Book Review: 2 Corinthians: A Handbook on the Greek Text, by Fredrick J. Long

[Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament series, Martin M. Culy, Gen. Ed.; 2015, Baylor University Press, Waco, TX, 299 pages]

Fredrick J. Long’s contribution to the rightfully-lauded BHGNT series offers some unique features, beyond the standard formatting in these volumes.

Long_2Cor

Like the others in this series, Long begins the commentary proper by providing his own English translation of a subsection, which is then followed by the first full verse (or verses) of that subsection in Greek (no transliterations), which is then followed by full parsings for each word (or phrase) in that verse. This methodology continues to the next verse(s), and so forth.

Where Long differentiates his volume is that after the parsings for each individual subsection, he draws out “Emphatic and Prominent Features” from that subsection. Here he is influenced by works of Stephen H. Levinsohn, Steven E. Runge, Stanley E. Porter, and others. His initial inspiration in this regard arrived when Eugene Nida visited his campus while he was a student (p xvii). Nida’s insights encouraged Long to find and attempt to categorize various emphatic constructions. In the Introduction, the author provides some examples of emphasis and prominence, and then reveals his working methodology (pp xxiii–xliii). Long is hopeful that readers will see how the examples supplied throughout 2 Corinthians can assist in understanding “how biblical writers communicated what was most important to them” (p xliii). In other words, the student can take the knowledge gained in Long’s volume here and apply the same principles to other NT writings.

The short subsection 11:1–4 will provide a brief example (see pp 100–101). This subsection uses asyndeton (a, “not”; syn, “with”; detos, “binding” = no conjunction) to mark the new thought. Paul begins with the unusual participle Ὄφελον (“I wish”), which functions as a metacomment (a sort of preface) serving to further differentiate this section of the epistle from what immediately precedes. This participle forms part of periphrastic with ἀνείχεσθέ (2nd person plural middle indicative, “bear”, “put up”, “be patient”, “tolerate”). Paul uses a form of this same verb ἀνέχω at the end of this verse to ‘correct’ his first usage (via ἀλλά + ascensive καί = “but even/indeed”), by using its imperatival form ἀνέχεσθέ: “I wish that you would bear with me…but indeed bear with me!” In addition, ἀνέχω is used yet again in verse 4, thereby forming an inclusio, demarcating this subsection. In its final usage, the verb contrasts contextually with verse 1.

That is, in 11:1 Paul first wishes, then instructs the Corinthians to bear with him; in 11:4 Paul reproves them, since καλῶς ἀνέχεσθε, “you [the Corinthians] beautifully bear with” the false teachers! The overall sense is, ‘Put up with me since you have well been putting up with those false teachers!’ Paul uses these devices to great rhetorical effect. Long details even more ways the Apostle uses emphasis and prominence in this subsection.

The author’s very detailed outline (pp xix–xxiv) makes it easy to see the individual micro-structures within the larger whole. And it reinforces the important role emphasis and prominence play in conveying the Apostle Paul’s intents and purposes throughout this epistle.

Long’s efforts here go a long way to assist the NT student in exegeting this rather difficult epistle. Well done, I say!

(Note: While the cover and spine both read II Corinthians, the title page and the Baylor University Press listing read 2 Corinthians.)

Book Review: Colossians and Philemon: A Handbook on the Greek Text, by Constantine R. Campbell

[Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament series, Martin M. Culy, Gen. Ed.; 2013, Baylor University Press, Waco, TX, 114 pages]

The union of Verbal Aspect and ‘Union with Christ’ in one volume

In the continuing series of the Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament (BHGNT), Constantine Campbell, in his in-depth look into Colossians and Philemon, highlights his past and continuing work in Verbal Aspect, as well as his more recent research into Paul’s use of ὲν Χριστῳ̄ (en Christw͆) and similar phrases (union with Christ).  This is my second acquisition in the BHGNT series, and I like this one even more.

The series presumes some competence of NT Greek at the intermediate level, with its focus on grammar, while utilizing up-to-date linguistics (discourse analysis, Verbal Aspect), and touching on text critical issues where deemed appropriate.  (See my previous BHGNT review for more info on the series in general.)

With this particular volume, the reader should have a good working knowledge of verbal aspect (I’ll follow Porter’s convention of capitalizing tense-forms  to differentiate from aspect and associated terms), as Campbell focuses on this throughout.  For those unfamiliar with VA, essentially the view is that Koine Greek verb morphological forms (tense-forms) do not semantically encode time, but rather aspect.  Time, instead, is derived from context.  Aspect is the viewpoint, or perspective of the writer, who chose the particular tense-form from among other possibilities, to suit his particular purposes (though some tense-forms are more appropriate for narrative as opposed to discourse and vice versa).

The Aorist, for example is termed ‘perfective’ in aspect, meaning a summary or remote perspective of the event/situation (external view).  Conversely, the Present and Imperfect tense-forms are `imperfective’ in spect, displaying a view of the internal process of the event/situation (internal view).  The function of these aspectual forms, the resulting Aktionsart (kind of action), is determined by lexis and context (pragmatics).

To assist the reader, Campbell gives a handy overview/review of his Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 2008a), in his Introduction.  Worth the price of admission, however, is how the author, in the Introduction, breaks down each tense-form into each of its Aktionsart functions [pp xxiv – xxvii], providing a ready reference as one works through Colossians and Philemon.  For example, under ‘Present Indicative’ is ‘Gnomic Aktionsart’, which is described:

“Imperfective aspect with any lexeme in a context of ‘general reality’ can implicate a gnomic Aktionsart.  This expresses a universal and timeless action” [p xxvi].

My only minor criticism – and it is indeed small – is that the aspectual terms ‘perfective’ and ‘imperfective’ are not defined in a general way, in abstraction from their Aktionsart functions, in the Introduction or in the Glossary (hence my explanation above).  I deem this important because, for example, under ‘Aorist Indicative’ is ‘Gnomic Aktionsart’ [p xxiv] with the identical description as ‘Gnomic Aktionsart’ under ‘Present Indicative’ above, except the introductory word, with “Perfective aspect…” replacing “Imperfective aspect….”  Without a firm grasp of the general differences between perfective aspect and imperfective aspect, one may not see the distinction between the Present gnomic and Aoristic gnomic, with the nearly identical descriptions.

This minor quibble aside, Campbell’s book is rich with insights.  While the author argues for his own grammatical and syntactical interpretations, he compares these to other possibilities and other’s viewpoints with clarity.  I may not (currently) agree with all his conclusions, but this may reflect my own theological biases (e.g., Col 1:16-17, with respect to ἐν αὐτῷ [en autō̧] as being locative, rather than reflecting instrumentality, i.e., Christ as both creator and sustainer – could the usage here be both locative [in Him] AND reflect instrumentality [by Him]?).  In these instances I’ll pray and ponder.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started