CHAPTER 11
The Scribal Use of Ekthesis as a Paragraph Marker? The Galatians Text in Codex Sinaiticus as a Test Case David I. Yoon 1 Introduction The earliest extant New Testament manuscripts do not contain chapter, verse, and section divisions as our modern Bibles do. Many of them, such as P46, are written in scriptio continua, without punctuation or other discourse markers,1 written simply from the left side of the folio to the right side continuously, sometimes marking only the end of a book and the beginning of a new one. Other manuscripts, however, contain markers of unit delimitation, such as paragraphos, ekthesis, and spacing. It appears that these markers start appearing in the third and fourth centuries; Codex Sinaiticus is one such manuscript that contains such features.2 Sinaiticus is one of the most significant early Greek manuscripts containing all of the books of the New Testament. Discovered in the nineteenth century by Constantine Tischendorf, Sinaiticus contains a significant portion of the Greek Old Testament, as well as apocryphal books, both Old Testament and New Testament apocrypha, as well as most of the New Testament.3 There is some confusion and debate regarding the circumstances surrounding its discovery, but it is accepted that Tischendorf is the figure responsible for 1 A few, however, such as P4, P66, P75, and P90, appear to have section divisions. Cf. Scott Charlesworth, “Indicators of ‘Catholicity’ in Early Gospel Manuscripts,” in The Early Text of the New Testament, ed. Charles E. Hill and Michael J. Kruger (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 43 (37–48). 2 Some of the other major, early manuscripts, such as Vaticanus and the Chester Beatty Papyri, ostensibly do not contain ekthesis. Codex Bezae contains ekthesis and Alexandrinus has a variation of it, where the first letter is significantly larger than the rest of the line of what seems to be the paragraph. 3 Constantine Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus: The Ancient Biblical Manuscript Now in the British Museum, 8th ed. (London: Lutterworth, 1934); see also Stanley E. Porter, Constantine Tischendorf: The Life and Work of a 19th Century Bible Hunter (New York: Bloomsbury, 2015); D. C. Parker, Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010).
© David I. Yoon, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004537972_013
The Scribal Use of Ekthesis as a Paragraph Marker?
289
publishing it.4 One notable distinctive feature of Sinaiticus is that it contains ekthesis throughout the codex, which on first impression appears to indicate paragraph divisions. In light of the number of ekthetic occurrences in Sinaiticus and their implication as potential paragraph markers, this chapter seeks to analyze the scribal use of ekthesis in Sinaiticus as compared with the linguistic description of paragraph and other levels of discourse and rank scale to see if these instances of ekthesis do indeed function as paragraph markers or markers of other levels or ranks. While the convention in biblical studies is to assume that ekthesis represents some sort of a paragraph marker, and this according to modern notions of the paragraph, there are very few studies that identify what a paragraph is and how ekthesis relates to it. This study seeks to confirm (or deny) the common assumption that ekthesis is a paragraph marker through analyzing the linguistic notion of a paragraph. Since analyzing every instance of ekthesis in Sinaiticus would require a monograph-length (or multi-monograph-length) study, I will apply my analysis to the text of Galatians as a test case. 2
Ekthesis, Rank Scale, and Levels of Discourse
Ekthesis describes the occurrence of a protruding line in the left margin of a manuscript, a hanging outdent.5 In other words, it is a reverse indentation (reverse of eisthesis), which is probably a more familiar textual feature for modern English readers. Occurrences of ekthesis may evoke the question of function, whether or not there is a consistent, determinable function of ekthesis by the scribe(s). Although ekthesis is discussed often as a well-observed scribal phenomenon, there has been no extensive study on its scribal function to date, especially in terms of its linguistic function.6 The presence of ekthesis may also evoke the idea of paragraphing, but it is important not to simply assume modern conventions and functions for ancient manuscripts. 4 The debate surrounds the fact of whether Tischendorf discovered these manuscripts at St. Catherine’s monastery in Sinai or whether he took them from the monks who knew about them. For the latter position, see Parker, Codex Sinaiticus, 129–32; for the former, see Porter, Constantine Tischendorf, 26–35. 5 William A. Johnson, Bookrolls and Scribes in Oxyrhynchus, Studies in Book and Print Culture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 342; see also E. G. Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), 9, 14. 6 However, see Dirk Jongkind, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, TS 5 (Piscataway, NJ; Gorgias, 2007), 95–109, who assumes paragraphing by use of ekthesis; James R. Royse, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri, NTTSD 36 (Leiden: Brill, 2008).
290
Yoon
The notions of the rank scale and levels of discourse are helpful for identifying a possible function of ekthesis. The rank scale was a part of Michael Halliday’s Scale and Category Grammar, which later developed into a fuller linguistic theory called Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). In SFL, the rank scale represents the units of grammar organized hierarchically, the lowest rank being morpheme, then word, then group, and the highest rank being clause (some may include clause complex or sentence as a higher rank; see below).7 From highest rank to lowest, the relationship between units is that of constituency. In other words, clause consists of items in the unit below it, such as word groups; word group consists of items below it, such as words; and word consisting of items below it, such as morphemes. In addition, rank shifting is when a unit is shifted to a lower rank, such as a word group functioning as a word. According to Christopher Butler, upward rank shifting, when a unit is shifted to a higher rank, does not occur.8 However, there are instances where upward rank shifting does in fact occur. In English, for example, “Pretty good” is itself a word group which is shifted to a higher rank to function as a clause or sentence, when in answer to a question such as, “How are you?” The rank scale is a description within the lexicogrammar, and thus it stops at its highest unit, the clause complex (regarding clause complex, see below). Levels of discourse, on the other hand, represent the stratum above the lexicogrammar, semantics, which are represented by logical relations rather than lexicogrammatical relations (explained further below in the section on clause complex and sentence).9 The base level of discourse is clause – clause is the basic unit of a discourse. Clause overlaps as the highest rank in the rank scale and the lowest level of discourse. Levels of discourse contain the clause, followed by clause complex and/or sentence, followed by paragraph, which is finally followed by (an entire) discourse or text. Although level is sometimes synonymous with rank or stratum, here I use it to refer to semantic units above the rank scale, which is found in the semantic stratum. For purposes of clarity, 7 M. A. K. Halliday, System and Function in Language: Selected Papers edited by G. R. Kress (London: Oxford University Press, 1976), 70–71; Christopher S. Butler, Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Application (London: Batsford, 1985), 16–17. Margaret Berry, Introduction to Systemic Linguistics: 1 Structure and Systems (London: Batsford, 1975), 104–106, offers a few different options to determine the rank scale, including complexes (such as clause complex or word complex). See below on clause complex. An SFL approach to rank scale is applied to textual criticism by Chris S. Stevens, History of the Pauline Corpus in Texts, Transmissions, and Trajectories: A Textual Analysis of Manuscripts from the Second to the Fifth Century, TENT 14 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), esp. 50–75. 8 Butler, Systemic Linguistics, 16–17. 9 On a concise description of stratification, see David I. Yoon, A Discourse Analysis of Galatians and the New Perspective on Paul, LBS 17 (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 71–72.
The Scribal Use of Ekthesis as a Paragraph Marker?
291
the definitions of clause, clause complex, sentence, and paragraph for Greek are provided below. 2.1 Clause The Greek clause is difficult to define, especially in comparison with the English clause, which is usually defined as a unit containing a subject and a predicate. But because Greek does not require a subject, having person and number encoded in the predicate, this definition does not fit. In addition, the Greek clause may arguably also not require a predicate. Few Greek grammars explicitly define a Greek clause. Daniel Wallace, however, defines a Greek clause as “units of thought forming part of a compound or complex sentence. Each clause normally contains a subject and predicate or a nonfinite verbal form (i.e., either an infinitive or participle).”10 This definition, however, is insufficient in that (1) it describes a clause in terms of being a part of something else, even if it identifies what it “normally contains” (subject and predicate), and (2) “unit of thought” is vague and can apply to almost any linguistic phenomenon, including paragraph. The transitivity network is useful for defining a Greek clause. Halliday, in defining the transitivity network, identifies various types of processes in the language and the structures that help express them.11 These elements include Process (usually realized by the predicate), Participant (usually realized by the subject and/or objects), and Circumstance (usually realized by adjuncts and complements). Among these three transitivity components, Circumstance is not a required element in the clause, but Process and Participant are necessary, at least in English. Considering the Greek language system, Participant can be encoded in the verbal system through person and number, and Process can be implied through ellipsis or adjectival predicate structure. Considering these factors, as well as the rank scale, a Greek clause can be defined as a unit of grammar above the word group level that contains one or more Participants, whether explicit or implicit from the co-text, and a Process, whether explicit or implicit from the co-text. Perhaps a simpler description is to state that a Greek clause is one that contains an explicit or implicit subject and an explicit or implicit predicate. But the transitivity network identifies semantic categories rather than grammatical ones (i.e., subject and predicate). 10 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 656. 11 M. A. K. Halliday, Introduction to Functional Grammar, 1st ed. (London: Edward Arnold, 1985), 101–157. I use the first edition since it reflects Halliday’s early thoughts on functional grammar.
292
Yoon
There are three types of clauses identified in Greek: primary (or main), secondary (or relative or subordinate), and embedded. Primary clauses stand alone, secondary clauses are dependent on another clause (usually identified by a subordinate conjunction, participle, or infinitive), and embedded clauses are subordinate clauses that are embedded within another clause. 2.2 Clause Complex and Sentence Defining clause complex and sentence also proves to be difficult for Greek. Modern editions contain interpretive decisions due to the lack of punctuation in the earliest New Testament manuscripts (see Hans Förster’s chapter in this book). In English, a sentence is easily discernible: it begins with a capital letter and ends with a period (full stop) and has often been described as a “complete thought.” This, however, is a description mostly based on orthographic features and is not helpful for defining a sentence in terms of its grammatical and syntactic components, especially when considering an ancient language which evinces no such orthographic distinctions in the earliest manuscripts. Kenneth McKay describes a (Greek) sentence as containing at least one finite verb with either an expressed or implied subject in the nominative form but also indicates that verbs may be implied by usually a “to be” verb.12 Sentence, here for McKay, probably means clause, and his description is similar to mine above. But since “sentence” is largely orthographically defined, it is difficult to define a Greek sentence; orthographic demarcations are reflected in later editions of the Greek New Testament. On the other hand, the term clause complex was introduced by Halliday in his Functional Grammar (IFG) and is defined as “a Head clause together with other clauses that modify it.”13 In other words, a clause complex consists of a primary clause with secondary or embedded clauses attached to it, hypotactically. Regarding the difference between clause complex and sentence, although he functionally equates them, Halliday notes that a sentence is a constituent of writing, as it is defined by orthographic features (capital letter and full stop), while clause complex is a constituent of grammar, as it is defined in terms of grammatical categories. Thus, he prefers using the term clause complex over sentence. A problem with this definition of clause complex (and sentence), however, is that sentences and clause complexes, at least in English, may contain two or more primary clauses. For example, in the sentence “Jonny went to the park and Bill went to the store,” there are two paratactic clauses joined 12 K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek, SBG 5 (New York: Peter Lang, 1994), 5. 13 Halliday, Functional Grammar, 192.
The Scribal Use of Ekthesis as a Paragraph Marker?
293
together rather than one head clause with modifying (hypotactic) clauses. Can this be considered a clause complex according to Halliday’s definition above? Nguyen Thi Minh Tâm, on the other hand, sees a clause complex simply as a “combination of two or more clauses into a larger unit,”14 reflecting the logico-semantic combination of clauses. Nguyen identifies three basic types of clause complexes: (1) a primary clause with embedded clauses (i.e., simple sentence), (2) a primary clause with secondary clauses (i.e., complex sentence), and (3) two or more primary clauses (i.e., compound sentence). As clauses reflect different types – primary secondary, and embedded – it seems reasonable for clause complexes to contain different types, based on the relationships between the clauses which compose it – paratactic clause complexes and hypotactic clause complexes. But the problem that arises with this notion of clause complex for Greek is that clauses often begin with a conjunction (e.g., δέ or γάρ, which are paratactic), so paratactic clause complexes, by this definition, can be composed of a dozen clauses. This does not seem to be helpful in identifying clause complexes if a complex contains more than, say, three or four clauses. In light of this evaluation, it seems that Halliday’s original definition of a clause complex, as consisting of a head (primary) clause with other modifying (secondary or embedded) clauses attached to it, is suitable for Greek. And since sentence is usually defined orthographically, it seems best to avoid using this term for Greek, unless we are referring to a modern edition with punctuations (again, see Förster’s chapter in this book on punctuations as interpretative decisions by editors). Thus, a clause complex in Greek should be viewed as a complex of clauses consisting of a primary clause and any secondary or embedded clause attached to it. 2.3 Paragraph The paragraph, on the other hand, is even more challenging to define semantically. Clause and clause complex were identified above, since they are constituents of paragraph, and paragraph should be defined in light of its constituents. Like clause and possibly clause complex, language users tend to have a given or assumed understanding of what a paragraph is, and some have probably put forth a definition of a paragraph as something like a string of sentences that expound a single thought or key idea.15 But this definition is linguistically 14 Nguyεn Thι Minh Tâm, “The Notion of Clause Complex in Systemic Functional Linguistics,” Journal of Foreign Studies 29 (2013): 29 (25–36). 15 Louise J. Ravelli, “Signalling the Organization of Written Texts: Hyper-Themes in Management and History Essays,” in Analysing Academic Writing: Contextualized Frameworks,
294
Yoon
vague, like the definition of sentence being “a single thought or idea.” On the other hand, a paragraph often is – just like a sentence – identified simply orthographically, its primary feature being that it begins with an indentation and ends with empty space for the rest of the line. This, however, is not helpful either, since it simply identifies what a paragraph may look like, without defining its function(s). But what about its constituents define a paragraph as a paragraph? And what exactly is “a single thought or idea” (which is the same definition given for a sentence)? This definition is at best nebulous, at worst, meaningless, and specificity is needed in order to define a paragraph apart from orthographic features. It seems that attempts at more rigorous, linguistically based definitions of a paragraph are either too difficult or perhaps seemingly impossible; and so these studies are lacking.16 This may be due to the fact that most linguistic analyses have been traditionally limited to the sentence or clause level, but there has been a resurgence of discourse analysis in the past several decades, which focuses on a larger discourse (or paragraph) level. However, much work is still needed in developing discourse analysis in biblical studies, as much of it is still focused on singular items like pointing devices or connectives.17 A recent attempt at identifying the function(s) of a paragraph is by Stanley Porter, who draws from Halliday and Robert Longacre’s linguistic descriptions of a paragraph. Porter identifies seven general characteristics of a paragraph.18 (1) The presence of conjunctions, particles, and temporal and spatial references mark the beginning (and sometimes end) of the paragraph. The paragraph marker, in this case, can be a conjunctive device, or a reference to a new temporal or spatial transition in a narrative. (2) Paragraphs are characterized by cohesion and segmentation. They are cohesive units and paragraph breaks are reflected by segmenting these cohesive units. (3) Paragraphs contain participants, full reference, pronouns, and anaphora. The use of pronominal references to anaphoric participants and other referents indicate a paragraph unit. (4) Paragraphs usually begin with the fronting of the noun group and a high referential distance (length of continued reference to the noun group) ed. Louise J. Ravelli and Robert A. Ellis, Open Linguistics Series (New York: Continuum, 2004), 105–106 (104–130). 16 Cf. Stanley E. Porter, “Pericope Markers and the Paragraph: Textual and Linguistic Implications,” in The Impact of Unit Delimitation in Exegesis, ed. Raymond de Hoop, Marjo Korpel, and Stanley E. Porter, Pericope 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 176–182. 17 Discourse analysis in biblical studies is still somewhat atomistic, although SFL has provided a way forward in developing tools to extract various categories of meaning (see Yoon, Discourse Analysis of Galatians, 59–60, 66–135). 18 The following is a summary of Porter, “Pericope Markers and the Paragraph,” 180–182.
The Scribal Use of Ekthesis as a Paragraph Marker?
295
throughout the paragraph. (5) Paragraphs usually reflect a single main topic and are distinguished from each other by topics shifts. The main topic is usually introduced in the beginning of the paragraph and developed throughout the rest of the paragraph. (6) Paragraphs also begin with an introduction of a thematic element (topic), and this is developed throughout the rest of the paragraph (comment).19 (7) Finally, literary text types play a role in the function of a paragraph, as different types may reflect different criteria for paragraphing. This list of main features of a paragraph may be considered to be on a cline from configurational to functional. After evaluating Mark and Romans in the text of Codex Sinaiticus, he concludes that ancient and modern notions of the paragraph have the following in common: initial conjunctive devices, cohesion and segmentation, topicality and thematization, grammaticality of reference, and word order and referential distance. Paragraphs also differ, depending on the literary text-type in which they are found (e.g., conjunctions having a greater role in paragraph transitions in narrative texts than expositional texts). Porter’s analysis of the paragraph is one of the most comprehensive yet concise ones, including both formal and semantic features of the paragraph, attending to the fact that text type (or genre) plays a role in paragraph formation. His use of cohesion, thematization, and topicality are especially helpful in defining a paragraph. Elizabeth Robar is another recent work that attempts to define a paragraph, albeit in biblical Hebrew.20 Although her study is not for Greek, her application of paragraph to Hebrew is helpful to consider for this study. Defining the paragraph as “the minimal complete discourse unit, namely, the linguistic reflection of the semi-active consciousness of a mental space,”21 using language that reflects a cognitive linguistic framework, she states that a paragraph contains coherence in structure and theme in the sense that every element in the paragraph relates to the theme in some way. As with previous definitions of paragraph, outside of orthographic features, she includes the idea that a paragraph contains a single theme or idea (or topic or thought).
19 Although Porter uses the terms theme and rheme to describe thematic elements at the paragraph level in “Pericope Markers and the Paragraph,” he later labels these as topic and comment for the paragraph/discourse level, and theme and rheme for the clause complex or sentence level. Cf. Stanley E. Porter and Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Discourse Analysis and the Greek New Testament (forthcoming). 20 Elizabeth Robar, The Verb and the Paragraph in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach, SSLL 78 (Leiden: Brill, 2015). 21 Robar, Verb and Paragraph, 72.
296
Yoon
Finally, the most recent work on the paragraph and paragraphing is from Iain McGee.22 Approaching the issue from a more descriptive rather than prescriptive method, McGee provides one of the most comprehensive surveys of the paragraph, which includes both the paragraph unit and the paragraph break. This is of course from a modern perspective. Concluding his survey, he identifies some of the major functions of the paragraph: as a big period, a discourse managing technique, a highlighting technique, an aesthetic device, a formal grammatical unit between a sentence and an essay, an aid to text structuring, a cohesive unit, and a cognitive-easing device. This is a comprehensive description. McGee then offers three definitions of a paragraph, each reflecting the well-known text-reader-writer triad: (1) in the text-oriented definition, the paragraph is defined as an orthographic unit; (2) in the reader-oriented definition, it is defined as a unit that helps facilitate reading, expectation, and comprehension; (3) in the writer-oriented definition, it is defined in terms of the structuring of the text, including aesthetic reasons.23 McGee’s study is comprehensive and offers a descriptive summary of the various views on the paragraph, but it does not solve the question of a functional description of a paragraph – what the function(s) is/are of a paragraph as distinguished from other levels of discourse. And while drawing out the definition of a paragraph based on the three viewpoints of text, reader, and writer provides a multi-perspective, it seems to simply capture all aspects of how a paragraph has been conceived without any concluding synthesis. This brief survey of the paragraph illustrates the fact that narrowing the definition of the paragraph to a single or unified criterion is a difficult if not an impossible task, especially when trying to define it according to functional features. Very little consensus is reached on what a paragraph is, apart from orthographic features, and attempts to define a paragraph or identify features of a paragraph result in multiple criteria. Nevertheless, the paragraph is not completely nebulous, so the question remains: what makes a paragraph a paragraph? Drawing from this survey, I conclude that there are three minimal criteria for the Greek New Testament paragraph: (1) orthographic features delimit paragraphs, (2) paragraphs function in the semantic stratum (not in the lexicogrammar), so attempts to define a paragraph according to lexicogrammatical categories will not work, and (3) the function of the paragraph is more or less arbitrary (i.e., semi-arbitrary), based on the subjective decision of the writer (or editor or scribe) to divide the text into meaningful, cohesive units.
22 Iain McGee, Understanding the Paragraph and Paragraphing (Sheffield: Equinox, 2018). 23 McGee, Understanding the Paragraph, 349–53.
The Scribal Use of Ekthesis as a Paragraph Marker?
297
To elaborate the first point, orthographic features of a paragraph – for modern English, the indentation and the end-line space, and for Greek, ekthesis and paragraphos – are formal methods of delimiting the text, whatever the function might be (point 3), and so modern interpreters are probably justified in identifying ekthetic units in New Testament manuscripts as paragraphs. The problem is that the ancient paragraph is assumed to be parallel to the modern paragraph. This is where my second and third criteria provide further description. Regarding the second suggestion, since writers have almost unconstrained liberty to create paragraph divisions where they may – there are no “rules” or conventions as with clauses and other elements in the rank scale – it is a semantic feature rather than a lexicogrammatical one. This means that a paragraph consists not of formal features but of cohesive, prominent, and thematic features, all of which represent the textual metafunction and which function in the semantic stratum. Paragraphs are formed by the writer’s decision to group clauses and clause complexes into more or less cohesive units, sometimes using the paragraph division to reflect prominence of a part of a discourse and sometimes grouping clauses and clause complexes according to self-perceived thematic units. Paragraph divisions can have various functions, but the unifying feature of these functions is to facilitate the structure of a text according to cohesive, prominent, and thematic elements. Rather than being lexicogrammatical, the paragraph is semantic. Finally, the fact that there is no scholarly consensus on the semantic function of the paragraph points to the semi-arbitrary nature of the paragraph as a subjective choice by writers. In fact, this subjective choice of paragraph division is a meaning-making choice of the writer – or in this case, the scribe. Here is where McGee’s writer-oriented definition is helpful. Paragraph divisions are not completely arbitrary if a text is meaningful, but the assumption is that there is some motivation of writers (whether conscious or subconscious) to group the text into paragraphs in the way they have done so; hence, semi-arbitrary. This semi-arbitrariness of paragraph divisions can be illustrated from Halliday and Hasan’s comment that readers can expect to find a higher degree of cohesion within a paragraph than between paragraphs, and that in some instances, the reverse can also be true, where there is a high cluster of cohesive ties at the end of one paragraph and the beginning of the next, with relatively loose texture within the paragraph itself.24 To support this semi-arbitrary nature of paragraphing, Dirk Jongkind observes that the scribes of Sinaiticus seem to 24 M. A. K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hasan, Cohesion in English, English Language Series (London: Longman, 1976), 296–97.
298
Yoon
vary in their use of ekthesis or other paragraph markers, especially considering variations in length and other criteria within a single book.25 He also observes that in Romans, which is densely paragraphed in Sinaiticus, certain signal words seem to be used to decide paragraph breaks, while in other books, such as Revelation, the frequency of paragraphs is relatively low. 2.4 Conclusion Considering the above criteria and definitions for the levels of discourse, including clause, clause complex, and paragraph, I will examine the placements of ekthesis in the text of Galatians in Sinaiticus (Galatians, for short) to analyze what the scribe was doing. A related issue involves the identity of the scribe(s) responsible for Sinaiticus. Tischendorf concluded, in spite of the relative uniformity in script throughout the entire manuscript, that there were four scribes that worked on Sinaiticus, identified as Scribe A, Scribe B, Scribe C, and Scribe D.26 It is asserted that Scribe A was responsible for a vast majority of the New Testament (excluding a few folios written by Scribe D), so the text of Galatians is considered to be entirely by one scribe, A. Thus, I will simply refer to “the scribe” as the responsible party for the Galatians text of Sinaiticus. 3
Ekthesis in Galatians27
There are 72 instances of ekthesis in the Galatians.28 This is compared to 19 paragraph markers in NA28 (more or less, depending on whether or 25 Jongkind, Scribal Habits, 108–109. 26 Constantin Tischendorf, ed., Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum: sive Novum Testamentum cum epistula Barnabae et fragmentis Pastoris (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1863), xxi. See also Jongkind, Scribal Habits, 9–18; Peter M. Head, “The Presence of a Fourth Scribe?,” in Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Manuscript, eds. Scot McKendrick, David C. Parker, Amy Myshrall, and Cillian O’Hogan (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2015), 127 (127–38). See, however, H. J. M. Milne, and T. C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: British Museum, 1938), 22–50, who asserted Tischendorf was wrong about scribe C. 27 My analysis is based on my own observation of ekthesis in the electronic edition of Sinaiticus at
www.codexsinaiticus.org. 28 Some of these instances might be debatable as to whether or not ekthesis exists, due to the shortness of length of some of them. The debate is usually resolved, however, by looking at the previous line and noting whether the line ends before the right margin. Both a protrusion of the left margin of the first line and the ending of the previous line before the right margin would signify the paragraph marker here.
The Scribal Use of Ekthesis as a Paragraph Marker?
299
not certain chapter divisions are new paragraphs) and 28 in UBSGNT5. Furthermore, when compared to the modern chapter-and-verse divisions in our modern Bibles, there is a total of 149 verses in Galatians to the 72 instances of ekthesis, which makes the ratio of ekthesis to verse roughly 1:2. More could be said about the chapter-and-verse editorial decisions that were made, but that is beyond the scope of this chapter. These statistics call into question whether or not ekthesis is indeed a paragraph marker, or whether they are markers of a lower level or rank, such as clause complex. It is readily apparent that ekthesis does not demarcate any element below the clause complex rank, such as clause, word group, or word, although rank shifting can occur. To determine whether ekthetic units are clause complexes or paragraphs is easily attainable by simply analyzing each unit. The first ekthetic unit in Galatians (1:1–5), the opening of the letter, consists of two clause complexes, the first beginning in v. 1 and the second beginning in v. 3. The second ekthetic unit (1:6–8) contains one long clause complex (vv. 6–8) and one short clause (v. 9). The third ekthetic unit (1:9) is a single verse containing two clause complexes. The fourth ekthetic unit (1:10), again a single verse, contains a clause, followed by a short clause complex, followed by a short clause. The fifth ekthetic unit (1:11–12) begins with a clause complex, followed by three clauses. The sixth ekthetic unit (1:13–14) begins a clause complex, which is interrupted by an ekthetic marker at v. 15 (οτε δε). In this case, the ekthesis breaks up the clause complex midway through. I can continue to analyze the rest of the ekthetic units, but it seems clear already that ekthetic units in Galatians do not demarcate clause complexes, so paragraph is the appropriate label for them, even if these paragraphs may not reflect modern paragraph conventions (hence, the semi-arbitrariness of paragraph formation). About 45 of the 72 (or 62.5%) of these ekthetic markers begin with conjunctions (including postpositives). Of these 45, 19 occurrences are with δε, 11 with γαρ, 4 with αλλα, and the rest of other conjunctions once or twice each, including και, ουτως και, αλλα τουναντιον, ουν, οτι δε, ωστε, and διο. These various conjunctions, as it can be seen, serve to connect in some way with the previous co-text, whether it be inferential, logical, causal, resultant, continuous, disjunction, or emphatic disjunction. This is related to Porter’s first criterion regarding conjunctions and particles (initial and final) and temporal and spatial references. They serve to indicate some sort of continuity or discontinuity with the previous paragraph. They also serve as cohesive devices in its connective function, whether continuous or discontinuous. The percentage here is slightly higher than Porter’s findings in Romans, where less than a third of the paragraphs used a major conjunction (και, δε, or γαρ) as a transition, although
300
Yoon
he did not count non-major conjunctions in his analysis.29 This means that roughly 27 of the 72 (or 37.5%) of the occurrences of ekthesis do not begin with any conjunctions. Of these 27, three begin with the temporal marker επειτα, (1:18; 1:21; 2:1) which is not a conjunction per se but an adverb and signifies continuity with the previous co-text as a temporal marker. There are also 11 indicative statements, seven imperative statements, and two conditional statements. Two other instances of ekthesis occur mid-verse (4:12; 5:13), both beginning with the nominative of address (or so-called vocative), αδελφοι, and another nominative of address occurs in 3:1 (ω ανοητοι γαλαται). The last is an interjection (ιδε; 5:2). It has been established that, at least in Galatians, a majority of ekthetic instances use conjunctive means to connect in some way the previous co-text, usually by way of a topic shift or a further development of the previous co-text, indicating some sort of transition. For example, ekthesis occurs in 4:1, 3, 6, and 8, all using a connective of some sort (δε, ουτως και, δε, and αλλα respectively). In 4:1, δε is used to transition the discussion from equality in Christ to heirship. In 4:3, ουτως καὶ is used to transition the discussion from heirship to sonship. In 4:6, δε is used to transition the discussion from sonship to the Spirit of sonship and back to how heirship relates. Then in 4:8, αλλὰ is used to transition the discussion to slavery and knowing God. While some of these subtopics can be subsumed under one paragraph (as might be expected in a modern paragraph), the scribal use of ekthesis can be an interpretive tool to understand the text. If it is accepted that ancient practices of paragraph divisions may be different than modern ones, this should not be a problem, and to equate the two would be an imposition of a modern conception onto an ancient one. Of the 27 instances of ekthesis without conjunctions or particles, most of them seem to signify some sort of topic or sub-topic shift that is consistent with a new paragraph. There are a few seeming exceptions, however, that warrant consideration. First is the ekthetic line in Gal 2:15: ημεις φυσει ιουδαιοι και ουκ εξ εθνων αμαρτωλοι (“we ourselves are Jews by birth and not of Gentiles”). This is an interesting occurrence because ekthesis here may be interpreted as signifying the end of Paul’s speech to Peter (as many interpreters have understood) and a return of direct discourse to the Galatians, but given the large number of ekthesis in this letter, it may signify simply a shift in topic.30 It is
29 Porter, “Pericope Markers and the Paragraph,” 187–88. 30 Cf. David I. Yoon, “Identifying the End of Paul’s Speech to Peter in Galatians 2: Register Analysis as a Heuristic Tool,” FN 28–29 (2015–2016): 57–79.
The Scribal Use of Ekthesis as a Paragraph Marker?
301
also interesting to note that even many English translations do not mark off a new paragraph here (in spite of a section heading). The next apparently dissonant occurrence of ekthesis is in Gal 3:6: καθως αβρααμ επιστευσεν τω θω (just as Abraham believed God). This is a dependent clause upon the rhetorical question that Paul asks: “Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?” It seems that the use of ekthesis here is dissonant to what is expected of a (modern) paragraph marker in this verse, but it can be explained by the scribe’s desire to (1) highlight a Scripture reference, and (2) link 3:6 with the following co-text, where 3:7 describes Abraham again. Another ekthetic line occurs in 3:8, with another Scripture reference, and so possibly the scribe wanted to highlight this by using ekthesis. Another example is in Gal 4:12, where there is an instance of ekthesis “mid-verse” (as a total of two ekthetic lines in the verse). It reads: “–Become as I for I also as you – brothers, I urge you; no one has done me wrong” (–γινεσθε ως εγω οτι καγω ως υμις – αδελφοι δεομαι υμων ουδεν με), with the en-dash representing ekthesis.31 It seems fairly clear that the clause “brothers I urge you” refers to the previous clause “become as I,” so why did the scribe use ekthesis there? A possible answer is that the second ekthetic occurrence begins on a new folio, but this is not a consistent practice by the scribe to begin a new folio with ekthesis. Another possible answer is that the scribe wanted to highlight 4:12a, the imperative for the Galatians to become like Paul as he has become like them, so he placed it within its own paragraph. A final instance is actually an omission of ekthesis where it may be expected, especially if one has been exposed to modern editions of the Bible: Gal 5:1. There is no ekthesis at the beginning of this verse, but it does occur in the middle of the verse: τη ελευθερια ημας χριστος ημελυθερωσεν – στηκετε ουν και … (“for freedom Christ set you free – stand therefore and …”). The previous verse, however, consists of an indicative statement (we are not children of the slave woman but of the free), and thus 5:1a may cohere with 4:31 than with 5:1b, at least according to the scribe. Gal 5:1b contains an imperative, which may reflect why the scribe used ekthesis there. These are a few examples in which ekthesis may not at first glance seem to be used as a paragraph marker. However, it is best to take ekthesis as the scribe’s interpretation of the text and to view them as paragraph markers in light of their reflections of cohesion, thematization, and prominence.
31 Interestingly, B(03) also begins a new paragraph with αδελφοι. Many thanks to the anonymous reviewer of this manuscript in pointing this out.
302 4
Yoon
Conclusion: Implications for Understanding Galatians in Sinaiticus
Although not too much has been written on the function of ekthesis in ancient Greek manuscripts, there is a consistent observation that scribes did not have a standard use of them.32 This coheres with my notion of the “semi-arbitrary” paragraph. One suggestion for its function is that they were used for aesthetic or reading purposes. Larry Hurtado, for example, posits that visual aids such as ekthesis, eisthesis, and other markers reflect “efforts to facilitate the public/liturgical usage of texts.”33 In other words, their function is primarily stated as reading markers, and most have simply accepted this theory. And while this may be one potential function of ekthesis, is there more to it and other such features of the text (or paratext) than simply visual or oratory aids? If my suggestions above regarding a linguistic notion of a paragraph – (1) that orthographic features such as ekthesis, paragraphos, or eisthesis should be considered to be some sort of paragraph marker, (2) that paragraphs be considered in the semantic stratum rather than the lexicogrammar, and (3) that paragraphs are semi-arbitrary in that they are based on the writer’s subjective decision to reflect various features of cohesion, prominence, and thematization – as well as taking caution against misplacing modern notions of the paragraph onto ancient ones, then there really is no problem with viewing ekthesis as ancient paragraph markers. Many have simply assumed this, but this chapter has attempted to provide some methodological and analytical criteria for this thought. It is necessary, however, to go even further than this. If ekthesis is seen not simply as editorial decisions for aesthetic or oratory purposes but as an ancient paragraph marker, modern interpreters can understand a significantly early interpretation of the structure and texture of Galatians. While analyzing each ekthetic occurrence is beyond the scope of this chapter, one final example is provided here from 3:10–13. Each of these verses is an ekthetic unit of its own, while NA28 and UBSGNT5 combine them within the same paragraph, continuing to 3:14. The reason why the scribe of Sinaiticus divides each of these verses into its own ekthetic unit, apparently, is that each of these verses contains a Scripture reference (NA28 marks Scriptures references in italics and UBSGNT5 marks them in bold). So while these verses may, in their content, reflect a 32 Lance Jenott, The Gospel of Judas: Coptic Text, Translation, and Historical Interpretation of ‘the Betrayer’s Gospel’, STAC 64 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 118; Turner, Greek Manuscripts, 9, 14. 33 Larry Hurtado, Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 178.
The Scribal Use of Ekthesis as a Paragraph Marker?
303
continuous line of thought according to modern paragraphing conventions, the scribe seems to want to highlight (indicating prominence) these Scripture references through the use of ekthesis. So while the ancient scribe may not have practiced paragraphing the way modern editors might, there seems to be an interpretive schema in their use of ekthesis as paragraph markers. Potential for further analysis of scribal interpretation is promising given these criteria. Finally, it should be evident, but it is still worth mentioning, that modern Greek New Testament editions are interpretations of the Greek text in using not only punctuation (again, see Förster’s chapter) but paragraph and section divisions, not to mention section headings. These are all aids for readability and interpretation, to be sure. But as much as modern editions of the Greek New Testament attempt to capture the Ausgangstext, paratextual features such as paragraphing reflect modern interpretations of the text. Thus, for the interpreter of the Greek New Testament, it is necessary to identify editors’ interpretations as editors’ interpretations, whether ancient or modern, and use them to better understand the history of interpretation of the New Testament. Ekthesis is not only an aesthetic feature or an oratory aid but an interpretive tool to understand how the scribe interpreted the structure of the text. 1:1
6
9 10
Appendix: Ekthetic Units in the Galatians Text (NA28) of Sinaiticus Παῦλος ἀπόστολος οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ θεοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν, 2 καὶ οἱ σὺν ἐμοὶ πάντες ἀδελφοὶ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Γαλατίας, 3 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 4 τοῦ δόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, ὅπως ἐξέληται ἡμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ αἰῶνος τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος πονηροῦ κατὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, 5 ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν. Θαυμάζω ὅτι οὕτως ταχέως μετατίθεσθε ἀπὸ τοῦ καλέσαντος ὑμᾶς ἐν χάριτι [Χριστοῦ] εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, 7 ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, εἰ μή τινές εἰσιν οἱ ταράσσοντες ὑμᾶς καὶ θέλοντες μεταστρέψαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 8ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίζηται [ὑμῖν] παρ’ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. ὡς προειρήκαμεν καὶ ἄρτι πάλιν λέγω· εἴ τις ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελίζεται παρ’ ὃ παρελάβετε, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Ἄρτι γὰρ ἀνθρώπους πείθω ἢ τὸν θεόν; ἢ ζητῶ ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκειν; εἰ ἔτι ἀνθρώποις ἤρεσκον, Χριστοῦ δοῦλος οὐκ ἂν ἤμην.
304 11
Yoon
Γνωρίζω γὰρ ὑμῖν, ἀδελφοί, τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον· 12 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτὸ οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην, ἀλλὰ δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. 13 Ἠκούσατε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ, ὅτι καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν, 14 καὶ προέκοπτον ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ ὑπὲρ πολλοὺς συνηλικιώτας ἐν τῷ γένει μου, περισσοτέρως ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τῶν πατρικῶν μου παραδόσεων. 15 Ὅτε δὲ εὐδόκησεν [ὁ θεὸς] ὁ ἀφορίσας με ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός μου καὶ καλέσας διὰ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ 16 ἀποκαλύψαι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐμοί, ἵνα εὐαγγελίζωμαι αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, εὐθέως οὐ προσανεθέμην σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι 17 οὐδὲ ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα πρὸς τοὺς πρὸ ἐμοῦ ἀποστόλους, ἀλλ’ ἀπῆλθον εἰς Ἀραβίαν καὶ πάλιν ὑπέστρεψα εἰς Δαμασκόν. 18 Ἔπειτα μετὰ ἔτη τρία ἀνῆλθον εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα ἱστορῆσαι Κηφᾶν καὶ ἐπέμεινα πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡμέρας δεκαπέντε, 19 ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου. 20 ἃ δὲ γράφω ὑμῖν, ἰδοὺ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ὅτι οὐ ψεύδομαι. 21 Ἔπειτα ἦλθον εἰς τὰ κλίματα τῆς Συρίας καὶ τῆς Κιλικίας· 22 ἤμην δὲ ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ. 23 μόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἦσαν ὅτι ὁ διώκων ἡμᾶς ποτε νῦν εὐαγγελίζεται τὴν πίστιν ἥν ποτε ἐπόρθει, 24 καὶ ἐδόξαζον ἐν ἐμοὶ τὸν θεόν. 2:1 Ἔπειτα διὰ δεκατεσσάρων ἐτῶν πάλιν ἀνέβην εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα μετὰ Βαρναβᾶ συμπαραλαβὼν καὶ Τίτον· 2 ἀνέβην δὲ κατὰ ἀποκάλυψιν· καὶ ἀνεθέμην αὐτοῖς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ὃ κηρύσσω ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, κατ’ ἰδίαν δὲ τοῖς δοκοῦσιν, μή πως εἰς κενὸν τρέχω ἢ ἔδραμον. 3 ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ Τίτος ὁ σὺν ἐμοί, Ἕλλην ὤν, ἠναγκάσθη περιτμηθῆναι· 4 διὰ δὲ τοὺς παρεισάκτους ψευδαδέλφους, οἵτινες παρεισῆλθον κατασκοπῆσαι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν ἡμῶν ἣν ἔχομεν ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα ἡμᾶς καταδουλώσουσιν, 5 οἷς οὐδὲ πρὸς ὥραν εἴξαμεν τῇ ὑποταγῇ, ἵνα ἡ ἀλήθεια τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διαμείνῃ πρὸς ὑμᾶς. 6 Ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν δοκούντων εἶναί τι, – ὁποῖοί ποτε ἦσαν οὐδέν μοι διαφέρει· πρόσωπον [ὁ] θεὸς ἀνθρώπου οὐ λαμβάνει – ἐμοὶ γὰρ οἱ δοκοῦντες οὐδὲν προσανέθεντο, 7 ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον ἰδόντες ὅτι πεπίστευμαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς ἀκροβυστίας καθὼς Πέτρος τῆς περιτομῆς, 8 ὁ γὰρ ἐνεργήσας Πέτρῳ εἰς ἀποστολὴν τῆς περιτομῆς ἐνήργησεν καὶ ἐμοὶ εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, 9 καὶ γνόντες τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσάν μοι, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Κηφᾶς καὶ Ἰωάννης, οἱ δοκοῦντες στῦλοι εἶναι, δεξιὰς ἔδωκαν ἐμοὶ καὶ Βαρναβᾷ κοινωνίας, ἵνα ἡμεῖς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη, αὐτοὶ δὲ εἰς τὴν περιτομήν· 10 μόνον τῶν πτωχῶν ἵνα μνημονεύωμεν, ὃ καὶ ἐσπούδασα αὐτὸ τοῦτο ποιῆσαι.
The Scribal Use of Ekthesis as a Paragraph Marker?
11
305
Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν. 12 πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτὸν φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς. 13 καὶ συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ [καὶ] οἱ λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ Βαρναβᾶς συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει. 14 ἀλλ’ ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων· εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐχὶ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις ἰουδαΐζειν; 15 Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί· 16 εἰδότες [δὲ] ὅτι οὐ δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἐὰν μὴ διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐπιστεύσαμεν, ἵνα δικαιωθῶμεν ἐκ πίστεως Χριστοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σάρξ. 17 εἰ δὲ ζητοῦντες δικαιωθῆναι ἐν Χριστῷ εὑρέθημεν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοί, ἆρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος; μὴ γένοιτο. 18 εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν συνιστάνω. 19 ἐγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόμου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα θεῷ ζήσω. Χριστῷ συνεσταύρωμαι· 20 ζῶ δὲ οὐκέτι ἐγώ, ζῇ δὲ ἐν ἐμοὶ Χριστός· ὃ δὲ νῦν ζῶ ἐν σαρκί, ἐν πίστει ζῶ τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀγαπήσαντός με καὶ παραδόντος ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ. 21 Οὐκ ἀθετῶ τὴν χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰ γὰρ διὰ νόμου δικαιοσύνη, ἄρα Χριστὸς δωρεὰν ἀπέθανεν. 3:1 Ὦ ἀνόητοι Γαλάται, τίς ὑμᾶς ἐβάσκανεν, οἷς κατ’ ὀφθαλμοὺς Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς προεγράφη ἐσταυρωμένος; 2 τοῦτο μόνον θέλω μαθεῖν ἀφ’ ὑμῶν· ἐξ ἔργων νόμου τὸ πνεῦμα ἐλάβετε ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως; 3 οὕτως ἀνόητοί ἐστε, ἐναρξάμενοι πνεύματι νῦν σαρκὶ ἐπιτελεῖσθε; 4 τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ; εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ. 5 ὁ οὖν ἐπιχορηγῶν ὑμῖν τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις ἐν ὑμῖν, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου ἢ ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως; 6 Καθὼς Ἀβραὰμ ἐπίστευσεν τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην· 7 γινώσκετε ἄρα ὅτι οἱ ἐκ πίστεως, οὗτοι υἱοί εἰσιν Ἀβραάμ. 8 προϊδοῦσα δὲ ἡ γραφὴ ὅτι ἐκ πίστεως δικαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ θεός, προευηγγελίσατο τῷ Ἀβραὰμ ὅτι ἐνευλογηθήσονται ἐν σοὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη· 9 ὥστε οἱ ἐκ πίστεως εὐλογοῦνται σὺν τῷ πιστῷ Ἀβραάμ. 10 Ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσίν, ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν· γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά. 11 ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ δῆλον, ὅτι ὁ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται· 12 ὁ δὲ νόμος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλ’ ὁ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. 13 Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα, ὅτι γέγραπται· ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου, 14 ἵνα εἰς
306
Yoon
τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γένηται ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως. 15 Ἀδελφοί, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω· ὅμως ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται. 16 τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ ἐρρέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ. οὐ λέγει· καὶ τοῖς σπέρμασιν, ὡς ἐπὶ πολλῶν ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐφ’ ἑνός· καὶ τῷ σπέρματί σου, ὅς ἐστιν Χριστός. 17 τοῦτο δὲ λέγω· διαθήκην προκεκυρωμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ μετὰ τετρακόσια καὶ τριάκοντα ἔτη γεγονὼς νόμος οὐκ ἀκυροῖ εἰς τὸ καταργῆσαι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν. 18 εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου ἡ κληρονομία, οὐκέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας· τῷ δὲ Ἀβραὰμ δι’ ἐπαγγελίας κεχάρισται ὁ θεός. 19 Τί οὖν ὁ νόμος; τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν προσετέθη, ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ τὸ σπέρμα ᾧ ἐπήγγελται, διαταγεὶς δι’ ἀγγέλων ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου. 20 ὁ δὲ μεσίτης ἑνὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, ὁ δὲ θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν. 21 ὁ οὖν νόμος κατὰ τῶν ἐπαγγελιῶν [τοῦ θεοῦ]; μὴ γένοιτο. εἰ γὰρ ἐδόθη νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζῳοποιῆσαι, ὄντως ἐκ νόμου ἂν ἦν ἡ δικαιοσύνη· 22 ἀλλὰ συνέκλεισεν ἡ γραφὴ τὰ πάντα ὑπὸ ἁμαρτίαν, ἵνα ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δοθῇ τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. 23 Πρὸ τοῦ δὲ ἐλθεῖν τὴν πίστιν ὑπὸ νόμον ἐφρουρούμεθα συγκλειόμενοι εἰς τὴν μέλλουσαν πίστιν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, 24 ὥστε ὁ νόμος παιδαγωγὸς ἡμῶν γέγονεν εἰς Χριστόν, ἵνα ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῶμεν· 25 ἐλθούσης δὲ τῆς πίστεως οὐκέτι ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν ἐσμεν. 26 Πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ· 27 ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε. 28 οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 29 εἰ δὲ ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ, ἄρα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ σπέρμα ἐστέ, κατ’ ἐπαγγελίαν κληρονόμοι. 4:1 Λέγω δέ, ἐφ’ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονόμος νήπιός ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου κύριος πάντων ὤν, 2 ἀλλ’ ὑπὸ ἐπιτρόπους ἐστὶν καὶ οἰκονόμους ἄχρι τῆς προθεσμίας τοῦ πατρός. 3 οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς, ὅτε ἦμεν νήπιοι, ὑπὸ τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου ἤμεθα δεδουλωμένοι· 4 ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον, 5 ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ νόμον ἐξαγοράσῃ, ἵνα τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπολάβωμεν. 6 Ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν κρᾶζον· αββα ὁ πατήρ. 7 ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος ἀλλ’ υἱός· εἰ δὲ υἱός, καὶ κληρονόμος διὰ θεοῦ. 8 Ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς· 9 νῦν δὲ γνόντες θεόν, μᾶλλον δὲ γνωσθέντες ὑπὸ θεοῦ, πῶς ἐπιστρέφετε πάλιν ἐπὶ τὰ ἀσθενῆ καὶ πτωχὰ στοιχεῖα οἷς πάλιν ἄνωθεν δουλεύειν θέλετε; 10 ἡμέρας
The Scribal Use of Ekthesis as a Paragraph Marker?
12
15 16 19 20 21
24 25 26 27 28 29 31 5:2
5 6
307
παρατηρεῖσθε καὶ μῆνας καὶ καιροὺς καὶ ἐνιαυτούς, 11 φοβοῦμαι ὑμᾶς μή πως εἰκῇ κεκοπίακα εἰς ὑμᾶς. Γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ, ὅτι κἀγὼ ὡς ὑμεῖς, ἀδελφοί, δέομαι ὑμῶν. οὐδέν με ἠδικήσατε· 13 οἴδατε δὲ ὅτι δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν τὸ πρότερον, 14 καὶ τὸν πειρασμὸν ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου οὐκ ἐξουθενήσατε οὐδὲ ἐξεπτύσατε, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ ἐδέξασθέ με, ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν. ποῦ οὖν ὁ μακαρισμὸς ὑμῶν; μαρτυρῶ γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰ δυνατὸν τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ὑμῶν ἐξορύξαντες ἐδώκατέ μοι. ὥστε ἐχθρὸς ὑμῶν γέγονα ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν; 17 ζηλοῦσιν ὑμᾶς οὐ καλῶς, ἀλλ’ ἐκκλεῖσαι ὑμᾶς θέλουσιν, ἵνα αὐτοὺς ζηλοῦτε· 18 καλὸν δὲ ζηλοῦσθαι ἐν καλῷ πάντοτε καὶ μὴ μόνον ἐν τῷ παρεῖναί με πρὸς ὑμᾶς. τέκνα μου, οὓς πάλιν ὠδίνω μέχρις οὗ μορφωθῇ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν· ἤθελον δὲ παρεῖναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἄρτι καὶ ἀλλάξαι τὴν φωνήν μου, ὅτι ἀποροῦμαι ἐν ὑμῖν. Λέγετέ μοι, οἱ ὑπὸ νόμον θέλοντες εἶναι, τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἀκούετε; 22 γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι Ἀβραὰμ δύο υἱοὺς ἔσχεν, ἕνα ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης καὶ ἕνα ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. 23 ἀλλ’ ὁ μὲν ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης κατὰ σάρκα γεγέννηται, ὁ δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἐλευθέρας δι’ ἐπαγγελίας. ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα· αὗται γάρ εἰσιν δύο διαθῆκαι, μία μὲν ἀπὸ ὄρους Σινᾶ εἰς δουλείαν γεννῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν Ἁγάρ. τὸ δὲ Ἁγὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ· συστοιχεῖ δὲ τῇ νῦν Ἰερουσαλήμ, δουλεύει γὰρ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. ἡ δὲ ἄνω Ἰερουσαλὴμ ἐλευθέρα ἐστίν, ἥτις ἐστὶν μήτηρ ἡμῶν· γέγραπται γάρ· εὐφράνθητι, στεῖρα ἡ οὐ τίκτουσα, ῥῆξον καὶ βόησον, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα· ὅτι πολλὰ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐρήμου μᾶλλον ἢ τῆς ἐχούσης τὸν ἄνδρα. Ὑμεῖς δέ, ἀδελφοί, κατὰ Ἰσαὰκ ἐπαγγελίας τέκνα ἐστέ. ἀλλ’ ὥσπερ τότε ὁ κατὰ σάρκα γεννηθεὶς ἐδίωκεν τὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, οὕτως καὶ νῦν. 30 ἀλλὰ τί λέγει ἡ γραφή; ἔκβαλε τὴν παιδίσκην καὶ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς· οὐ γὰρ μὴ κληρονομήσει ὁ υἱὸς τῆς παιδίσκης μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. διό, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἐσμὲν παιδίσκης τέκνα ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐλευθέρας. 5:1 Τῇ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἡμᾶς Χριστὸς ἠλευθέρωσεν· στήκετε οὖν καὶ μὴ πάλιν ζυγῷ δουλείας ἐνέχεσθε. Ἴδε ἐγὼ Παῦλος λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν περιτέμνησθε, Χριστὸς ὑμᾶς οὐδὲν ὠφελήσει. 3 μαρτύρομαι δὲ πάλιν παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ περιτεμνομένῳ ὅτι ὀφειλέτης ἐστὶν ὅλον τὸν νόμον ποιῆσαι. 4 κατηργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ, οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ δικαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε. ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. ἐν γὰρ Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ οὔτε περιτομή τι ἰσχύει οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ πίστις δι’ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη.
308 7
Yoon
Ἐτρέχετε καλῶς· τίς ὑμᾶς ἐνέκοψεν [τῇ] ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι; 8 ἡ πεισμονὴ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς. 9 μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ. 10 ἐγὼ πέποιθα εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν κυρίῳ ὅτι οὐδὲν ἄλλο φρονήσετε· ὁ δὲ ταράσσων ὑμᾶς βαστάσει τὸ κρίμα, ὅστις ἐὰν ᾖ. 11 Ἐγὼ δέ, ἀδελφοί, εἰ περιτομὴν ἔτι κηρύσσω, τί ἔτι διώκομαι; ἄρα κατήργηται τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ. 12 Ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς. 13 Ὑμεῖς γὰρ ἐπ’ ἐλευθερίᾳ ἐκλήθητε, ἀδελφοί· μόνον μὴ τὴν ἐλευθερίαν εἰς ἀφορμὴν τῇ σαρκί, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης δουλεύετε ἀλλήλοις. 14 ὁ γὰρ πᾶς νόμος ἐν ἑνὶ λόγῳ πεπλήρωται, ἐν τῷ· ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν. 15 εἰ δὲ ἀλλήλους δάκνετε καὶ κατεσθίετε, βλέπετε μὴ ὑπ’ ἀλλήλων ἀναλωθῆτε. 16 Λέγω δέ, πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν σαρκὸς οὐ μὴ τελέσητε. 17 ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός, ταῦτα γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται, ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε. 18 εἰ δὲ πνεύματι ἄγεσθε, οὐκ ἐστὲ ὑπὸ νόμον. 19 φανερὰ δέ ἐστιν τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός, ἅτινά ἐστιν πορνεία, ἀκαθαρσία, ἀσέλγεια, 20 εἰδωλολατρία, φαρμακεία, ἔχθραι, ἔρις, ζῆλος, θυμοί, ἐριθεῖαι, διχοστασίαι, αἱρέσεις, 21 φθόνοι, μέθαι, κῶμοι καὶ τὰ ὅμοια τούτοις, ἃ προλέγω ὑμῖν, καθὼς προεῖπον ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες βασιλείαν θεοῦ οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν. 22 ὁ δὲ καρπὸς τοῦ πνεύματός ἐστιν ἀγάπη χαρὰ εἰρήνη, μακροθυμία χρηστότης ἀγαθωσύνη, πίστις 23 πραΰτης ἐγκράτεια· κατὰ τῶν τοιούτων οὐκ ἔστιν νόμος. 24 οἱ δὲ τοῦ Χριστοῦ [Ἰησοῦ] τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν σὺν τοῖς παθήμασιν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις. 25 Εἰ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν. 26 μὴ γινώμεθα κενόδοξοι, ἀλλήλους προκαλούμενοι, ἀλλήλοις φθονοῦντες. 6:1 Ἀδελφοί, ἐὰν καὶ προλημφθῇ ἄνθρωπος ἔν τινι παραπτώματι, ὑμεῖς οἱ πνευματικοὶ καταρτίζετε τὸν τοιοῦτον ἐν πνεύματι πραΰτητος, σκοπῶν σεαυτὸν μὴ καὶ σὺ πειρασθῇς. 2 Ἀλλήλων τὰ βάρη βαστάζετε καὶ οὕτως ἀναπληρώσετε τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 3 εἰ γὰρ δοκεῖ τις εἶναί τι μηδὲν ὤν, φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτόν. 4 τὸ δὲ ἔργον ἑαυτοῦ δοκιμαζέτω ἕκαστος, καὶ τότε εἰς ἑαυτὸν μόνον τὸ καύχημα ἕξει καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὸν ἕτερον· 5 ἕκαστος γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον φορτίον βαστάσει. 6 Κοινωνείτω δὲ ὁ κατηχούμενος τὸν λόγον τῷ κατηχοῦντι ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς. 7 Μὴ πλανᾶσθε, θεὸς οὐ μυκτηρίζεται. ὃ γὰρ ἐὰν σπείρῃ ἄνθρωπος, τοῦτο καὶ θερίσει· 8 ὅτι ὁ σπείρων εἰς τὴν σάρκα ἑαυτοῦ ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς θερίσει φθοράν, ὁ δὲ σπείρων εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος θερίσει ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
The Scribal Use of Ekthesis as a Paragraph Marker?
9 11
14 15 17 18
309
τὸ δὲ καλὸν ποιοῦντες μὴ ἐγκακῶμεν, καιρῷ γὰρ ἰδίῳ θερίσομεν μὴ ἐκλυόμενοι. 10 Ἄρα οὖν ὡς καιρὸν ἔχομεν, ἐργαζώμεθα τὸ ἀγαθὸν πρὸς πάντας, μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως. Ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί. 12 Ὅσοι θέλουσιν εὐπροσωπῆσαι ἐν σαρκί, οὗτοι ἀναγκάζουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι, μόνον ἵνα τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ μὴ διώκωνται. 13 οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ περιτεμνόμενοι αὐτοὶ νόμον φυλάσσουσιν ἀλλὰ θέλουσιν ὑμᾶς περιτέμνεσθαι, ἵνα ἐν τῇ ὑμετέρᾳ σαρκὶ καυχήσωνται. Ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι’ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ. οὔτε γὰρ περιτομή τί ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις. 16 καὶ ὅσοι τῷ κανόνι τούτῳ στοιχήσουσιν, εἰρήνη ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἔλεος καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ θεοῦ. Τοῦ λοιποῦ κόπους μοι μηδεὶς παρεχέτω· ἐγὼ γὰρ τὰ στίγματα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ σώματί μου βαστάζω. Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί· ἀμήν.
