cópia de contentserver

JBL117/2 (1998) 299-320

"DIOTREPHES DOES NOT RECEIVE US": THE LEXICOGRAPHICAL AND SOCIAL

CONTEXT OF 3 JOHN 9-10

MARGARET M. MITCHELL McCormick Theological Seminary, Chicago, IL 60637

I. The Translation of ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È in 3 John 9 and 10

Historical reconstruction of the events that precipitated the highly enig-matic letter 3 John and its place in early church history has revolved around the question of the nature of the conflict between "the elder" and the figure Diotrephes. Was the dispute between the two due to a theological dispute, a clash of competing ecclesiastical authorities, a disagreement about financial responsibilities for the mission, or was it merely a matter of personal dislike?1

1 The classic debate on the contours of the conflict as doctrinal was between W. Bauer (Orthodoxy and Heresy [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971] 93) and E. Käsemann ("Ketzer und Zeuge: Zum johanneischen Verfasserproblem," ZTK 48 [1951] 292-311; a réédition appears in his Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen [2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960] 1.168-87), who held opposite views as to which of the two was the "heretic" (with the latter taking the author and the former taking Diotrephes). Käsemann's view has not won the day, but it does have the more recent support of G. Strecker, Die Johannesbriefe (MeyerK 14; Göttingen: Vanden-hoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 367 (Eng. trans, by L. M. Maloney, Thejohannine Epistles [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996] 263). For the ecclesiastical power struggle hypothesis, see especially A. Harnack ("Über den 3. Johannesbrief," TU 15/3 [1897] 3-27), who regarded Diotrephes as the first monarchical bishop of whom we know the name, and more recently R. Schnackenburg (Die Johannesbriefe [HTKNT; 5th ed.; Freiburg: Herder, 1975] 293-94, with some hesitation [Eng. trans, by R. Fuller and I. Fuller, The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary (New York: Crossroad, 1992) 299]), and K. P. Donfried ("Ecclesiastical Authority in 2-3 John," L'Evangile de Jean [BETL 44; Gembloux: Duculot, 1977] 325-33). The main proponent of the view that the conflict essentially has to do with hospitality and support for traveling missionaries has been A. J. Malherbe ("The Inhospitality of Diotrephes," in God's Christ and His People: Studies in Honor of N. A. Dahl [ed. J. Jervell and W. A. Meeks; Oslo/Bergen/Tromsö: Universitetsforlaget, 1977] 222-32; reprinted as chap. 4 in his Social Aspects of Early Christianity [2d ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983] 92-112 [I cite the latter pagination]). Valuable summaries and categorizations of these scholarly debates may be found in R. E. Brown, The Epistles of John (AB 30; New York: Doubleday, 1982) 728-39; Strecker, Die Johannesbriefe, 365-68 (Johannine Epistles, 261-63); and H.-J. Klauck, Der zweite und dritte Johannesbrief (EKKNT 23/2; Zurich: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1992) 106-10.

299

300 Journal of Biblical Literature

The characterization of Diotrephes given by the elder to his epistolary addressee, Gaius, in w. 9 and 10, includes several polemical expressions (o ˆÈÎÔÒ˘ÙÂ˝˘Ì, "the one who loves to put himself first"; Î¸„ÔÈÚ ÔÌÁÒ¸flÚ ˆÎ˝-·Ò˘Ì Áµ‹Ú, "slandering us with evil words"), but the key descriptive term for Diotrephes' actions vis-à-vis the elder and his envoys is the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È, which occurs twice. In both cases Diotrephes is the subject of the verb, which is negated; the object of the verb in the first instance is Áµ‹Ú ("us"), and in the second, ÙÔıÚ ·‰ÂÎˆÔ˝Ú ("the brothers and sisters").2 Thus Jerome, as well as the earliest vernacular translations of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, ren-dered the verb in the same way in both instances: "Diotrephes . . . does not receive us . . . neither does he himself receive the brethren."3

In striking contrast, not a single contemporary English translation of the NT translates the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È in the same way in both 3 John 9 and 10.4

Although in v. 10 it is always rendered "receive" or "welcome," significantly dif-ferent translations have been provided for the same verb in v. 9:

Diotrephes . . . does not accept what we say. (NASB)5

Diotrephes . . . will have nothing to do with us. (NEB, NIV)

Diotrephes . . . refuses to accept us. (JB)

Diotrephes . . . ignores us. (NAB)

Diotrephes . . . does not acknowledge us. (rev. NAB)

Diotrephes . . . does not acknowledge my authority. (RSV)

Diotrephes . . . does not acknowledge our authority. (NRSV)

2 Interestingly, the NRSV departs from its usual procedure for rendering this term inclu-sively as "brothers and sisters" (as, e.g., usually throughout the Pauline epistles), here reading "friends," but it is not clear on what grounds.

3 Jerome translated both with recipio; see the Vulgate: "Diotrefes non recipit nos . . . quod ipse non recipit fratres" (a second family of manuscripts renders the second verb as suscipit; for full textual data, see W. Thiele, ed., Epistulae catholicae [Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel 26/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1956-69] 403-4). For the late patristic period the catenae (including Ps.-Oecumenius and Theophylact) regard the epistle as being ÂÒ˙ ˆÈÎÔÓÂÌfl·Ú (J. A. Cramer, ed., Catenae in epístolas catholicas [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1840] 149), which is fully consis-tent with the same understanding of ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È in w. 9 and 10 as meaning "receive" or "wel-come." According to the catenae, the elder censured Diotrephes "for not providing for the poor" (·ÈÙÈ‹Ù·È ‰Â ƒÈÔÙÒÂˆfi, ˛Ú µfiÙÂ ·ıÙ¸Ì ·Ò›˜ÔÌÙ· ÙÔÈÚ Ù˘˜ÔflÚ). Early English translations that render the verb "receiveth" in both places include, for example, the Geneva Bible (1st ed., 1560); Rhemes (1582); and the King James Version (1611). In German see Luther's December Testament (1522) and the Lutherbibel (1534), "annimpt."

4 The last to do so may have been the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scrip-tures (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1950), which also captured nicely the social implication of the acts in question (as I shall argue below): "Diotrephes . . . does not receive anything from us with respect.. . neither does he himself receive the brothers with respect." This is in line with their methodological mandate to assign one meaning to a term to the highest degree possible (p. 9).

5 The ASV (1901) had retained the KJV translation (see n. 3).

Mitchell: 3 John 9-10 301

While the veiy loose renderings "will have nothing to do with us" and "ignores us" find no support in contemporary lexicons,6 and thus are immediately ren-dered questionable, the RSV translation, "does not recognize my authority," has had the backing of the premier Greek-English lexicon of the NT, that of Walter Bauer (1st ed., 1928),7 who attributed quite discrete meanings to the word in the two adjacent verses, the only two places ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È appears in the New Testament: "receive as a guest" in v. 10, but "recognize someone's authority" in v. 9. The authority of Bauer has made this a translation to contend with, one with tremendous implications for exegesis and historical analysis of the letter, since the effect of the latter translation is to go a long way toward resolving any ambiguity about the historical situation behind the letter in favor of a reading stressing ecclesiastical conflict. Such distinguished commentators as C. H. Dodd, R. Bultmann, R. Schnackenburg, G. Strecker, and P. Bonnard have adhered to Bauer s differing translations of the term in these two instances.8

6 The more recent Louw-Nida lexicon does include a somewhat similar translation in its cate-gorization of the verb, for it is listed under the two semantic domains: "Welcome, Receive" for v. 10 (1.453), and "Obey, Disobey" for v. 9 (1.467), with the accompanying translation for the first sense, "Diotrephes . . . does not pay attention and do what I say" (J. P. Louw and E. A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains [2 vols.; New York: United Bible Societies, 1988]). But the assignment of domains in this lexicon depends on the shorthand, itself derivative abbreviated lexicon of B. M. Newman, Jr. (A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament [London: United Bible Societies, 1971]), which supplies one- or two-word glosses for each word without defense). His listings in our case must have come from Bauer: "receive, welcome; pay attention to, recognize (3 Jn 9)" (p. 68). As such it is not an independent attestation for this meaning in NT lexicography.

7 This was published as the second edition of E. Preuschen's Vollständiges Griechisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (Gießen: Töpelmann, 1910). With the third edition (1937) it was published under Bauer's name alone.

8 C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles (MNTC; London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1946) 161-62 ("repudiates" in v. 9; "welcome" in v. 10); R. Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973) 100 n. 3; Schackenburg, Die Johannesbriefe, 291 (and n. 5) and 292 n. 5 (The Johannine Epistles, 297 n. 132 and 298 n. 137); Strecker, Die Johannesbriefe, 369 Á. 14 (Johannine Epistbs, 264 n. 14); P. Bonnard, Les Epîtres Johanniques (CNT n.s. 13c; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1983) 135. Of other exegetes across the history of scholarship who regard the word as hav-ing two different meanings in the two verses, see, e.g., also F. Lücke, Commentar über die Briefe des Evangelisten Johannes (1st ed., 1826; 3d ed., ed. E. Bertheau; Bonn: Weber, 1856) 472 n. 3, fol-lowed by W. M. L. de Wette, Kurze Erklärung des Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannis, in Kurzgefaßtes exegetisches Handbuch 1.3 (5th ed.; ed. B. Brückner; Leipzig: Hirzel, 1863) 417; F. Düsterdieck, Die drei johanneischen Briefe (Göttingen: Dieterich; Leipzig: Vogel, 1852) 532; A. Plummer, The Epistles of S. John (CGNT; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1889) 192 (though with some hesitation); Harnack, "Über den 3. Johannesbrief," 11; ¡. E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles (ICC; New York: Scribner's, 1928) 189; C. Haas, M. de Jonge, and J. L. Swellengrebel, A Translator's Handbook on the Letters of John (Lon-don: United Bible Societies, 1972) 154 (but see next note on de Jonge's own view); K. Wengst, Der erste, zweite und dritte Brief des Johannes (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1978) 247-48.


Although a few more recent voices, most significantly Abraham J. Malherbe, have expressed some doubt about these divergent translations in whole or in part, no one has presented a complete analysis and critique of the lexicographi-cal evidence.9 Consequently, the few dissenting opinions appear not to have been sufficiently heard. Indeed, the retention of this same set of glosses in the revised German sixth edition of Bauer s Wörterbuch in 198810 and the transla-tion of the two verses in accordance with Bauer in the NRSV translation, which appeared in 1989,11 suggest a strong measure of consensus for these two dis-crete translations of the word in 3 John 9 and 10, which will continue to domi-nate the interpretation of this letter.

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the unreliability of Bauer s entry on the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È and therefore to cast doubt on translations that have followed it unquestioningly. First I shall place Bauers entry for the verb alongside other Greek léxica to show that it adopts a completely unique meaning

9 Malherbe ("Inhospitality," 106-7) takes the word to mean ¿he same thing in both places on the basis of social convention (on which see below). Since I began working on this problem, more recent commentators have begun to question the varying meanings of the term, including F. Vouga (Die Johannesbriefe [HNT 15/3; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1990] 91), who translates both occur-rences as "empfangen," "receive"; and Klauck, Der zweite und dritte Johannesbrief, 102: "Auch 9c sollte noch nicht völlig abstrakt verstanden werden, als förmliche Weigerung, die Autorität des Alten anzuerkennen, sondern auch von den konkreten Erfahrungen her." See also the qualification of J. l ieu (The Second and Third Epistles of John: History and Background [Studies of the New Testament and its World; Edinburgh: Clark, 1986] 112-13: "the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È primarily means to 'receive' and does not of itself imply recognition of authority unless that is entailed in the status of the person being received") and M. de Jonge (De Brieven van Johannes [3d ed.; Nijkerk: Callen-bach, 1978] 262-63), who translates "ontvangen," "receive" in both places. Brown recognized the force of the objection that the word be interpreted in two different ways in the two successive verses (Epistles of John, 718), but regarded the same variation between 1 Mace 10:1 and 46 (evi-dence garnered from Bauer, though not stated as such), to substantiate the shift here. Brown cor-rectly describes the linkage between the two acts: "The refusal to welcome the missionaries (lOd) and to accept the letter (9b) are two sides of the one policy," yet puzzlingly his translation, "does not pay attention to us" (p. 717), does not accord very well with his interpretation.

The nineteenth-century exegete J. E. Huther subscribed to the two different translations of ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È in the first editior of his commentary, but changed this (in opposition to de Wette and Lücke) in the second edition (Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch über die drei Briefe des Johannes [MeyerK 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1855; 2d ed., 1861], compare pp. 252 [1st ed.] and 279 [2d ed.]).

10 W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur (6th ed., ed. K. Aland and B. Aland; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1988) 591: "gastlich aufnehmen" "annehmen . . . jmds. Autorität anerkennen." The same glosses appear in all editions of Bauer. The Bauer renderings will also have a continuing wider influence through two more recent léxica that replicated Bauer's distinction: Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider; 3 vols.; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1980-83) 2.65 (Eng. trans.: Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992] 2.26), and Louw-Nida, Greek-English Lexicon, 1.453,467 (see Á. 6 above, in relation to Newman).

1 1 The single change from the RSV here is in the number of the pronominal object (from sin-gular to plural).


for the term in 3 John 9. Second, I shall trace the lexicographical history of Bauer s entry for ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È to demonstrate that it is the end product of a long, complicated, and not entirely error-free history of revisions of revisions of precursor léxica. Third, I shall critically examine the comparative evidence Bauer adduced for his two glosses and demonstrate that none of those passages constitutes support for his translation of the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È in 3 John 9 as "recognize someone's authority.,, Fourth, I shall present additional lexical evi-dence that, better than the passages Bauer lists, illustrates comparable uses of the term ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È, and from that evidence I shall argue that it is the well-attested meaning of the verb in diplomatic contexts, best translated "to receive," which is indicated precisely also in this context in 3 John. Finally, I shall discuss the limited conclusions that can be reached from this term about Diotrephes' motivation for not receiving the envoys.

II. Comparative Lexicography

If one begins lexical study of the term ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È with Liddell, Scott, and Jones,12 instead of Bauer s lexicon, one gets a very different picture of the term. In LS J the word is glossed in two major divisions:

I. "admit besides or in addition"; 2. "receive besides";13 3. "receive, wel-come"; II. "take on oneself, undertake," "agree, admit liability"; 2. "of things, allow of, admit of'; 3. "expect, await"; 4. "accept a term as applying to (c. Gen)."14

Of these meanings, only I.3., to "receive or welcome" fits 3 John 9 and 10. Most of the rest of the translation equivalents apply to the use of the verb with a thing as its object, not a person (an important distinction which, as we shall see, has not been recognized in the history of NT lexicography on this term). Most importantly, we observe that there is no rendering in LSJ that comes at all close to "recognizing someone's authority." This entry in LSJ, as is the case in many entries throughout the lexicon, depends on the precursor léxica of Franz Pas-sow and Henri Estienne ("Stephanus"). The renderings in Passow are "auf-oder annehmen" ("receive or take on"), "überh. aufnehmen" ("generally, receive, admit"), "auf sich, über sich nehmen" ("undertake, assume"), "billigen,

12 H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed. rev. H. S. Jones; Oxford: Claren-don, 1940, continuous reprints to 1989).

13 These first two meanings are of course grounded in the literal sense of the compound, ›È-‰›˜ÂÛË·È.

1 4 LSJ, 630. In the earlier edition, A Greek-English Lexicon (based on the German Work of Francis Passow), by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1843), the verb is given three possible translation equivalents: "to receive, admit besides or in addition; to take on oneself, incur (Lat. admitiere) and to allow of, admit of (Lat. recipere)."


gut heissen" ("approve of, sanction"),15 "von Dingen: annehmen, zulassen, erlauben" (of things: "accept, permit, allow").16 Estienne had translated ›È-‰›˜ÂÛË·È as "accipio, recipio, admitto; exp. etiam expecto et excipio" ("wel-come, receive, admit, and also wait for and welcome").17 All of these translation equivalents have to do with receiving, welcoming, accepting, taking on, or expecting. None imputes to the word any sense of recognition, or in particular recognition of authority. The same is true of W. Papes lexicon, which was also a source for the later editions of LSJ.18

The LSJ lexicon is noted for its incorporation of the lexical evidence sup-plied by papyri and inscriptions discovered and edited in the last century or more. The source for many of the papyri listed in LSJ (as also in Bauer) was the standard work by Friedrich Preisigke, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrus-urkunden, which gives the same translation equivalents for ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È as found in LSJ: 1. "jmd in sein Haus aufnehmen" ("receive someone into ones house"); 2. "zustimmen, gutheissen, billigen" ("accept, approve of, sanction"); 3. "empfangen, entgegennehmen, vereinnahmen" ("receive, accept, take in"); 4. "vertragen (von Sachen)" ("endure, put up with [of things]"); 5. "eine Pflicht oder Haftung auf sich nehmen" ("take a duty or responsibility upon oneself').19

1 5 In the one text cited for this meaning, Polybius 33.15.6, the object of the verb is the ·ÒÒÁÛfl· of a young man, meaning not so much that the assembly "approved" it as that they "accepted" or "put up with" it (see LCL, trans. W. R. Paton).

1 6 F. L. C. F. Passow, Handwörterbuch der griechischen Sprache begründet von Franz Pas-sow (5th ed., ed. V. C. F. Rost et al.; Leipzig: Vogel, 1841-57) 1/2.1057 (with references only to lit-erary works: Herodotus, Polybius, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demosthenes, Aeschines).

17 H. Estienne, Thesaurus graecae linguae (ed. . ¬. Hase, W. Dindorf, and L. Dindorf; Paris: Didot, 1831-65) 3.1570-71. The citations of passages, which were compiled by Ludwig Din-dorf, include the works of Herodotus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Polybius, Demosthenes, Aeschines, Plutarch, and Antigonus Carystius. The term does not appear in the original edition among the compounds of ‰›˜ÂÛË·È («. Estienne, Thesaurus graecae linguae [Geneva: Stephanus, 1572] s.v.).

1 8 W. Pape, Griechisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch (3d ed.; ed. M. Sengebusch; Graz: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, 1954 [reprint of 1911 edition; 1st ed. published in 1842-43 by F. Vieweg in Brunschweig]) 1.936: "auf-, annehmen," "zugeben, gestatten, erlauben," "billigen, gutheissen." Other Greek léxica that I have checked are J. G. Schneider, Kritisches griechisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch (Jena/Leipzig: Frommann, 1805) 449, on which was based J. Donnegan, A New Greek and English Lexicon (2d ed.; rev. and ed. R. B. Patton; Boston: Hilliard, Gray; New York: G. and C. Carrill, 1833) s.v.; J. A. Ernesti et al., eds., Graecum lexicon manuale primum a Benjamine Hederico (London: Rivington, 1825). In the line of Passow is G. E. Benseler, Griechisch-Deutsches Schulwörterbuch (5th ed., ed. J. Rieckher; Leipzig: Teubner, 1875) 286 (but in the 1904 edition ed. by A. Kaegi a special meaning for the NT is listed ["N.T. gastlich aufnehmen; annehmen, gelten lassen, ÙÈÌ‹"], obviously by influence from NT léxica.

19 These glosses are from the 1925 edition (that which would have been accessible to the edi-tors of LSJ). The revised edition (ed. E. Kiessling; Marburg, 1971; 4/4.880-81) streamlines to three meanings: "receive, welcome," "permit, allow," and "take on a duty, take charge of, take possession of." In Moulton-Milligan (J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testa-ment Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources [London: Hodder, 1930] 237)


Here again, there is no meaning for the term in the papyri at all close to "recog-nize someone's authority."

In fact, there is no lexicon of the Greek language outside of the NT, including the comprehensive work Ã≈√¡ À≈Œ… œÕ ‘«” ≈ÀÀ«Õ… «” √ÀŸ””«”,20 which cites a meaning for the term ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È as "to recognize someone's authority," or anything close to it. This includes also léxica of the Septuagint, on the one hand, and of patristic writings, on the other, the litera-ture that frames the NT and in many ways stands in a lexical continuum with it.21 The complete lack of corroboration for the meaning of ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È as "to recognize someone's authority" in any other Greek lexicon gives us reason to be suspicious about this proposed translation in 3 John 9.

III. A Critique of Bauer's Entry for ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È

Next we must turn to Bauer's lexicon itself and evaluate the evidence given there for this translation in 3 John 9.1 quote the English translation and revi-sion, BAGD:22

ÂÈ‰›˜Ôµ·È (Hdt.+; inscr., pap., LXX, Ep. Arist., Philo; Jos. Vi. 218). 1. receive as a guest ÙÈÌ‹ someone (Polyb. 21,18,3; POxy. 281,9 [20-50 AD]; 1 Mace 10:1; 12:8,43 al.; Sib. Or. 7,130) 3 J 10.—Take along Ac 15:40 D. 2. accept = not reject (Polyb. 6,24,4; UPZ 110,161 [164 BC]; 1 Mace 10:46; Sir 51:26) ÙÈÌ‹ recognize someone's authority 3 J 9. M-M.*

This entry divides the usage for the term in the NT into two classes. The two translations are presented as though there were unambiguous external lex-

there is also no evidence of the translation "to recognize someone's authority." They perceive a "slightly different sense" in the term in 3 John 9 and 10, but for both examples from the papyri cited translate "receive." They also give references for the meanings "to accept," "to undertake," and "to admit of."

2 0 D. Demetrakos, ed. (Athens: Demetrakos, 1936-) 3.2761. 2 1 See J. F. Schleusner, Novus thesaurus phihlogico-criticus: sive, lexicon in LXX. et reliquos

interpretes graecos, ac scriptores apocryphos Veteris Testamenti (London: Duncan, 1829) 851 (accipio, recipio, excipio, suscipio); Friedrich Rehkopf, Septuaginta-Vokabular (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) ("gastlich aufnehmen," citing both 3 John 9 and 10 as NT usages); and G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961) 520. See also below on the LXX usage of the term. The term is not included in Suidas, the lexicon of Photius of Con-stantinople, or in E. A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (Hildesheim: Olms, 1983).

22 W. Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Lit-erature (rev., trans., and ed. W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker [from German 5th ed., 1958]; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) 292. The more recent German sixth edition (which depended also on BAGD) has the exact same renderings, though it adds a display of parts, a few new references (T. Issachar 4,4,6; 2 Mace 2:26; 3 Mace 6:26), and a bit more expanded treat-ment of the D text reading in Acts 15:40. None of these new citations is particularly relevant, as we shall see below, and they do not affect the argument of this paper.


ical evidence for each. The first gloss, "receive as a guest," is, as we have seen, in agreement with (and in dependence on) the entries in LSJ and Preisigke. But the second gloss contains material unprecedented among Greek léxica out-side of the NT. Although the inital word equivalent, "accept," is also commonly found in other Greek léxica, what is suspect is the rather significant shift from "accept" and its logical negation "not reject" to "recognize someone's author-ity." Supporting texts for this gloss are listed from Polybius, the papyri, and the LXX. Strictly speaking, the parentheses indicate that these citations support the meaning "accept = not reject," not necessarily the rendering "recognize someone's authority" specifically, but those citations have in the history of scholarship been understood as endorsing the latter translation. We shall see below that none of those passages substantiates the translation "recognize someone's authority," or justifies a sense of "accept = not reject," which should be distinguished from the first gloss.

At the outset we notice the inherent improbability of BAGD's entry for the term ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È: that the verb, which appears only in these two places in the corpus of literature considered, is used here by the same author in the same tiny text in adjacent verses to describe the action of the same person, yet has two quite different meanings. Some of the earliest léxica to introduce the dis-tinction in meanings between the use of the verb in v. 9 and in v. 10 at least explained the shift: that the use in v. 9 was "figurative" or "metaphorical," whereas that in v. 10 was literal. But these notes got lost along the way in the lexical tradition of which Bauer is the latest descendant; the result is an entry that provides no sense of the relationship between these two usages and pre-sents both translations as on equal lexical footing. Thus, before we examine Bauer s lexical evidence, we need to trace the lexicographical history of ›È-‰›˜ÂÛË·È which has culminated here.

The History of Bauer's Entry in New Testament Lexicography

The complicated interdependence along the chain of NT Greek léxica in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries means that each entry in Bauer is a snowball that has accumulated (and sometimes left behind) a variety of inter-esting particles in its travels. Bauers listing (1928) substantially revised that of his immediate precursor, Preuschen. Preuschen had given only one gloss, "(gastlich) aufnehmen ÙÈÌ‹," for both verses (3 J 9Í.).23 Bauer retained this from Preuschen, except that he restricted this meaning to 3 John 10 only24 Then Bauer ascribed a separate meaning to the word in the previous verse, which he assigned to a second gloss, "annehmen = nicht zurückweisen . . . ÙÈÌ‹ Jmdes.

2 3 Preuschen, Griechisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch, 426. 24 He also took "gastlich" out of parentheses and into the translation of the term itself (set off

in italics) where it has stayed in all subsequent editions.


Autontàt anerkennen 3 / 9 . " He got this directly from C. L. W. Grimms 1868 Lexicon Graeco-Latinum in Libros Novi Testamenti,25 the first place such a meaning appears in any Greek lexicon. But Bauer put the words "Jmdes. Autorität anerkennen" in italics, indicating a translation, whereas in his source (Grimm-Wilke) the words were in regular type, as an explanatory gloss for the meaning "not reject" (which was itself prefaced with h.e.).26 Bauer also reversed the assignment of the explanatory-gloss-become-translation, "accept someone's authority" from Grimm's 3 John 10 to 3 John 9.27 He further con-fined the meaning "to receive someone (as a guest)" to v. 10 alone (which, as we have seen, he copied from Preuschen), where Grimm had included both w. 9 and 10 under the first gloss, "to give hospitality to," and then gave a special nuance for v. 10 in the second gloss.28 These apparently slight changes have had a significant and enduring result in NT translation and exegesis.29

The lexicographical history of the word ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È bears the permanent imprint of Grimm, who had added the explanatory gloss on 3 John 10, "not rec-ognize someone's authority" to the entry of his precursor, C. G. Wilke. Wilkes entry had included two translation equivalents for the verb: "hospitio excipio>f

(v. 10) and "admitto" (v. 9).3 0 Grimm was the first to make the crucial move

2 5 "[A]dmitto, h.e. non repudio; ÙÈÌ‹, alicujus auctoritatem" (C. L. W. Grimm, Lexicon graeco-htinum in libros Nom Testamenti [Leipzig: Arnold, 18681,18792,18883,19034] 165). I cite here the 3d ed., that used by Bauer. (Because this lexicon is a revision ofthat by C. G. Wilke [on which see below], it is usually referred to as Grimm-Wilke.) The second edition was translated into English, with annotational additions, by J. H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testa-ment (New York: American Book, 1885, corrected edition 1889).

2 6 Cf. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, 237, where the words are set in regular type. 2 7 Bauer may well have been influenced at this point by Thayer's revision of Grimm-Wilke,

which was among his sources. Thayer also took it upon himself to switch Grimm-Wilke's assign-ment of the two verses (v. 10 for gloss #1 and v. 9 for gloss #2) (Greek-English Lexicon, 237). This is probably one of the things Thayer considered "a silent correction of obvious oversights" of Grimm-Wilke, which he mentions in the Preface (p. vi). Yet it is not definite that this was simply a mistake in Grimm-Wilke; also regarding v. 9 as an example of "nehme auf (als Gast)" and v. 10 as simply "nehme an" was H. Ebeling, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testaments (Hanover/ Leipzig: Hahn, 1913) 164.

28 The genesis of the confusion over the categorization of the two verses once two different meanings of the verb had been assigned may be traced to the first edition of Grimm-Wilke (1868), which listed v. 10 in both places and v. 9 not at all, apparently due to a typographical error. This was corrected in the second edition in the order mentioned and remained that way through subsequent editions. But was it corrected correctly?

29 One can only speculate about whether these lexicographical decisions were not influenced by Bauer's own interpretation of 3 John as reflecting not any personal quarrel but a major ecclesias-tical struggle (Orthodoxy and Heresy, 93; also in his commentary, Die katholischen Briefe des Neuen Testaments [Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher 20; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1910] 62-63).

30 C. G. Wilke, Clavis Novi Testamenti: philologica usibus scholarum et iuvenum theologiae studiosorum accommodata (Leipzig: Arnold, 1841) 424. In switching the order of Grimm's verses Bauer was in effect reversing Grimm's reversal of Wilke.


from admitto to non repudio, which he modified further, as we have seen. Wilke in turn had revised the work of his precursor, C. A. Wahl, who had listed as the first gloss "admitto, metaph. admitto mónita alicuius 3 Ioh. v. 9," and as the second gloss "excipio hospitio 3 Ioh. v. 10."31 Wilke switched the order of the two listings, putting the literal meaning first, and removed the note "metaph. admitto mónita alicuius" (metaphorically, "to receive someone's admonitions")32 on the first gloss. Perhaps he did this because he recognized that Wahls strange translation of 3 John 9 appears to be a transference to that verse of the content of Sir 51:26: ›È‰ÂÓ‹ÛË˘ fi ¯ı˜fi ıµ˛Ì ·È‰Âfl·Ì, "let your souls receive instruction" (NRSV).33 However, Wilkes simpler and more liter-ally correct rendering, admitto, in line with contemporary Greek léxica,34 ironi-cally left the door open for Grimm s extrapolations, which were even more extensive than those of Wahl, and ultimately entailed the loss of the crucial des-ignation "metaphorical" for the second meaning.35 Wahls entry may itself have been based on that of J. F. Schleusner, who was perhaps the first to split the meanings of the verb in the two verses. His first gloss was "hospitio aliquem excipio" for 3 John 10, and "excipio hospitaliter et amanter, excipio, suscipio, admitto" for 3 John 9, translating "Diotrephes non admittit me meamque doctri-nam. "36

While it is possible to trace this lexicographical history back farther still,37

the history from Bauer to Grimm to Wilke to Wahl to Schleusner sufficiently

31 C. A. Wahl, Clams Novi Testamenti: philologica usibus scholarum et iuvenum theologiae studiosorum accommodata (Leipzig: Barth, 1822,11829,2 18433) 192 (I cite the 3d ed.).

32 This is how E. Robinson translated Wahl into English in his revision and translation ofthat lexicon (Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament [Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1825; 2d ed., 1836] 278): "Trop, to receive, to admit, e.g., the admonitions of a teacher, c. ace. 3 John 9. So Ecclus. 51,26; Pol. 6.24.7." Robinson's first edition (a precise translation of Wahl) read: "Trop, to admit, to assent to, 3 John 9" and cited Sir 51:26, though Wahl's later editions do not; this may be what Wahl's first edition actually read [only the 2d and 3d were available to me]).

33 Yet Wahl does not mention that text, but instead Polybius 6.24.7, which bears no resem-blance to this (see previous note, and discussion of the Polybius passage in the next section). The later editions of Wahl may have been influenced in this regard by C. G. Bretschneider, Lexicon manuale graeco-latinum in libros Novi Testamenti (3d ed.; Leipzig: Barth, 1840) 156: "de doctore: excipio, admitto, probo, 3 …Ô. v. 9. coll. Sir 51,26."

3 4 Estienne, Thesaurus graecae linguae (1831-65) 3.197; Liddell and Scott (1843) 471. 3 5 This was lost entirely in the léxica in the line culminating in Bauer. It is, however, present

in EWNT 2.66 ("übertr.") and Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament 2.26 ("fig."). L. M. Maloney, in translating Strecker's commentary into English (Johannine Epistles, 264 n. 14), has added the distinction parenthetically to Strecker's own lexical note: "Diotrephes permits no access (in the literal and in the metaphorical sense)."

36 Novum lexicon graeco-htinum in Novum Testamentum (5th ed., ed. J. Smith et al.; Glas-gow: Duncan, 1817) 646.

37 For instance, the important lexicon of Georg Pasor (1570-1637) (Lexicon graeco-htinum in Novum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi Testamentum [7th ed.; Herborn: Corvinus, 1693] 180), trans-lates "admitto" for 3 John 9, but inexplicably leaves out 3 John 10 altogether. Since Pasor was a sig-


shows us the missteps, confusion, and sometimes arbitariness that have marked the historical development culminating in our contemporary standard refer-ence work, the Bauer Wörterbuch, 6th edition. (It also should give us critical caution generally in our dependence on and use of these mammoth reference works). What this lexicographical history further indicates is that in the long history from Schleusner to Bauer (from 1817 to 1988) the same few passages from one Greco-Roman author, Polybius, and the LXX have been appealed to in the study of this word, but sometimes on both sides. Schleusner cited 1 Mace 12:8 and Polybius 22.1.3 in support of the second gloss, for v. 9, "not admit me or my doctrine." Wahl cited the same two texts in support of the other meaning, for v. 10, "to receive hospitably," as have most of his successors.38 He also cited Polybius 6.24.7 in support of his other meaning, "admitto, metaph. admitto mónita alicuius."39 Wilke retained the Polybius 6.24.7 text in support of the simple meaning "admitto," but it was dropped by Grimm and replaced by 1 Mace 10:4640 and Sir 51:26 as parallels.41 Bauer combined all three42 to sub-stantiate his second gloss, and added P.Par. 63.161. For the first entry, "to receive as a guest," Bauer added to Polybius 22.1.3 (which he received from Wilke) the important text 1 Mace 10:1, and also 1 Mace 12:8, 43 and P.Oxy. 281.9, which he got from Preisigke or Moulton-Milligan. Though Bauer incor-porated this new evidence from the papyri, it was used only to buttress an exist-ing set of distinctions, not to reconsider the meaning of the word.

Four conclusions can be reached from this complexly detailed study of the NT lexicographical history on the term ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È: (1) There has been confu-sion and no consensus about the number of meanings of the term and about

nifìcant source for later léxica, that gap perhaps issued an invitation for separating the two mean-ings. In seventeenth-century England, the Critica Sacra, or Philologicall and Theologicall Observa-tions upon all the Greek Words of the New Testament (E. Leigh, 2d ed.; London: Young/Underhill, 1646), glosses the word simply as excipio, with reference to both 3 John 9 and 10. The verb ›È-‰›˜ÂÛË·È was unfortunately among the terms omitted altogether by the first glossary of the NT, that in the Complutensian Polyglot (1522). Another complex part of the puzzle, which we cannot take up here, is the question of the interrelationships between the léxica and the commentary tradi-tions (see, e.g., the nineteenth-century commentaries listed in n. 8 above), but as that is not neces-sary for the present argument (and would require a paper in itself), it will not be engaged here.

38 Bretschneider, Lexicon manuale, 156 (1 Mace 12:8); Wilke, Clavis Novi Testamenti, 3d ed., 165 (Polyb. 22.1.3); Bauer, Wörterbuch, 1st ed., 454, and all successive editions.

39 This citation appears in Estienne, Thesaurus graecae linguae, 3.198, in the list of passages in which the verb occurs in Greco-Roman authors, which was compiled by L. Dindorf in 1831-65. In fact, Dindorf s list of passages has been the basis for the study of this word throughout its lexico-graphical history (up to the most recent editions of LSJ and Bauer).

40 The citation 10:30 in the first edition was corrected to 10:46 in subsequent editions. 41 From Bretschneider, Lexicon manuale, 156, or directly from Schleusner, Lexicon in LXX,

851. 42 But he incorrectly rendered the Polybius citation as 6.24.4, an error that remains in the lat-

est, sixth edition.


which passage fits which meaning (complicated also, unfortunately, by typo-graphical errors!) (2) The differentiation of meanings of the verb for 3 John 9 from 10 was initially based on a distinction between literal and figurative senses, but this marker has been left out of the later léxica.43 (3) Bauers transla-tion of ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È 3 John 9 as "recognize someone's authority" arose from his unjustified insertion of Grimms explanatory note on the meaning "not reject" into the very translation of the verb. (4) The lexical investigation of this verb has been based on an artificially small sample of six extra-NT passages—two from Polybius and four from the LXX—some of which have been assigned at times to both translations. To redress these difficulties we will first carefully investi-gate those six passages and then provide a larger lexical field for a more com-prehensive analysis.

An Examination of Bauers lexical Parallels

We shall begin with the most important and frequently cited parallel usages, in 1 Maccabees 10, where, it is maintained, the word likewise is used in the same literary unit by the same author with a variance of meaning.44 But is this the case? We shall examine the two texts.

1 Mace 10:1: Alexander Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, landed and occupied Ptolemais. They welcomed him,45 and there he began to reign [Í·È ›Â-‰›Ó·ÌÙÔ ·ıÙ¸Ì, Í·È ›‚·ÛflÎÂıÛÂÌ ÂÍÂfl] (NRSV).

1 Mace 10:24-25,46:1 [Demetrius] also will write them words of encourage-ment and promise them honor and gifts, so that I may have their help. So he sent a message to them in the following words [Í·È ‹›ÛÙÂÈÎÂÌ ·˝ÙÔflÚ Í·Ù‹ ÙÔıÚ Î¸„ÔıÚ ÙÔ˝ÙÔıÚ] .. .[the text of the letter follows] . . . When Jonathan and the people heard these words, they did not believe or accept them"46

[ÔıÍ ›flÛÙÂıÛ·Ì ·˝ÙÔflÚ Ôı‰› ›Â‰›Ó·ÌÙÔ] (NRSV).

This chapter provides a remarkable parallel to 3 John in that it likewise contains reference, via the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È, to a person, on the one hand, and to a letter, on the other. Whereas Alexander is received, that is, welcomed, the words of Demetrius s letter are not received, that is, not accepted. In both cases the verb means the same thing. In 10:1 the verb signals a normal diplomatic reception, which, while the act denoted thereby may imply recognition of

4 3 See also in this regard the quotation from Hugo Grotius in n. 71 below. 4 4 This is how Brown (Epistles of John, 718) and Schnackenburg (Die Johannesbriefe, 291

Á. 5), for instance, resolve the difficulty (with an appeal to Bauer's lexicon). 4 5 Compare the translation of J. A. Goldstein, 1 Maccabees (AB 41; Garden City, N.Y.: Dou-

bleday, 1976) 396: "where the people accepted him and he was proclaimed king." 4 6 Goldstein translates: "they distrusted the proposals and rejected them" (1 Maccabees,

403).


authority, that is surely not made explicit in the text (and note that even if it were, Bauer cites this verse in support of the other meaning!). In the continua-tion of the passage, as in the case of the elder in 3 John, the rejection of the let-ter of Demetrius amounts to a rejection of him (and, in this case, of his offer of alliance). However, there is nothing in the word ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È to suggest that Jonathan and the people "did not recognize the words as authoritative.,, Rather, they rejected the words themselves on the grounds that they did not trust Demetrius. In itself the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È does not tell us of their motivation for rejecting the words, but that must be supplied in the context, as 10:46 con-tinues, ¸ÙÈ ›ÂµÌfiÛËÁÛ·Ì ÙÁÚ Í·Ífl·Ú ÙÁÚ µÂ„‹ÎÁÚ, ÁÚ ›ÔflÁÛÂÌ ›Ì …ÛÒ·fiÎ Í·È ÂËÎÈ¯ÂÌ ·ıÙÔ˝Ú Ûˆ¸‰Ò·. Therefore, this passage can be used to show the meaning of the negated form of the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È, to "reject," as in "not accept," but it offers no substantiation for Bauers subsequent movement from "reject" to "not recognize someone's authority."47

The passage Polybius ».24.748 has played a crucial role in the lexicographi-cal history of this term; it was offered by Wilke and Wahl as the main support-ing evidence for their translations of 3 John 9 as "non repudio; ÙÈÌ‹, alicujus auctoritatem" (Grimm-Wilke) or "admitto, metaph. admitto mónita alicuius" (Wahl), respectively. Bauer retained this citation from his precursors, but moved it up after his initial gloss for the term, "not reject," which shows that he recognized that the passage does not, strictly speaking, specifically support his following translation of 3 John 9 as "recognize someone's authority." Nonethe-less, that subtlety in punctuation in the entry has misled some users of Bauer s lexicon into thinking that the passage offers direct support for the later transla-tion.49 But this Polybius passage, which appears to be such a linchpin of Wilke and Wahls translation, does not actually substantiate their reading. First we shall look at the text itself. The context is a discussion of the deployments of Roman soldiers.

Polyb. 6.24.7: Finally these officers appoint from the ranks two of the finest and bravest men to be standardbearers in each maniple. It is natural that they should appoint two commanders for each maniple; for it being uncertain what may be the conduct of an officer or what may happen to him, and affairs of war not admitting of pretexts and excuses [ÙÁÚ ÔÎÂµÈÍfiÚ ̃ ÒÂfl·Ú Ô˝Í ÂÈ-‰Â˜¸µÂÌÁÚ Ò¸ˆ·ÛÈÌ], they wish the maniple never to be without a leader and chief. (Trans. W. R. Paton, LCL)

Here the term clearly has the meaning "allow of, admit of," of which it is listed as exemplary in the Liddell and Scott lexicon of 1843.50 Most important

4 7 See also below for other uses of ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È in 1 Maccabees. 4 8 As noted above (n. 42), Bauer's citation of 6.24.4 is incorrect. 4 9 E.g., Schnackenburg, Die Johannesbriefe, 291 n. 5. 5 0 The citation itself does not appear in LSJ (9th ed.).

312 Journal of Biblica! Literature

to remember is the gloss in LSJ (9th ed.), that ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È is used of things,51

to mean "allow of, admit of," a condition met here (object Ò¸ˆ·ÛÈÚ). It is thus entirely incorrect to cite this passage as an example of the term meaning "accept = not reject," of a person or his or her authority, as Bauer has listed it. Furthermore, it certainly provides no justification for Bauers leap (following Grimm) from "not reject" to the translation of 3 John 9 as "to recognize some-ones authority." An especially odd aspect of the weight being placed on this one Polybius passage is the fact that ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È is used in his History at least nine other times with this meaning,52 so the singling out of this passage is not at all lexically justified.53

Bauers entry also gives a reference to a papyrus for gloss #2, UPZ 110,161 (= — Par 63, 161) 5 4 The text, an administrative edict from a dioiketes named Herodes written in 164 BCE, contains the term ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È in three places. Line 161 of the text reads ·Ûµ›Ì˘Ú ›È‰›Ó·ÛË·È ÙÔ ÒÔÙÂÈÌ¸µÂÌÔÌ, "to receive gladly what is offered."55 In the context, the different participants in a dispute about agricultural business are called upon to take counsel together, and then greet cheerfully and abide by the arbitrated decision. Here the verb has an object (in the accusative) which is a thing, not a person The term does mean here "receive" in the sense of "accept" (as in "not reject"), but does not offer justification for Bauers subsequent translation "recognize someone's author-ity." In two other places in this decree the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È is used in the sense of "take on, undertake" a duty (of business responsibilities).56 Thus none of these passages is particularly germane to 3 John 9 and 10.

More Relevant Lexical Evidence for 3 John 9 and 10

There are, however, other places where Polybius uses the verb ›È-‰›˜ÂÛË·È to mean "receive" in the sense of "accept," precisely of the words of

5 1 This is true also for 3 Mace 6 26, which was added in Bauer's sixth edition, which refers to "accepting dangers" (›È‰Â‰Â„µ›ÌÔıÚ ÍÈÌ‰˝ÌÔıÚ), cf Ditt Syll3 762 30, as also Ansteas 236, of "receiving every good thing" (›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È ‹Ì ÙÔ Í·Î¸Ì) These passages thus are not particularly relevant to 3 John 9 and 10

5 2 Polybius 3 21 6, 3 79 12, 9 36 3,12 12 6,12 21 9,12 25i 4,16 2 2,16 17 8, 31 6 4 This is a very common usage m Koine (as well as Attic, e g , Demosthenes, Or 10 28) writers (Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant Rom 6 40 2, 8 40 5,10 6 2, 10 10 2, Diodorus Siculus 3 26 2, Josephus, Ant 5 §361, Plutarch, Mor 1044A, ¬, 1054D, Diogenes Laertius 7 101)

5 3 The explanation for the popularity of this one citation is that it is listed m Estienne, The-saurus graecae linguae (1831-65), 1571, among the citations collected by Dindorf But Dindorf added after this citation "et alibi similiter")

5 4 U Wilcken, ed , Urkunden der Ptolemaerzeit (Berlin/Leipzig de Gruyter, 1927) vol 1 5 5 Compare the similar translations of Wilcken ("was man ihnen hinhalt, bereitwillig

anzunehmen") and Moulton-MiUigan ("to receive cheerfully what is proposed") 5 6 UPZ 110,90,166 (see also Preisigke, Wörterbuch, 4/4 [1971, ed E Kiessling] 880, for cor-

roboration of these translations) This is also the meaning of the word in 2 Mace 2 26, an addition to Bauer's 6th ed , which likewise adds nothing to our understanding of 3 John 9 and 10


envoys, which I offer to replace Bauers listed parallels. These passages are of key importance in identifying the social conventions about reception of envoys that are depicted with our verb, both in 3 John and in other Greco-Roman liter-ature:

Polyb. 32.9.3, 13.1-2: . .. the senate dispatched a commission under Gaius Fannius [›Ó·›ÛÙÂÈÎÂÌ fi Û˝„ÍÎÁÙÔÚ ÒÂÛ‚ÂıÙ‹Ú ÙÔıÚ ÂÒfl √‹ÈÔÌ ÷‹ÌÌÈÔÌ] . . . On the return of Gaius Fannius and the other legates from Illyria, they reported that57 the Dalmatians were so far from consenting to set right any of the constant abuses complained of by their accusers, that they would not even listen to them58 [Ôı‰› Î¸„ÔÌ ›È‰›˜ÔÈÌÙÔ Í·Ë¸ÎÔı ·Ò' ·ıÙ˛Ì], saying that they had nothing in common with the Romans [Î›„ÔÌÙÂÚ Ôı‰›Ì ·˝ÙÔflÚ ÂflÌ·È Í·È '—˘µ·flÔÈÚ ÍÔÈÌ¸Ì]. They also reported that they had neither been given a residence nor supplied with food [ÒÔÚ ‰› ÙÔ˝ÙÔÈÚ ‰ÈÂÛ‹ˆÔıÌ µfi<ÙÂ> Í·Ù‹Îıµ· ‰ÔËÁÌ·È ÛˆflÛÈ µfiÙÂ ·ÒÔ˜fiÌ]

Polyb. 23.3.1-3: The envoys of Eumenes [ÔÈ ·Ò' ≈ıµÂÌÔ˝Ú Ò›Û‚ÂÈÚ] were the next to enter.... Upon Philocles expressing his desire to offer a defence on these subjects, as he had both been on a mission [<Â>ÒÂÛ‚ÂıÍ›Ì·È] to Prusias and had now been sent [›Ó·ÂÛÙ‹ÎË·È] to the senate by Philip expressly for this purpose, the senate, after listening for a short time to what he said59 [‚Ò·˜˝Ì ÙflÌ· ̃ Ò¸ÌÔÌ fi Û˝„ÍÎÁÙÔÚ ›È‰ÂÓ·µ›ÌÁ ÙÔıÚ Î¸„ÔıÚ], gave him the following reply.... (Trans. Paton, LCL)

In both of these passages we see the place of the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È in diplomatic relations to refer to the proper reception or rejection of the words/ messages of those who have been sent.60 Particularly in the first example, we see that rejection of the envoys is tantamount to rejection of those who had sent them. In the case of Polybius 32.13.1, it is Rome itself (embodied in the senate) that is ultimately rejected by the Dalmatians. As in 3 John, the rejection of the message the envoys carry is accompanied by the rejection of the envoys them-selves and the refusal to grant them the hospitality that congenial diplomatic association demands. This is thus the most exact parallel, both linguistically and contextually, to the use of ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È in 3 John. As in 1 Mace 10:1 and 46, however, in Polybius 32.13.1 the verb does not bear a specific connotation of rejection of the authority of the sender or of those sent, but rather a rejection that is geared to the particular situation and motivations at hand. The same is

5 7 Ù˘Ì ÂÒ˙ ÙÔÌ √‹ÈÔÌ ÷‹ÌÌÈÔÌ ·Ò·„Â„ÔÌ¸Ù˘Ì . . . Í·È ‰È·Û·ˆÔ˝ÌÙ˘Ì ÔÙÈ This is the normal form of report about a returning envoy, found also in 3 John 2: ÂÒ˜Ôµ›Ì˘Ì ·‰ÂÎˆ˛Ì Í·È µ·ÒÙıÒÔ˝ÌÙ˘Ì (see Margaret M. Mitchell, "New Testament Envoys in the Context of Greco-Roman Diplomatic and Epistolary Conventions: The Example of Timothy and Titus,"/BL 111 [1992] 641-62,655-58).

5 8 More literally translated: "in general they would not receive even a word from them." 5 9 More literally translated: "after receiving (his) words for a short time 6 0 The verb is also found in diplomatic contexts of receiving a gift, as in Polyb. 31.31.1,2.


true of the second citation, Polybius 23.3.3, for there the senate accepts a word from the envoy but does not necessarily thereby "recognize the authority" of Philip s (the senders) word in their situation (they in fact do not). What they signal by their acceptance of his envoy s words is an at least tentative openness to full diplomatic relations with him.

Polybius can use the same word also to refer to proper reception of the envoys themselves (in addition to that of their words):

Polyb 21 18 2-3 nearly all the communities of Asia Minor sent envoys [ÂÂµÔÌ ÒÂÛ‚ÂıÙ‹Ú] to Rome immediately after the battle, as the whole future of all of them depended on the senate The senate received all the arnvals courteously [··ÌÙ‹Ú µ›Ì Ô˝Ì ÙÔıÚ ·Ò·„ÂÌÔµ›ÌÔıÚ ›Â‰›˜ÂÙÔ ˆÈÎ‹ÌËÒ˘ÔÚ fi Û˝„ÍÎÁÙÔÚ] (Trans Patón, LCL)61

This meaning is of course commensurate with the other two examples offered above. That Bauer lists this passage in support of his gloss #1, "receive someone as a guest," parallel to 3 John 10, while other léxica list it as parallel to 3 John 9,62 demonstrates the immateriality of the distinction he has set up. There is no actual difference between the meanings "receive" as in welcome and "receive" as in accept, for in such contexts of senders and those sent, they are identical.63

1 Mace 12:8 and 43 (also listed by Bauer under gloss #1) and 14:23 similarly refer to proper diplomatic reception, thus welcome and acceptance.64 Here too we see the frequent setting of the usage of this term in diplomacy, which gives it a related though even more pointed meaning than more ordinary "guest recep-tion" (as Bauer terms it)·

1 Mace 12 7-8· Already m time past a letter was sent to the high priest Onias [·ÂÛÙ‹ÎÁÛ·Ì ›ÈÛÙÔÎ·fl ÒÔÚ œÌÈ·Ì ÙÔÌ ·Ò˜ÈÂÒ›·] from Alius, who was King among you, stating that you are our brothers, as the appended copy shows Onias welcomed the envoy with honor [›Â‰›Ó·ÙÔ ¸ œÌÈ·Ú ÙÔÌ ‹Ì‰Ò· ÙÔÌ ‹ÂÛÙ·Îµ›ÌÔÌ ›Ì‰¸Ó˘Ú], and received the letter [Í·fl ÂÎ·‚ÂÌ Ù·Ú

6 1 This usage is common in historical texts which reflect diplomatic practice See also, e g , Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant Rom 1 63 1, Ù‹Ú ÒÂÛ‚Âfl·Ú ›È‰›Ó·ÛË·È, "receiving embassies")

6 2 Gnmm-Wilke, Lexicon graeco-latmum m libros Novi Testamenti (1879), 165, Schleusner, Novum lexicon graeco-latinum m Novum Testamentum, 646

6 3 Sib Or 7 130 is also incorrectly cited here under gloss #1, it does not refer to the welcom-ing of a guest per se, but to more general reception "the earth has perceived that whichever of the gods she dared to accept [›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È] in falsehood on her altars was smoke, misty through the sky" (trans J J Collins, OTP)

6 4 The correlation of this with diplomatic correspondence was noted by Goldstein (in refer-ence to 14 23) "Ancient records of diplomacy carefully called attention to honorable treatment of ambassadors" (J Maccabees, 495) See also 1 Mace 6 60, where the term is used of receipt/accep-tance of a peace offer communicated by envoys Í·È ‹›ÛÙÂÈÎÂÌ ÒÔÚ ·ıÙÔ˝Ú ÂÈÒÁÌÂ˝Û·È, Í·È ›Â‰›Ó·ÌÙÔ ("he sent to the Jews an offer of peace, and they accepted it" [NRSV])


›ÈÛÙÔÎ‹Ú], which contained a clear declaration of alliance and friendship [›Ì ·¿Ú ‰ÈÂÛ·ˆ›flÙÔ ÂÒfl Ûıµµ·˜fl·Ú Í·fl ˆÈÎfl·Ú] (NRSV).65

The same usage is found in 1 Mace 14:23, in the context of a diplomatic letter sent from the Spartans to Simon and the leaders and people of Judea, which reflects the normal epistolary conventions for reporting back about the mission of envoys:

1 Mace 14:21-23: The envoys who were sent to our people [oi ÒÂÛ‚ÂıÙ·fl oi ‹ÔÛÙ·Î›ÌÙÂÚ ÒÔÚ ÙÔÌ ‰fiµÔÌ Áµ˛Ì] have told us about your glory and honor, and we rejoiced at their coming [‹fi„„ÂÈÎ·Ì fiµflÌ ÂÒ˙ ÙÁÚ ‰¸ÓÁÚ ıµ˛Ì Í·È ÙÈµfiÚ, Í·fl Á˝ˆÒ‹ÌËÁµÂÌ ›fl ÙÁ ›ˆ¸‰ˆ ·ıÙ˛Ì]. We have recorded what they said in our public decrees, as follows, 'Numenius son of Antiochus and Antipater son of Jason, envoys of the Jews, have come to us to renew their friendship with us. It has pleased our people to receive these men with honor [fiÒÂÛÂÌ Ùˆ ‰fiµˆ ›È‰›Ó·ÛË·È ÙÔıÚ ‹Ì‰Ò·Ú ›Ì‰¸Ó˘Ú] and to put a copy of their words in the public archives, so that the people of the Spartans may have a record of them. (NRSV)

That ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È can be used in this way also in more popular literature is demonstrated by the longer recension of the Testament of Abraham, where the patriarch, the exemplar of the virtue of hospitality at his camp at the Oak of Mamre, even receives hospitably the archangel Michael, who comes to tell Abraham of his imminent death: "When Abraham saw the Commander-in-chief Michael coming from afar, in the manner of a handsome soldier, then Abraham arose and met him, just as was his custom to greet and welcome all strangers" (Í·Ë¸ÙÈ ÂËÔÚ ÂÈ˜ÂÌ ÙÔÈÚ ›ÈÓ›ÌÔÈÚ ÒÔÛı·ÌÙ·Ì Í·È ÂÈ‰Â˜¸-µÂÌÔÚ).66

There are further examples of the use of ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È in papyri and inscriptions that provide more telling parallels for the usage in 3 John 9 and 10 ("receive, accept") than the text Bauer cited (which we evaluated above). The

6 5 See Goldstein's observation: "The content of the letter begins with the typical Greek expla-nation of how the letter came to be sent, couched in typical Greek syntax" (1 Maccabees, 453). We are dealing with diplomatic commonplaces in this correspondence.

6 6 T. Abr. 2.2.1 cite the Greek text of Francis Schmidt, Le Testament grec d'Abraham: intro-duction, édition critique des deux recensions grecques, traduction (Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum 11; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986) 98-99, and the translation of E. P. Sanders, œ‘— 2.882. The alternate reading ıÔ‰Â˜¸µÂÌÔÚ, however, stands in the edition of Michael E. Stone, The Testament of Abraham: The Greek Recensions (SBLTT 2; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972) 4, which reprints the text of M. R. James (The Testament of Abraham: The Greek text now first edited with an introduction and notes [TextsS 2.2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892]). Because there is considerable debate about the relationship between the two recen-sions and their respective dates, one cannot say for sure whether this passage predates, is contem-porary with, or postdates 3 John (for the arguments see Sanders, OTP 2.871-80, and various essays in Studies on the Testament of Abraham, ed. George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jr. [SBLSCS 6; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976]).


best example is perhaps Sb 12084, a first-century CE letter from a certain Zoilos to his sister, Philoumene. He writes to warn her about a man named Ploutas, who has been in a fight with him and has taken his money. He charges her: "Do not entrust him with anything, nor indeed receive him" (my translation; ÎÔÈ¸Ì Ô‡Ì µÁË›Ì ·˝Ù˘ ‰È·flÛÙÂıÛÁÚ µÁ‰› µÁÌ ·ıÙ¸Ì ›ÂÈ‰›ÓÁÈ). Clearly the verb refers here to hospitable reception into her home, with also its concomitant social implication of friendship or enmity. Similar to this is the often-cited P.Oxy. 281.9-11 (also first century, ca. 20-50 CE), a complaint of a wife against her husband, who says that because he was poor and without support "I received him into my parents' house" (›„˛ µ›Ì Ô‡Ì ›È‰ÂÓ·µ›ÌÁ ·ıÙ¸Ì ÂÈÚ Ù· Ù˘Ì „ÔÌ›˘Ì µÔı ÔflÍÁÙfiÒÈ·).67«‚√‚ the sense of reception as hospitality is especially pronounced, although it is a more private act than the diplomatic or social texts we have presented (but a marital arrangement in a Greco-Roman context of course had significant public implications and consequences as well). From the same period comes a letter of Claudius to an association of traveling athletes under the name of Herakles, in which, after the customary announce-ment of reception of the decrees (in this case repeating their message about the thanksgivings they had proclaimed to the kings of Commagene and Pontus), Claudius says "I accepted/received you (for?) the thanksgiving you made to them" (ıµ‹Ú µ›Ì ÙÁÚ ÒÔÚ ·ıÙÔ˝Ú Âı˜·ÒÈÛÙfl·Ú ›Â‰ÂÓ‹µÁÌ).68 The combina-tion of public and private that we find in 3 John is perhaps more comparable to the literary text, Appian, B.Civ. 5.1.11, which refers to Cleopatra and Antony: "she received him splendidly" (π ‰› ·ıÙ¸Ì ›Â‰›˜ÂÙÔ Î·µÒ˛Ú). As in 3 John, the act of acceptance or rejection in this instance had much larger sociopolitical implications. Sb 7457, an honorary decree from Egypt, twice includes as an award for the honorée, a certain Paris, ›È‰›Ó·ÛË·È ‰› ÂÈÚ ÙÁÌ Û˝ÌÔ‰ÔÌ ‰˘ÒÂ‹Ì ÙÔıÚ ı' ·ıÙÔ˝ ÙÈµ˘µ›ÌÔıÚ ‹Ì‰Ò·Ú ÙÒÂÈÚ, "to receive/welcome into the associa-tion freely the three men honored by him."69 Once again we see the social con-ventions at work in the act of reception (or rejection), which form the same context as 3 John 9 and 10, for here acceptance of Paris involves also accep-tance of his intimates.70 Clearly the word ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È was in frequent use in

6 7 Trans. Bernard P. Grenfell and Arthus S. Hunt (The Oxyrynchus Papyri [London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1899] 2.272). This passage is cited by Preisigke, Wörterbuch [1925] 1.549, fol-lowed by LSJ, 630; Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch (1928), 454 and all subsequent edi-tions under gloss #1 ("receive as a guest"); Ã≈√¡ À≈Œ… œÕ, 3.2761.

6 8 My translation; text from ≈. M. Smallwood, Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) #374 (p. 104), lines 26-27.

6 9 Lines 17-18 and 31-32 (Preisigke, Wörterbuch [1971] 4/4.880). This usage is found as early as Herodotus (8.75).

70 An intriguingly brief inscription from Chalkis (undated) bears the following prescription: º Ú ·Ì –À≈…œÕ –«◊œ” ÛÍÁÌÔfl, ÙÔ[˝Ú] ÂflÛÂÒ˜Ô[µ]›ÌÔıÚ ›[]È‰›ÓÂÙ·È ("whoever settles more than a small measure will receive those who enter") (SEG 27 [1977] 146; my translation).


first-century texts in reference to hospitable reception, in private homes as well as in more formal diplomatic relationships and, most importantly, could well signify the complex intermixtures of public and private so characteristic of Greco-Roman social life.

IV. Conclusions

The influential Bauer entry on the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È is unfortunately both inaccurate and misleading. The initial step of splitting the meaning of the two uses of the verb in 3 John 9 and 10 should be questioned, first of all because it was based on some conception of distinction between literal and metaphorical senses that has wrongly been dropped from the lexical tradition and is no longer explictly named.71 Furthermore, the entry is unnecessarily specific in both glosses and thereby creates a false dichotomy in order to argue for the spe-cial sense of "recognize ones authority,, in 3 John 9, a meaning found neither in any of the examples cited there nor anywhere else in Greek literary or docu-mentary texts. Indeed, the translation equivalent "recognize one s authority," as we have seen, entered the lexical tradition not as a translation but as an expla-nation for the gloss "non repudio. " But that move has transferred a theoretical or possible reason for the action of acceptance or rejection into the meaning of the term itself, which is not justified. We must conclude from this evidence that there is no lexicographical support for translating ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È in 3 John 9 as "to recognize one s authority.,> Therefore, all translations that have rendered the verb thus and have called upon Bauer for support, must be reconsidered.72

In this case the simplest translation is also the most accurate: "Diotrephes does not receive us . . . he does not himself receive the brothers."7 3 The verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È should be translated the same way in both 3 John 9 and 10, although no current translation of the NT into English does so. This translation preserves the literal connection in the Greek and does not pretend to know more than the words themselves tell us about the source of the conflict being depicted.

7 1 Most important here is the early wisdom of Hugo Grotius: "Est µÂÙ˘Ìıµfl·. Non admittit nos, id est mónita nostra, ÛıÛÙ·ÙÈÍ¸Ú nostras" (Annotationum in Novum Testamentum [3 vols.; Paris: Pepingvé & Maucroy, 1650] 3.109).

72 This exercise in tracing the history of NT lexicography also provides an instructive illustra-tion of the considerable issues NT scholarship now faces, both in using the tools we have (such as Bauer) and in redoing these monumental lexicographical works, which, as we have seen here, have not only accumulated errors that have been passed from generation to generation but, even more seriously, have depended on a very small and often unjustifiable selection of lexical parallels. How we shall move from that to responsible and effective uses of technology that can give us exhaustive (but entirely unorganized and interpreted) lists of usages waits to be seen.

73 This is essentially the same translation as KJV: "Diotrephes . . . receiveth us no t . . . neither doth hee himselfe receive the brethren."


Contemporary semantics and lexicography have taught us that meaning resides not simply in words themselves but in words in context.74 What we have seen from the additional lexical evidence I have presented above, particularly the passages from Polybius, is that the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È was commonly used in Koine Greek texts to refer to diplomatic acceptance (or, in the negative, rejec-tion). Those examples also show that the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È in and of itself does not tell us of the motivation for that acceptance or rejection. However, the appropriate, specialized use of the term in this social realm can inform us fur-ther about the events underlying 3 John, for when seen in the context of Greco-Roman diplomatic conventions and customs, the "double rejection" of the elder and of the brothers that is signaled by 3 John 9 and 10 is readily under-standable. This convention has been best appreciated in recent scholarship by Abraham Malherbe, who pointed to conventions about letters of recommenda-tion such as we find in 3 John 12 for Demetrius, and probably in the prior letter of the elder to Diotrephes, as a key to interpreting 3 John:

In letters of recommendation such as the letter referred to in vs. 9 had been, the request on behalf of the persons recommended was that they be received for the sake of the writer. . . . The reception of the letter and its bearer proved the good will of the recipient toward the writer. It is such an under-standing of ÂÈ‰›˜Ôµ·È that is present in vss. 9 and 10. Diotrephes had shown his ill will toward the Elder by refusing his letter and his emissaries.75

To further Malherbe's argument, I would enlarge the frame of reference beyond private letters of recommendation to the larger sphere of diplomatic relations in the Greco-Roman world, which is inclusive of letters of recommen-dation.76 In that realm we find that it is a commonplace of diplomacy, as Philo puts it, that "the sufferings of envoys recoil on those who have sent them."7 7

Abundant further evidence documents this point as a commonplace of Greco-Roman diplomatic relations, both formal and informal.78 The relevance of this

7 4 E.g., J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961); J. P. Louw, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982).

7 5 Malherbe, "Inhospitality," 106-7. 7 6 Malherbe's argument points also in this direction in his incorporation of the diplomatic

passages in 1 Maccabees and Josephus ("Inhospitality," 106-7). To the degree that I also want to extend the frame of reference beyond the merely "private," to understand the wider cultural con-text of actions in Greco-Roman antiquity, I am in line with the critique of Malherbe by ¬. J. Malina ("The Received View and What It Cannot Do: III John and Hospitality," Semeia 35 [1986] 171-94). However, Malina's own generalizations are less compelling because he did not ground them in ancient texts and attestations to customs (he gives only a few passages from the OT and NT), which is what I am seeking to do here.

7 7 Leg.Gai. 369, · „·Ò ·Ì Ò›Û‚ÂÈÚ ˝Ôµ›Ì˘ÛÈÌ, Âfl ÙÔıÚ ›µ¯·ÌÙ·Ú Î·µ‚‹ÌÂÈ ÙÁÌ ‹Ì·ˆÔÒ‹Ì (text and trans, from E. M. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini Legatio ad Gaium Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary [2d ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1970]).

7 8 See Mitchell, "New Testament Envoys," esp. 644-49.


diplomatic commonplace to 3 John in particular can be anchored in two ways. First of all, we have seen already the preponderance of uses of the verb ›È-‰›˜ÂÛË·È in historical works to refer to diplomatic reception of envoys (the best examples cited above are 1 Mace 12:7-8; Polybius 32.13.1; 23.3.3; 21.18.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 1.63.1). This usage is further paralleled in actual diplomatic texts, where compounds of ‰›˜ÂÛË·È abound in reference to proper or improper diplomatic reception.79 I would suggest that this is the salient background within which we can understand 3 John. In rejecting the letter and envoys of the elder and denying them a hospitable reception into his house-church, Diotrephes was rejecting the elder himself and breaking off relations with him. In the first instance (v. 9) the elder named the implication of the same act of v. 10, that is, in not receiving the brothers whom he sent, Diotrephes did not receive the elder whom they represented. However, that does not tell us about the motivation for the act. The second anchor of this interpretation is the well-documented place of envoy conventions in the Johan-nine worldview, for in the Fourth Gospel (which is the major frame of refer-ence for the Epistles) we find explicit language about envoys, as in 13:20, a blanket statement of the diplomatic convention we are discussing: ¸ Î·µ‚‹Ì˘Ì ·Ì ÙflÌ· ›µ¯˘ ›µ› Î·µ‚‹ÌÂÈ. As is well known, John s Gospel is steeped in lan-guage about envoys, senders, and being sent, for the central Christology of the Gospel is that Jesus is "the one whom the Father has sent."80 Thus, Haenchen rightly argued that in John Jesus is "the divine legate/'81 This means that we need not merely postulate acquaintance of the elder with these widespread diplomatic conventions, for it is clear that they figure prominently in the com-mon parlance and cultural assumptions of this Johannine community. This is particularly true of the significance of proper reception or rejection of envoys, especially when we read 3 John next to the clearly related letter 2 John, in which the elder in turn gives his own recommendation for rejection of mission-ary envoys who do not bear the approved message (2 John 10). In not receiving the envoys and letter of the elder, Diotrephes was choosing not to receive the elder himself who had sent them.82 This is how the elder has interpreted the gesture which his envoys have reported back to him.

7 9 Ibid., 648 Á. 31 (with reference to further literature). Malherbe points to the common usage of ‰›˜ÂÛË·È compounds in the early church to refer to hospitality ("Inhospitality," 96, esp. n. 11), but regards it as a kind of special Christian "technical vocabulary" (paralleled in papyrus letters [pp. 102-3]). Instead, this is clearly a Christian appropriation and use of existing diplomatic termi-nology.

8 0 John 3:17, 34; 4:34; 5:23, 30, 36, 38; 6:29, 57; 7:16, 29, 33, 49; 8:29, 42; 10:36; 12:44, 45; 14:24; 15:21; 17:3, 8,18,21, 23, 25; 20:21, etc.

8 1 E. Haenchen, John (2 vols.; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 1.96. 8 2 See Bengel's note on v. 9 ("nimmt uns nicht an"): "Weder mich mit einem Empfehlungs-

schreiben, noch diejenigen, welche ich darin empfohlen habe" (J. A. Bengel, Gnomon Novi Testa-menti [3d ed., 1773; in German trans, of C. F. Werner, Gnomon: Auslegung des Neuen Testamentes


That is as far as this line of investigation can take us, and no farther. We cannot ascertain from this the motive for Diotrephes' rejection—personal, the-ological or political.83 The act of rejection in itself may imply rejection of the senders authority, but it need not, nor is there anything inherent in the word ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È that favors that possible motivation over the other plausible sug-gestions. There may or may not be further clues to the motivation of Dio-trephes' now infamous nonreception of the elder and his missives found in 3 John or in historical reconstruction of early church history (and commenta-tors have and will read these clues differently), but the verb ›È‰›˜ÂÛË·È is not one of them.84

in fortlaufenden Anmerkungen (Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfolger, 1932) 2.599]). See also Fred-erick W. Danker, Benefactor: Epigraphic Study of a Graeco-Roman and New Testament Semantic Field (St. Louis: Clayton, 1982) 445.

8 3 With Malherbe, "Hospitality," 107: "We must be content with the fact that we do not know what Diotrephes' reasons were for his conduct."

8 4 I would like to thank Prof. Frederick W. Danker for valuable comments on the final draft of this article.