a couple random thoughts on the content of the class:

1. Gordon Fee's NICNT on Philippians remains, in my humble-but-opinionated-opinion, one of the greatest commentaries ever written. His treatment of Phil 2:1-11 is masterful.

2. Speaking of which, I had no idea until relatively recently just how significant the intertextuality of Phil 2:9-11 is, and the deeper sense it adds to Paul's message (here's a hint to get you started, dear reader: read Isaiah 45:23-24, preferably in the LXX if you are able to). Also, "All praise to Thee for Thou O King Divine" (Tucker) is a really, really cool song based off of this passage.

3. "Cosmic" is a key word when it comes to all the Prison Epistles. We should embrace it! The Jesus Christ of Paul's Prison Epistles does not wield authority only in the hearts of believers, or even on this earth, but over the entire Cosmos!

4. Gordon Fee's article "To What End Exegesis" is a great article to read to get started in this kind of class (all my students had to read it by the first day of class). It can be accessed here.

5. Markus Barth has some excellent material in his Anchor Bible commentary (all those on the Ephesians track had to read 50 pages from this). His discussion on Ephesians 5:25f is excellent. [Markus Barth is a much more profitable and edifying read than his father, in my humble-but-opinionated opinion, though with that radical statement I become an outcast to mainstream theological scholarship :) ]

6. The Greek "Skubala" is not a vulgarity, though it can certainly be a word with "shock value." Josephus uses the word about how you'd expect as the equivalent of simply "manure" or "excrement" (e.g., War 5.571) not in contexts where it would make sense as a vulgarity. So Paul in Phil 3:8 is not being "edgy", though he is certainly being "shocking."

7. Philippians 3:11-16 is, in my opinion, one of the most difficult passages to exegete in all of the prison epistles, though Col 1:24 comes in a close second.

8.This was really my first exposure at any level to an in-depth study of Colossians. I've come to the conclusion that the heretics Paul was opposing in the Epistle to the Colossians is probably some kind of a syncretic Torah-centric mysticism with elements of pagan mythology added [more-or-less; it's complicated!].

9. I shall end with this great quote from Scot McKnight's new NICNT (an occasionally helpful commentary, but not one I would use as a textbook; Pao's is much better, imo, but McKnight has some great quotes):

For McKnight, Colossians is about "Vision for the cosmos with Christ at center." Amen!

Introducing a new class at BTS: "Using the Biblical Languages in Ministry" (with Logos!)

I am pleased to announce that on the week of Memorial Day, May 29th (though starting later in the day) through June 2nd, Baptist Theological Seminary (Menomonee Falls, WI) will be offering a new class, "Using Biblical Languages in Ministry," with myself and evangelist Bobby Bosler teaching.

Here is the official description:
"An overview of how a competent knowledge of the biblical languages can benefit both the study of the Scriptures and sermon preparation, especially when utilizing the tools that modern Bible software provides. Students will learn to use Logos Bible Software profitably while at the same time learning the basics of lexical semantics (and how to avoid exegetical fallacies), refreshing their knowledge of Greek syntax, and exploring the very basics of Hebrew grammar and syntax to enable them to utilize Logos with Old Testament texts."

The point of this class is to give pastors who haven't taken Greek exegesis or any Hebrew enough tools to utilize the biblical languages with Logos while avoiding exegetical, lexical, or syntactical fallacies. 

We will focus on basic lexical semantics (i.e., how words function), a super-basic, non-intimidating overview of Hebrew (for those that have never had Hebrew), hermeneutics-light, and, last but not least, how to use Logos (which will be required for the course, in addition to three modules: a Greek NT, a Hebrew OT, and the Rahlf's Septuagint). The work for this class will be very practical, "hands-on," and ministry oriented (especially focused on how Logos can be used for sermon prep, etc.)

Finally, I'm very excited about the textbooks for this class (in addition to Logos, which is sort of a "textbook" in of itself). 
1. First, we have a book by my very own doctoral advisor, David Alan Black, Using New Testament Greek in Ministry: A Practical Guide for Students and Pastors (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1993).
2. Secondly, we have a gem I recently discovered, Michael Williams' The Biblical Hebrew Companion for Bible Software Users (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015). This books is the perfect book for this type of class, and kudos to Dr. Williams for publishing something that I don't think anybody else has published yet.
3. Finally, we have D. A. Carson's Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1996). Although there are parts of this book I disagree with, nonetheless this remains a classic, very valuable for ministry.

What I'm requiring my "Intro to NT Exegesis" students to read

I'm grateful for the privilege of teaching the grad class "Intro to New Testament Exegesis" this year at Baptist College of Ministry and Baptist Theological Seminary (10 students in the class). At the seminary level, I'll be alternating between Biblical Hebrew and NT Greek Exegesis classes every other year. This semester is a bit of an experiment, but here's what I'm having them read:

First off, the following three textbooks: 
1. Richard J. Erickson's A Beginner's Guide to New Testament Exegesis, which I felt was overall the most accessible, user-friendly, and well-rounded (narrowly beating out Gordon Fee's classic work), despite the fact he gives credence to "Q" (sort of).
2. Secondly, to give them a basic intro to textual criticism, they need my own Doktorvater's book New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide.
3. Finally (and this is the more experimental choice), I'm requiring them to read the brand new Discourse Grammar of the New Testament by Steven R. Runge. I like what I see in this book so far, and discourse analysis is extremely important, but this might be a bit too much for them to chew for now. We'll see. I might replace it next time around with the fantastic Advances in the Study of Greek by Constantine R. Campbell (though this book also is a bit heavy).

I'm focusing on a number of topics in this class, including background, lexical semantics, textual criticism, and the debate over the verb tenses.
1. For the verb tenses, I'm making them read Andrew Naselli's "A Brief Introduction to Verbal Aspect in the New Testament Greek" (Detroit Seminary Journal vol. 12), since it's a decent overview of the topic (though I suspect I'm less swayed by Porter's views than Naselli). In addition, I'm making them read both Frank Stagg's classic "The Abused Aorist" (JBL vol. 91) and Charles Smith's "Errant Aorist Interpreters" just to get the point across that they should not be basing a theological point on the Aorist tense! (the other tenses, maybe, but not the Aorist!)
2. For background studies, I have them read Stanley Porter's "Why the Laodiceans Received Lukewarm Water" (Tyndale Bulletin vol. 38). I stress repeatedly, in multiple classes, that a knowledge of the background of Laodicea (the problem with the water supply) helps avoid misunderstanding Jesus' point in Revelation 3. Of course, common sense helps a bit too: imagine you're living in Asia Minor, as a farmer, before the advent of the air conditioner. Why in the world would you think of "cold water" as a bad thing. Jesus' point is that, unlike refreshing cold water or therapeutic hot water, the Laodiceans, like their lukewarm water supply, are worthless and vomit-inducing. A failure to stop and think has caused many a pastor to preach this as if "cold" = "opposed to God" and "hot" = "on fire for God," with the odd theological result that somehow God prefers unbelievers dead-set against him to "lukewarm" believers. (I was delighted, however, to recently hear an excellent sermon by an evangelist that "gets it," referring specifically to the background of the city in his sermon; I believe this was the first sermon on this passage in 10+ years that I've heard that "got it right." Naturally the Holy Spirit can use even a relatively poor/lightweight sermon, provided it's not heretical, but I do believe He's grieved when we don't do our homework in our sermon prep!)
3. For lexical semantics, I have them read an excellent (and in-depth) article by Eckhard Schnabel on "The Meaning of Baptizein in Greek, Jewish, and Patristic Literature" in Filologia Neotestamentaria vol. 24. Schnabel, by giving us an extensive survey of the word in Greek literature, once for all puts to rest the idea that that baptizw is somehow a "technical" term that needs to be transliterated instead of translated.
4. Finally, I bring in some of my own textual biases and introduce them to the textual work of Maurice Robinson, specifically his "The Case for Byzantine Priority" in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism vol. 6 and his "Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the 'Test-Tube' Nature of the NA27/UBS4 Text" in Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology, eds. Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda (Eerdmans, 2009).

There are, of course, quite a few more sources I would recommend for exegetical study, not least of which would be some helpful background resources such as the classic work by Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity and Burge, Cohick, and Green's The New Testament in Antiquity. In choosing a textbook for this class, I was actually very disappointed in how few good options there were. I felt I was limited pretty much to Erickson, Fee, Guthrie/Duvall (Biblical Greek Exegesis: A Graded Approach . . .), and Blomberg/Markley (A Handbook of New Testament Exegesis), and none of them felt "right," though I ended up going with Erickson. Hopefully there are some enterprising and budding scholars out there that would rise to the challenge! Specifically, I'm looking for something that focuses on block diagramming and the interplay of various clauses. Guthrie/Duvall deal with that, but in their own way, with what I consider a more "advanced" discourse-centered style of block-diagramming. That's all good and well, but I'm looking for a more "basic" system of block-diagramming.

Ultimately, for this class, the building blocks for New Testament Exegesis are (as I see it) a solid competency in Greek, a humble yet informed perspective on textual criticism, and understanding of words and their meanings (meaning is determined by the interplay of context and semantic range, not etymology), carefulness with the tenses, ability and desire to research the background of a text, a basic understanding of the flow of the discourse, and, most importantly, a love for the Word of God!

Anyways, a great class, with great students, and a great topic: the New Testament in Greek! More the Lord bless the teacher and the students!