The treatment of the Greek term Baptizein in the standard English lexicons is unsystematic. The use of the English term ‘to baptize’ for the Greek term Baptizein in English versions of the New Testament is predicated on the assumption that the Greek verb has a technical meaning which warrants the use of a transliteration. Since the first fact is deplorable and the second fact is unsatisfactory, an investigation into the meaning of the Greek term in Greek, Jewish, and patristic literary and documentary texts is called for in order to define the meaning of the term in classical and Hellenistic Greek with more precision than usually encountered in New Testament research, with a view to construct a more helpful lexicon entry for Baptizein.

This article resolves the semantic, syntactic, and lexical requirements for the grammatical use of the twenty-nine New Testament verbs that designate communication without a necessary reference to speaking. The discussion establishes criteria for distinguishing verbal usages, identifies four basic usages of non-spoken communication, and examines the conditions for the permissible omission of required complements. The presentation of the licensing properties of verbs with the four basic usages clarifies the similarities and dissimilarities in the realizations of complements for verbs of non-spoken and spoken communication and illustrates two further usages that are restricted to verbs of non-spoken communication. The concluding discussion considers patterns in the distribution of complements and usages among verbs of non-spoken communication.

See more by the same author

The words Kretes aei pseustai, kaka theria, gasteres argai. in Tit 1:2 are traditionally attributed to Epimenides, and, for example, Nestle – Aland27 (ad locum) refers to his work “de oraculis / peri kresmon”. However, we can only discern a shadow of the man, a pre-Socratic philosopher, or of several men. We do not have his works, and a work peri kresmon is never mentioned in ancient sources. Clement of Alexandria mentions Epimenides, but not his work; Jerome is the first who certainly attributes the work to Epimenides. This article proposes a new reconstruction of the history of the tradition. In the beginning was the proverb that the Cretans were famous liars, and in the second stage, this reputation was used to construct a logical paradox. In the next stage, Epimenides, the famous Cretan philosopher, was involved in the paradox. It is thus not correct to claim that Tit refers to Epimenides’ work peri kresmon: Epimenides is only ahistorically involved in this paradox. Consequently, the verse does not prove that the writer knew Classical literature well.

The monumental two-volume commentary by C.K. Barrett on the Acts of the Apostles (ICC), completed in 1998, is a milestone in the exegetical history of this New Testament document. A collection of notes, made during the preparation of the Italian edition of the commentary, is offered, without any claim to completeness. Most of the notes focus on grammatical and lexical questions, but some are also concerned with text critical issues and pay particular attention to the translation of the Greek text with which Barrett opens every pericope. The last section of the article deals with the oversights and inaccuracies that could cause the reader difficulty.

New Testament textual criticism lays considerable stress upon the ways that scribes altered the text. Singular readings provide the most objective and reliable guide to the sorts of errors scribes produced. This paper reports on a study of 4200 singular readings from 33 chapters of the New Testament, providing new insights into scribal habits and the history of the text.

This paper examines the issue of the variant readings of the names of Aminadab and Aram in the genealogy of Jesus, presenting the hypothesis that the reading Adam-Admin-Arni may illuminate the pretextual stages of Luke, when we consider the manner in which ancient writers worked. Proceeding from the OT, in the hypomnemata of Luke or his source the list from Adam to David was probably written down in columns, with the names one under the other, following the hereditary line, as is the usual form of genealogies. In this list, Aminadam and Arni proceed from Aminadab and Aram, a mistake that is paleographically justifiable, taking cursive script into account. Being a longer name, Aminadam would have been divided into two lines. As Luke’s genealogy is in ascending order, Aminadam would have generated two names, Adam and Amim. Admin proceeds from the latter, through the dittography of triangular letters in an uncial script.

In Acts 16, Paul sets out again on his missionary journey but without Barnabas, Instead he is accompanied by Silas and Timothy, and in part by a group of companions referred to by Luke in the 1^st person. His itinerary follows the leading given by successive divine interventions designed to move him westwards, towards Rome. Most of the action takes place in Philippi, his first stopping place after leaving Asia where he had worked previously. On his arrival there, Paul first seeks out the Jewish community. However, a conflictual encounter with local people leads to his imprisonment, when the jailor provides him with the opportunity to speak about the gospel to Gentiles. Paul’s failure to make the most of this opportunity occasions implicit ciriticism from the narrator of Codex Bezae.

See more by the same author