Article

Journal for the Study of

‫ן ן‬ ‫■ן‬ · a · ‫ן‬ ‫ן‬ ‫ן‬ ^ ! the New Testament
G reek 3.nd the N ew Hellenistic 34)4(323-345
. . .a a ‫י‬ . » © The Author(s( 2012
:Testam ent: A S tylom etric Reprints and permission
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermisslons.nav 9
Perspective DOI:1 0 1 177/0142064X12442846
jsnt.sagepub.com

David L. Mealand
N ew College, University of Edinburgh

Abstract
N ew Testament texts are compared w ith texts from the Septuagint and from w rite rs
o f Standard Hellenistic Greek (SHG).The aim is to identify which texts are similar
in style to which, and which texts differ most from each other. The criteria which
are used are 30 very common words and word-endings: prepositions, conjunctions,
connectives, particles and some genitive endings. Such items are good stylistic markers
in Greek and o th e r languages. Results show firs t th at texts in a more Semitic Greek
(Revelation, 4 Kingdoms) differ m ost from Dionysius o f Halicarnassus and Polybius,
who make much more use o f δε, περί, κατά and the genitive endings. Some might
call this a difference o f dialect. Luke-Acts lies between these extremes.There is also a
second m ajor type o f difference between narratives and argumentative epistles, as the
latter make much greater use o f άλλα, y a p , ούν, ει, ού, μη. Speeches and treatises
lie between these extremes.This second difference is one o f genre o r register.

Keywords
Correspondence Analysis, Greek, New Testament, statistics, style, stylometry
(Technical terms marked * are explained in a concluding glossary.)

Introduction
The issue addressed here relates to a long-continuing debate over the extent to
which the Greek of the New Testament texts is similar to, or differs from, the
Greek of the Septuagint, or that of the Papyri, or of writings in Standard

Corresponding author:
David L. Mealand, Fellows Room, N ew College, University of Edinburgh, Mound Place, Edinburgh, EH I 2LX, UK
Email: d.mealand@ed.ac.uk
324 Journal for the Study of the NewTestament 34(4)

Hellenistic Greek, or of Greek technical treatises.1 The method to be used here

depends on counts of a set of 30 frequent Greek words and word-endings. The
use of these is counted in large samples of text, normally 5,000 words long. The
30 criteria are: άλλα, γά ρ, δέ, καί, μέυ, οόυ, άυ, 81, εάν, έω$,'ίυα, οπου, οταυ,
ού/ούκ/ούχ, μη, όπω $, από, ε κ , εκ, έυ, διά, κατά, μετά, περί, επί, πρό$,
-VT0 S, -υτωυ, -μέυου, -μέυωυ. These are ‘function words’*, i.e. they are words
(or word-endings) that mainly serve a syntactic function and are less related to
the topic or content of the text.2
The counts of the 30 items are used by a method that then works out which
texts are most similar to which other texts. It does this by grouping together texts
that use the same subset of words and word-endings more heavily. For example,
texts from Polybius and Plutarch use δέ, κατά, μέυ and the genitive endings
much more than do texts that favour καί such as Revelation, 4 Kingdoms and
Isaiah. There are also texts such as Paul and Acts which lie between these two
contrasting groups. Some would wish to call this divergence a difference of dia-
lect, but for present purposes it is sufficient to remain content with a more cau-
tious description of this stylistic divergence. The main contrast should for the
moment be characterized as that between some texts more heavily influenced by

1. The whole issue is very skilfully discussed in Alexander 2004 with reference to Luke-Acts.
The article takes in issues such as Atticism, diglossia, social dialect, register, classicism,
diachronic considerations, Fachprosa, imitation of the Septuagint, and code switching. Her
careful discussion of Greg H.R. Horsley’s critique of the notion of ‘Jewish Greek’ (1989) is
particularly relevant to the present topic. Chrys C. Caragounis (2004) gives fresh impetus to
the study of the diachronic development of the Greek language, and its importance for these
issues. The spread of texts to the left in Figure C in the present study matches different ways
in which NT writers are influenced by texts or oral traditions which were originally in Hebrew
or Aramaic. So Revelation is marked by significant amounts of quotation and allusion, Mark
by linguistic interference, parts of Luke and Acts by imitation. As Horsley argues, there is not
a consistent Jewish Greek syntax, morphology and phonology, but the statistics in this work
do show a greater preference for some frequent words, and a more notable disinclination to
use others, in some of these texts. This is most obvious in Revelation, somewhat less so in
Mark, and a different situation again obtains in Acts, where the author is capable of switching
codes to give a particular section a noticeably Septuagintal linguistic flavour, or even to flour-
ish a very occasional Atticism. There is some discussion of lexical choice in the penultimate
section of the present article, and the issue of variation between Hellenistic and Attic verb
forms is touched on in n. 15 below.
2. Function words are words such as connectives, conjunctions and prepositions, which are
associated with syntax rather than content, and have proved effective in stylometric studies
(Holmes 1998: 114). The criteria in the current work are the counts of divergent uses of some
30 function words in the different authors, and the distances between those authors on the
resulting statistical output. If there is less theory and more numerical emphasis in this work,
this is not because of any objection to linguistic theories. There is, however, a need to develop
better observational methods, which may ultimately be refined, and help to decide between
some of the rival theories.
Mealand 325

Figure A. Diagram showing authors Figure B. A word favoured by each author

Paul alia

Rev

Hebrew or Aramaic, and those texts (using Standard Hellenistic Greek) that con-
trast with them.
The method used also detects a second contrast between the texts. The
Pauline epistles occupy the middle ground on the first contrast, but are much
more distinctive in their use of other words from the list of criteria. Their use
of words such as α λ λ ά , γά ρ , ού, μη and iva is in the main much higher than
that in samples from other texts, and they use other words less. So on this
second scale the Pauline texts are highest, and contrast with texts such as
Markan narrative which are far lower. Other narratives are also low, while
Synoptic logia, Johannine discourse and the treatises of Philo lie between
these extremes.
Figure A is an initial much simplified diagram that illustrates the two-way
contrast. First a more Semitic writer to the left contrasts with a writer of
Standard Hellenistic Greek to the right. Secondly, argumentative epistles are
much higher up than texts with more narrative in them. The simplified dia-
gram shows only the bare outline; the statistical plot shown later has more
accurate detail.
Figure B is a second simplified diagram which shows three of the words asso-
ciated with these texts. So καί is used more heavily by Revelation (as also by 4
Kingdoms and Mark). The connective δε is used far more by Polybius (and also
by the samples from Plutarch, Josephus, Dionysius and Philo). Other words are
also used more by one of these groups than by another, but more of that will be
displayed in due course. For the second contrast one can note that Paul is the
heaviest user of the connective αλλά, but several other words are also character-
istic of texts at the upper end of the contrast between narrative and epistle.
Table 1 shows the figures for three words in samples from three authors, with the
highest usage for each word in bold.
326 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34(4)

Table I. Counts in samples of the same size from three authors

καί άλλα δε

Rom. 169 60 i 14
1 Cor. 195 57 151
Polyb. 215 7 221
Rev. 696 4 3

Texts more like Revelation, which use more of the words favoured by
Revelation, will be ‘pulled5towards the lower left. Texts more like Paul, which use
several of the words favoured by Paul, will be pulled up the chart towards Paul.
And texts more like Polybius, which use more of the words he favours, will be
pulled more to the lower right. The same is true for the location of the words and
word-endings. Words used more by Revelation, Mark and 4 Kingdoms will appear
towards the lower left. Words favoured by Paul such as γά ρ and ουυ will cluster
towards the top centre area. Other words more favoured by Polybius and Dionysius,
such as genitive participles, περί and κατά will cluster in the lower right.
What has just been described may sound impressionistic, but the reality is that
the statistical method being used is doing what is described above in a carefully
measured manner, so that precise calculations are made from the word-counts,
and the distances between the texts result from the different way the words and
word-endings are used in those texts. The method takes account of all the sam-
pies and all the criteria in doing what it does, but that is more a matter for the
main sections than for this introduction.

Stylom etric m ethods and the selection of samples

Stylometric studies regularly use sets of words that are found frequently in texts,
though some analyses of novels containing many thousands of words do also
make use of rarer features. The texts to be examined here include some that are
only a few thousand words long, and for this purpose it is essential to select
words that are frequent in the texts. As content words are more likely to be attrib-
utable to the conscious choice of the authors, and to vary with subject matter,
there is good reason to prefer function words (Holmes 1998: 113-14). Some
recent work reported by J. José Alviar (2008) has also used patterns of repetition
of character strings* (i.e. sequences of letters such as 6in the5) or distances
between repetitions of words used more than once in a text.3 But those features

3. He does not give a specific example, but presumably one would be the count of the average
number of words (or letters) between successive instances of καί in Mark. The article by
Alviar (2008) does offer a very informative report on work using data compression meth-
ods based on information theory. One line used PPM (prediction by partial match) checking
Mealand 327

are not used here. The function words used here include connectives, conjunc-
tions, prepositions and a set of four genitive endings mainly used in genitive
participial constructions. The function words include familiar Greek words such
as δε, καί, γάρ, sí and sis as listed in the introductory section above. The counts
for δέ average 20 per 1,000 words in the NT, but vary between the samples of
text. The technical name for these key words when used in statistical analysis is
that they are variables*, as their frequency varies from text to text.
In order to ensure that passages of text are reasonably representative of the
works from which they are taken, texts are normally divided into several sam-
pies. (The technical term for this is that they are partitioned*.) The spread of
these samples then gives a clear indication of the extent of internal consistency
within a text. Partitioning of data in this way is a crucial element in using statis-
tics. In this article, however, larger cumulated samples are used in order to focus
on the main comparisons between 23 samples from 16 very different authors or
groups of authors. The partitioned set consisting of a very much larger number
of samples of normal size was also tested, and results for that may be presented
elsewhere, though they are more briefly reported here.
A brief point needs to be made about scale on the axes* on the plots, i.e. the
scale along the base of the plot, and that up the left side of the plot. An important
stipulation for the statistical method used here is that the scales on the axes of the
plots must match. If the same number of points is allotted to each axis*, then the
plot must be square. It is essential for statistical reasons that the plot should only
be oblong, as in Figure C, when the number of points on one axis is extended,
never as a result of presentational or printing vagaries. This ensures that dis-
tances between text data points are comparable. The horizontal scale* (left to
right at the foot of the plot) shows 60 basis points to the left, and 80 to the right
(0.01 is one basis point).

successive sequences of characters (letters, spaces etc.) in a text, and in each case the prob-
ability of correctly predicting the next character. The researchers ran this on each NT text,
and also on a sample of that text combined with a sample of one of the others. The difference
in results enabled a ‘distance’ between books to be estimated. Another method (LZ77) used
repetitions of sequences of characters (letters etc.), again comparing samples from one book
with mixed samples from a pair of books. This produced a table of distances between pairs of
books, and an affinity tree. A third method used the distances between repetitions of a word.
These methods have as yet involved little pre-processing of texts so, presumably, quotations
may not have been removed. They also do not, so far, take account of genre changes between
and within texts. Despite these drawbacks, the figures in the table for the NT books most dis-
tant from, and closest to, each other are in the main generally comparable with results in this
article and elsewhere, though they do not capture features that are clearer when other texts
from the NT era are included, and when the data are further partitioned into samples of 1,000
words. It is also to be hoped that, as methods such as PPM are refined, it might be possible
to identify which words are implicated in the strings of characters that contribute most to the
outcome.
328 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34(4)

The set of large samples used here consists mainly of samples containing
5,000 words of text each. These were obtained by combining groups of samples
of 1,000 words from a range of authors broadly contemporary with the NT. The
set of larger combined or cumulated samples depends on this more numerous set
of normal samples. A description of the process of selecting these samples fol-
lows, as it draws attention to steps necessary for the statistical analysis.
There were 91 regular 1,000 word samples from the NT, and these represent
almost two thirds of the entire text of the NT, in fact 65.9% of the total 138,019
words in the NT. Normally quotations were excised from the samples, and pas-
sages of very unusual style such as genealogies, or lists of greetings, were either
avoided or carefully flagged. The samples were classified as containing narrative
or speech, or as being of mixed genre. They were also cross-classified by author,
and where appropriate by source. There were a further 87 samples from other
Greek texts of the Hellenistic and Roman period making 178 samples in all. With
178 samples and 30 criteria the original table of data held 5,340 observations.*
(An observation is the count of a given word in a given sample of text.) The set
of 23 large samples was derived from 114 of the 178 by cumulating these sam-
pies into larger blocks. Normally 5 samples of 1,000 words each were combined
to make a larger sample of 5,000 words.4As the same 30 criteria were counted in
these 23 large samples, the latter produced 690 observations.

Interpreting the distances between the texts

The main method used is Correspondence Analysis*, which is one of a family of
multivariate* statistical methods. (Multivariate methods use many criteria simul-
taneously. The reason for using Correspondence Analysis here is that it shows
not only which texts are associated with, or distant from, each other, but also
which common words each text favours, or avoids.) It can assess the data from
the counts of 30 words in 23 or 178 samples, and identify the major types of
diversity in the texts. The largest and most significant contrast between the texts
is placed on the first dimension* (the base line running left to right) of a series of
plots. The first plot placed 4 Kingdoms on the far left at 53 points left of centre,
and Polybius on the far right some 68 points the other side of centre. They are
thus separated by 121 points. Revelation, Isaiah and Mark are also pushed
towards the lower left by their heavier use of καί, εν and other words, and lesser
use of δε, κατά, μεν and the genitive endings. Polybius and his associates
Plutarch, Dionysius and the like do the opposite; they make less use of καί, and
much more use of δε, κατά, μέν and the genitive endings. The statistical output

4. The sample from Hebrews was slightly shorter at 4,000 words; the method can cope with this.
Mealand 329

includes items that make it clear that these texts differ most5 and which criteria
are most implicated.6
The first major contrast between the texts is shown as that between texts on
the left and those on the right. The second major contrast in the style of the texts
is shown as that between texts that are lower on the plot and those that are much
higher. On the second contrast, Markan narrative was quite low )‫ ־‬. 34(, 4
Kingdoms even lower (-.44) and the major Pauline epistles very high (+.49 to
The scale for this second contrast runs up and down the left side of the .)55.+
plot. Again further statistics show that the different words favoured by Paul and
-the texts on the lower left make them the main contributors to this second con
trast. A plot of the first two dimensions provides a map that takes account of the
two major features of the data. These two contrasts account for just over 60% of
the information yielded by the method about the variation in style contained in
the counts of the 30 criteria in the 23 large samples of text.7
That gives rise to the first conclusion from the evidence. This is that the first
dimension (running left to right) contrasts a text evidently translated from
Hebrew with one by a historian who produces literary Hellenistic Greek, and the
relative distance separating many other texts between these extremes is now evi‫־‬
dent on the scale in the plot shown. The second dimension reveals a genre effect
as narrative texts are lower, speeches and treatises are higher, and highest of all
.are the major Pauline epistles
Correspondence Analysis (CA) plots locations for the 30 criteria, as well as
for the samples of text. This is one of the main reasons for preferring this method
over its close relation, Principal Components Analysis. CA shows the location of
the key function words and endings, either on the same plot as that showing the
-samples of text, or on a matching plot (see Figure D, shown later). So, for exam
pie, it is evident that the major Paulines appear high on the second contrast. It
will become apparent later that high on that dimension in Figure D are the Greek
words άλλα, ουν, yáp , εϊ, μη. These words are characteristic of speech and
.treatises, but especially so for argumentative epistles
So far this article has focused on the major contrasts, as these account for the
major part of the variation identified by the statistical method. CA checks the
counts for each of the words in each of the samples, it identifies the two main

5. The texts that contrast most with each other have the highest values in a column of numbers
in the numerical output. This is located by searching for the column listed as showing the
contribution* that each row of data makes to the first dimension, or first component, i.e. to the
major contrast.
6. There is a similar column of numbers showing which criteria score highly as contributing to
the major contrast on the first dimension.
7. The figure (60.56%) is described more technically as the proportion of inertia* or variance*
explained, i.e. the amount of variation in the use of the criteria in the texts explained by the
method. (Johannine narrative accounts for a further tranche of the variation, see n. 10 below.)
330 Journal for the Study of the NewTestament 34(4)

Dim2

0 .6 -

0.4 ‫־‬

0.2 ‫־‬

0.0 ‫־‬

- 0 .2 ‫־‬
DHJos

- 0.4 ‫־‬

- 0 .6 -
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Dim1

Figure C. Plot showing large samples from first-century and related Greek texts
,DH=Dionysius, lgn=lgnatius & Early Christian Epistles, Heb=Hebrews,Jn=John,Jos=Josephus, Lk=Luke
Mt=Matthew, Mk=Mark, Polyb=Polybius, PI ut= Plutarch, Rev=Revelation, Sept=Septuagint
Dim I & 2 = 60.56% Dim I ‫ ־‬File = f3 la.sas Dat = dat705b5 69.15% = 3

contrasts and puts the first on the horizontal (left-right) scale, the other on the
vertical scale. Texts that are closer together differ much less in style, and so
the two scales measure which texts are most distant and which most similar in
the light of the stylometric evidence. The plot does not show every stylistic fea-
ture of the texts, as it is a stylometric not a stylistic view of the texts, though it is
broadly based. It uses the evidence derived from the 23 samples, and the counts
of 30 varied words (or word-endings) in each of those samples. The method
could be adapted to explore other aspects of style if they can be counted
sufficiently frequently, but some, perhaps more than some, aspects of style will
rightly remain the proper area for qualitative appraisal. Stylometry has focused
on function words, as Authorship Attribution studies have shown the use of func-
tion words and syntactic features to be much more reliable than many other
Mealand 331

criteria (see Tweedie et al. 1998: 78). Where longer texts are explored, the stylis-
tic effects of lexical choice can be added to the repertoire, but that is not appro-
priate here.
Had all 178 samples and 30 criteria been used for this article, a densely popu-
lated scatter plot would have been presented. For this reason the plot shown was
based on a set of larger combined samples. In all but one case these amalgamate
5 separate 1,000-word samples into samples of 5,000 words. Using larger sam-
pies of 5,000 words allows a careful check that the main conclusions drawn from
the regular samples of 1,000 words also hold true when larger samples are avail-
able and vice versa, and that is a valuable corroboration. The first plot focuses on
the distances between groups of samples belonging to the main authors. Not
included here is a further plot, which partitions (sub-divides) the data more finely
and reveals the extent of within-author variability. Adequate partitioning of the
data is a crucial statistical requirement for exploring the extent of within-author
variation, but in this case produces much more complex output.
For several groups there are two large samples: one of narrative, the other of
speech. This applies to LXX texts on the left, and to Mark, Matthew and to the
Johannine texts. Josephus supplied two large samples of narrative and one of
speech, but the latter is not evident as it is located where Philo appears. In all five
cases the speech sample is higher on the plot than the equivalent narrative sam-
pie. It is this which supports the second member of the first conclusion that the
difference between higher and lower samples captures the contrast between
speech and narrative. Douglas Biber has paid particular attention to the stylistic
differences between speech and writing, but he has also, in two of his major
works, noted how significant the differences are between narrative and speech
(Biber 1988: 17-18; 1995: 226). Here that difference forms the second major
contrast, but even more significant, in these texts, is the fact that the left-right
contrast opposes translated texts to those freely composed in literary Hellenistic
Greek. Figure C will now be examined in more detail, starting in the lower left
of the plot and proceeding in a clockwise direction thereafter.
In the lower left comer of the plot there is one large sample from the LXX and
one from Revelation. The first of these samples is from 4 Kingdoms. It is
significant that Revelation is so close to it and also, on the more detailed plots, to
Daniel and 1 Maccabees. Even when allowance is made for the quotations and
allusions in the Revelation passages, this degree of closeness is striking.
(Revelation was the main exception to the policy of removing quotations from
samples due to its unusually rich mixture of quotation and allusion.) A careful
study by Steve Moyise (1999) concludes that the author used both Hebrew and
Greek biblical texts, and is commendably cautious in stating that it is not clear
whether he preferred the former. The evidence in this plot simply points to a sty-
lometric similarity to LXX texts that remained close to Hebrew. Above 4
332 Journal for the Study of the NewTestament 34(4)

Kingdoms is a sample of speech from the LXX. This large combined sample
contains texts from Deuteronomy, 3 Kingdoms and Isaiah. This is the first instance
of speech samples appearing higher on the plot than samples of narrative. (Had
they been included here, Genesis and Proverbs would appear more centrally in
the plot, as more polished Greek translations.) Another item in this comer of the
plot is the large sample of narrative from Mark. At -.33 on the horizontal scale it
is a relatively short distance of 17-20 points from 4 Kingdoms (-.53) and
Revelation (-.50). This indicates that most Markan narrative shares some fea-
tures of the Greek of these texts, but to a lesser degree. In this case the Semitic
influence is more likely due to Aramaic (on this, see Maloney 1981 ; Casey 1998).
In the more detailed plot, not shown here, two smaller samples from later in Mark
appear slightly further to the right, and these tend to confirm the conclusion of
Voelz that some later sections of Mark are somewhat ‘more hellenic’ (2005: 231-
32,246-48), though his careful qualifications should be noted. (For discussion of
a heavier use of δέ in some later sections of Mark, see Mealand 1997: 241-42.)
The second conclusion is that the location of 4 Kingdoms gives stylometric
support to the view that it represents a style of translation that stays much nearer
to the underlying Hebrew text. Similarly, Revelation is a work in Greek stylo-
metrically close to Daniel. The style of the prophets distressed Jerome, and the
location of Isaiah gives stylometric support to the distinction between these
works and the more polished parts of the LXX. These works are not identical in
style to each other, but are all at a very significant distance some 80 to 90 points
from writers such as Dionysius and those near him. A third conclusion can also
be added here that much of Markan narrative shares some of these features, but
to a lesser degree.
In the centre left of the plot are samples of speech from Mark and from Luke,
and of speech and narrative from Matthew. Had more narratives from Luke been
included here they would have been closer to the lower sample of Matthaean
narratives, as is the case on more detailed plots. Had samples of narrative from
Genesis been included they would have appeared between Markan narrative and
Acts. Genesis is less distant from regular Hellenistic Greek, and probably repre-
sents an earlier somewhat more literary style of translation, later superseded by
a passion to mirror the underlying Hebrew more exactly.
Further up the left hand side of the plot are the two large samples from the
Johannine texts. The Johannine narratives do appear in the upper centre left, but
noticeably more towards the centre of the plot. Further to the upper left is the
sample combining material from the first Johannine epistle and from the dis-
courses in the Fourth Gospel (Jn). When separate, the epistle is further to the left
than the discourses, and this favours the conclusion that there is stylometric
confirmation of the more Semitic character of some aspects of this work, while
its place fairly high up the plot indicates its affinity with other epistles.
Mealand 333

At the top centre of the plot are the samples from the major Pauline letters.
There is a group of three large samples from Paul here, in which 1 Corinthians is
more central and Romans slightly to the right. Below the samples from Paul
comes the sample containing passages from Ignatius and 1 Clement (Ign). The
major Pauline letters are in an extreme position on the second contrast due to
heavy use of argumentative particles, but are quite central on the first. So Paul is
central between the more Semitic texts on the left and the more Hellenic ones to
the right. But, at 49 to 55 points above the centre of the plot, Paul represents the
upper limit of a trajectory from narrative samples in the lower half of the plot,
through samples of Synoptic sayings and treatises of Philo, beyond Hebrews
(+.13) and Johannine discourse and epistle (+.31), and even beyond other epis-
ties. The fifth conclusion is therefore that the major Pauline letters are the highest
on the plot, and so on the upper end of the scale separating epistles and treatises
from narrative.
The upper right comer of the plot is relatively uninhabited, though in more
detailed plots one of the Greek technical writers does appear further to the upper
right than Philo and Plutarch’s treatises. Also, had a sample from Epictetus been
included here it would have appeared between Hebrews and Romans. Closer to
the centre are Hebrews (Heb) in the upper centre right and Acts in the lower
centre right. Hebrews is higher up the plot, closer to other letters and treatises,
whereas Acts at 19 is slightly below the centre of the plot, as it contains a mix-
ture of narrative and speech (Mealand 1999: 488). To the right of Hebrews there
are two samples which almost overlap. They are so close that the plot can only
display one label for them. The label that is visible is that for the selection from
Philo’s treatises, the other, which is hidden in the statistical output, is that for the
speeches from the works of Josephus. There are limits to what can be displayed
by the statistical software, which would prefer to use a single symbol where the
centre of each name or abbreviation is shown. The need to display precise loca-
tion and the desire to make the items clearly identifiable conflict. As the texts
spread further to right on the horizontal scale Acts is at +.12, Hebrews at +.16,
Philo at +.35 and Dionysius at +.36. The sixth conclusion is that the plot provides
stylometric evidence that Acts and Hebrews are the works that come closer than
other NT texts to Hellenistic writers such as Dionysius (DH), Plutarch and
Polybius, who appear further to the right.
Below the samples from Philo and the speeches in Josephus are the large
sample from Dionysius of Halicarnassus (DH), two samples of narrative from
Josephus (Jos), and a mixed sample from Plutarch (Plut). In the lower right-hand
comer, the large sample from the earlier historian Polybius (Polyb) is close to the
right-hand edge of the plot, in fact the horizontal scale was extended by 20 points
from 0.6 to 0.8 to ensure that Polybius was not out of range. These texts tend to
make much more use of δε, κατά, περί, μεν and -υ τω ν. Josephus is said to have
334 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34(4)

needed assistance to improve his Greek. If this is the case then the assistance
seems to have worked, at least as far as the criteria used here are concerned. This
follows from the seventh conclusion that Philo and Josephus are close to
Dionysius and Plutarch, something that is even more obvious in the more detailed
plots.
It is now appropriate to return to the interpretation of the plot. The texts that
appear to the right of the centre are those composed in standard literary Hellenistic
Greek, while some of the more faithfully Hebraic texts from the LXX appear in
the lower left comer of the plot along with NT texts directly or indirectly influ-
enced by Hebrew or Aramaic. Speech, treatises and epistles appear higher up the
plot, and this is especially the case for the major Pauline epistles.
The Johannine texts tend towards the upper left, and the Synoptic Gospels
cluster loosely in the centre left, with Mark further to the left than Matthew and
Luke. Acts and Hebrews are in the centre right, the centre being above the point
0.0 on the horizontal scale. Plots of the 1,000-word samples show Genesis to the
left of Acts, Proverbs to its upper left, and 2 Maccabees to its right. The Greek of
the LXX is diverse and Acts is closest to those LXX texts which are themselves
not so far from standard literary Hellenistic Greek.
It should be observed that the statistical system simply identifies differences
of usage of the selected function words in the various samples of text. The over-
all contrast that accounts for the largest amount of variation is shown left to
right.8 The interpretation also rests on the association between the samples and
the criteria, namely the function words that characterize the style of the different
authors and texts. This leads to further conclusions drawn from the evidence,
which are obtained by inspecting the location of the function word criteria or
variables. On the plot that has just been examined these are almost, but not quite,
hidden, as they are represented by anonymous dots.

Th e Relation between th e Texts and the W ords they Use

In fact Correspondence Analysis could display the symbols for samples and for
the criteria all on one plot. This is not done here in order to avoid overloading the
display with overlapping labels. In the next scatter plot the dots are replaced by
the labels that identify the criteria, and now it is the samples that are displayed
only as dots. One can infer, from the location of the key word variables, which
words are preferred or avoided by the texts. An initial rule of thumb is that words
that appear in the same quadrant as a given set of texts are likely to be used more
heavily by those texts.

8. Different software can sometimes reverse this. This is not of importance as it is the interpreta-
tion o f the contrast which is significant, not whether that is displayed left to right or right to
left, though the interpreter may sometimes feel as if a journey has been taken through a mirror.
Mea land 335

Dim2

0.6 an hina
alia
. oun
ei
mh gar
0.4
ou dia

0.2 en
hot an
lo p ou
hopws
kata
an
0.0 eteis de
apo

hews
-ntwn peri
‫־‬ 0 .2 pros
-ntos
kai
—m enou

-0.4 ~ m e ta
epi

- 0 .6 ‫״‬ -‫ך‬------T
‫־‬0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Dim1

Figure D. Plot showing criteria for the plot of large samples

It should be noted that the display of the criteria in Figure D is determined by

the graphic capabilities of the statistical software. If the exploration of this plot
begins by checking the lower left comer, it is possible to identify words that
appear in the same quadrant as the more Hebraic of the LXX texts and Markan
narrative. The connective καί duly appears here but also ecos and από. Some
might expect to find εν here as well, but in fact this preposition is above the cen-
tre line of the chart, and this is almost certainly due to the prominence of this
word also in the Johannine texts. Further function words also characterize the
texts on the upper left of the plot. These are οπου, δταν, εάν and"! va (for the
latter pair, see Table 3 below). So the inference can be made here that these vari-
ables are more characteristic of the Johannine and other texts that appear on the
upper left of the previous plot, just as the variables in the lower left quadrant are
more characteristic of the texts located there.
This plot needs to be seen in close relation to the previous one showing the
texts. The Greek words used as variables tend to be used more heavily by the
texts shown in the same quadrant o f the plot as these words (on this, see Garson
336 Journal for the Study of the NewTestament 34(4)

2008). Similarly, words shown in more distant areas of the plot tend to be used
less frequently by texts that are distant from them.9
So when Figure C and Figure D are studied together, they present a stylistic
profile of different texts. Each text tends to use some of the key words more, and
others less, than the other texts. Texts that are close to one another tend to be
similar in style in relation to their use o f the 30 criteria selectedfor this study. In
fact this proviso applies generally to the various conclusions reached here. In
theory, different variables might produce a different result, though care has been
taken to choose a variety of criteria so as to ensure that a representative set of
frequent stylistic features was used.
Narrative sections of the Fourth Gospel are also distinctive in other ways.
They make so much more use of ouv and οπου that this feature actually forms a
third contrast in which the large Johannine narrative sample is very distinct. This
third contrast cannot be pursued here, but the conclusion that it highlights dis-
tinctive features of Johannine narrative that are statistically identifiable can sim-
ply be noted in passing.10
The discussion so far has pointed towards the inference that the texts from the
LXX and Revelation and from the Gospels not only generally make more use of
εν and καί, but also a range of other function words on the left of Figure D. Now
the focus of attention shifts to the Pauline epistles at the top of the plot, where the
task is to find which criteria are associated with the major letters of Paul. The
obvious candidates are αλλά, γά ρ, ouv, si, où and μη. These words appear in the
area at the top centre of the present plot, an area occupied by Romans, Corinthians
and Galatians in the previous plot. They are likely to be characteristic of the
argumentative style of Paul. The role of words such as these for the interpretation
of Paul was noted and explored by Kritzer and Arzt-Grabner (2006). Their focus
was on words such as ôvxcoç, π α ν τώ ?, διόπερ, έ'ιπερ and ούχί, their usage in
Paul and in the papyri, and their meaning in the Pauline context. The focus of this
work is more stylistic, and here a comparison of the usage of Paul, Philo and
Mark confirms the interpretation of the output from Correspondence Analysis.
Table 2 gives the totals for the five words listed, first in 5,000 words of Romans,

9. With Correspondence Analysis one can compare the position of one text with that of another,
and the position of one criterion with another. Comparing positions of texts and criteria needs
more care. On this see Greenacre 1984: 65. His description implies that given the location of
the texts a function word ‘tends.. .in the direction’ of the texts that use that word more heav-
ily. A similar view (see Micheloud 1997) starts by locating the centre of the plot, and then
infers that texts and criteria lying in a similar direction from the centre are associated. Also,
if a text lies in one direction, and other criteria in the opposite direction from the centre, then
the text probably makes much less use of those words.
10. This accounts for a further amount of the variation in the use of the criteria by the different
texts, raising the amount identified here from 60.56% to 69.15%. Narrative from the Fourth
Gospel makes little use of γάρ and κατά and is relatively low on ε’ι, εν, and διά as well.
Mealand 337

and then in samples of 5,000 words from Philo, and from Markan narrative. In
each case the number for Romans is highest, showing the preference for these
words. This presents one set of data showing why the major Paulines and the
words they favour are higher on the plot than Philo, and much higher than
Markan narrative, which has the lowest scores for these words.
Table 2. Word counts in samples of the same size from Paul, Philo, and Mark

άλλα yáp ouv 81 ou μη

Romans 60 111 37 40 87 51
Philo 39 82 27 25 49 23
Mark (n) 14 23 1 15 34 10

A programme called Word Cluster identified a section of 1 Corinthians rich in

such words:

1 Cor. 11.16-20 If anyone is...contentious...we do not recognize...I do not

commend.. .not for the better but for the worse.. .for when.. .for there must b e.. .so
that.. .may be recognized.. .when therefore...

The conclusion can now be drawn that the extreme position of the major Pauline
epistles reflects their heavier use, in the selected samples, of a set of argumenta-
tive particles consisting of connectives, conditionals and negatives, also high
above the centre of the plot.11
Now it is time to explore the right of the plot, where there are words and
wordendings that are likely to be more characteristic of the Greek historical
authors, and of Philo and Josephus, who also appeared on the right of the initial
display. In the lower centre right a set of endings can be seen which largely
denote genitive participles: - v t o s ‫־‬, -vxcov, -μένου, -μένων. The last of these is
beyond the right-hand edge of the plot, as is the particle μεν. Also prominent on
the right of the plot are prepositions such as περί and κατά. The statistical out-
put clearly links these words and word-endings, characteristic of rhetorical con-
trasts and genitive absolutes, with Hellenistic Greek writers such as Polybius,
Dionysius, Plutarch, Philo and even the more diffident Josephus. Once again a
check with the table of data is needed. A comparison of the data for Polybius and
Dionysius12 against the data for Johannine narrative confirms the interpretation
of Figure C and Figure D. Table 3 shows that these Johannine texts do prefer dif-
ferent words (though Jn 16 uses περί a little more).

11. Here, as elsewhere, the inferences are drawn from the set of 23 larger samples of 5,000 (or
4,000) words each. They are normally checked against the greater detail to be had from the
178 samples of 1,000 words each. On particles and conjunctions in Pauline style, see also
Spencer 1998: 8, 30-39.
12. Results are similar for Josephus and Philo, though use of περί is less in speeches in Josephus.
338 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34(4)

Table 3. Word counts in samples of the same size from Johannine and other texts

μεν -μένων κατά περί εάν 'iva

Polyb (12357) 94 28 60 42 0 0
DH (1-5) 57 13 38 25 2 4
Jn (ACDGH) 3 2 4 11 11 46

It is reasonable to conclude that the authors on the right make greater use of rhe-
torical contrast, and of genitive participles, and also of these two prepositions. It
is also appropriate to infer a lower use of the key words on the other side of the
scatter plot, and the raw data support this.
There are also a number of function words that are located in the centre and
the lower centre of the plot. The role of these is more difficult to determine, as
items that appear in the centre of the plots tend to be those that are less distinc-
tive. The main interpretative task is to establish the relation between the criteria
that appear outside the central area, but within the area occupied by the bulk of
the samples. Care is sometimes needed where an outlying variable is very dis-
tant, but represents only a few instances of the use of a word. The words that are
used with higher frequency are normally the more significant indicators.
The results explored so far show that the set of 23 large samples is variously
distributed across Figure C, and that the criteria or function word variables are also
variously distributed across Figure D. Further analysis has explored the relation-
ship between texts and variables where they occupy the same segment of the plot.
Where this is the case the analysis has checked whether it is right to infer that the
similarity of location on the plot points to an association of the samples and the
variables. This inference should never be made too swiftly, as analysis of CA plots
shows that such inferences may well be correct in most cases, but do need to be
checked against the relevant table of data. The checks shown above have demon-
strated how the interpretations offered can be shown to be supported by the data.

O th e r aspects of the statistical output

Although it might appear that the account given so far rests mainly on an analysis
of the scatter plots shown, it is crucial to note that other information is taken into
account. This further information is contained in large quantities of statistical
data produced by Correspondence Analysis which provide the basis for the pro-
duction of the plots. This information has been noted from time to time.13

13. The additional data include tables giving the precise co-ordinates on the plot for each sam-
pie, and for each key word variable, and this information underpins the interpretation where
samples from two authors overlap, as is the case with Philo and one of the Josephus sam-
pies. The output also includes plots of further contrasts, each accounting for successively
Mealand 339

Judgments have been offered about the association between the texts and the
30 criteria. These judgments rest on inferences that texts located in the same
direction from the centre as a given criterion make more use of that word, and
that samples of text distant from a word make less use of it. Also it is normally
right to infer that texts that are close to one another are more similar in style than
those that are further apart. But the plots contain large numbers of samples and
variables, and the locations of each depend on their multiple relations to all of the
others. These tests are multivariate, i.e. they use a multiplicity of samples and
criteria, and as a result the output is complex. As well as looking at the items just
mentioned, some separate checks can also be made. Tables 2 and 3 show how
direct use can be made of the raw data from the counts for each text. Another
check involves plotting the raw data for each key word and for each text, and
studying the resulting output. It is also possible to construct tables of means
(averages) for each of the criteria in each group of texts. It is not appropriate in
this context to give details for every instance of such additional tests, but one
further example should be included here.
The next graph displays a much curtailed version of a check carried out on one
connective. The check aims to discover if one of the inferences from the
Correspondence Analysis plots is correct. Is it the case, for example, that δέ is
more frequently used by writers on the right of the plots than it is by the writers
on the left of the plots? It may not seem surprising that this is so, but it is possible
to check if it is so, and indeed that should be done. In this case reliance is not
being placed on impressionistic estimates of differences in style, nor on the pro-
nouncements of experts who merely assert that it is so. The figures can be
checked, and that check should be made. As well as looking at the raw numerical
data, the reliability of the inferences was checked by making a table of means for
several of the groups of authors or texts. Even better is to show both the mean
and some measure of the extent of variation from the mean such as one standard
deviation* or two standard errors*.14

smaller proportions of the variation in the way the texts use the words. For example, the way
Johannine narrative forms a third contrast with the other texts was considered in n. 10 above.
Also two of the columns of statistics show which texts and which criteria contribute most
heavily to the two main contrasts discussed, as was seen in nn. 5 and 6 above.
14. The first of these calculates the average for each group, and the average variation from aver-
age within the group. The second does that and then makes a further adjustment for the num-
ber of samples in the group. A large amount of output was produced for the 178 samples of
1,000 words giving means and standard deviations, and then producing plots of the means
and one standard deviation for each variable in each set of samples of text. The resulting plots
show clearly how groups of texts differ from each other in their use of each function word in
turn. This kind of test has to be done on groups of 1,000 word samples, as a mean and standard
deviation is required for each group of texts.
340 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34(4)

In te rva l Plot o f de
Bars are 2 Standard Errors from the Mean
60-1 60

40-

20‫־‬

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Group

Figure E. Plot showing the use of δε in groups of samples from eight sources
4 Kingdoms (n), Revelation, Mark (n), Papyri, Genesis (n), Acts, Dionysius, Polybius

For the larger combined samples a slightly different approach was followed.
Several of the samples were re-divided into their original 1,000-word constitu-
ents. This was necessary, as a mean for each group is required. Software pack-
ages vary slightly, and in this instance Figure E displays the mean and two
standard errors. The resulting profile of each group gives an indication of varia-
tion in the use of δε relative to group size.
The plot shown here displays means and two standard errors for the following
groups, each containing a set of samples of 1,000 words (n signifies narrative
samples): 4 Kingdoms (n), Revelation, Mark (n), Papyri, Genesis (n), Acts,
Dionysius and Polybius. The groups are numbered 1-8.
The samples from 4 Kingdoms show a nil use of the particle, and so no stan-
dard error! The samples from Revelation are only slightly less wary of this par-
tide. Mark and the selected papyri use the particle slightly more. There is a clear
difference between the four groups on the left and the four on the right. The
groups of texts more to the right do use the word at a higher rate, and this is evi-
dently more characteristic of standard Hellenistic Greek prose. The samples
from Genesis appear in the latter group, even though Genesis is just as much a
translation from Hebrew as 4 Kingdoms, but into more polished Greek.
The difference between 4 Kingdoms and Genesis almost certainly reflects dif-
ferent translation strata, and different translators, and very probably different
convictions about how closely a translation should preserve the structure and
idioms of the original language. A translation that is closer to the Hebrew may
Mealand 341

Table 4. Output from Syntax Criticism (shown in reverse order)

D a n i e l (0.54) P a p y r i (-0.25) J o s e p h u s (-1.38) P o l y b iu s (-1.68)

0.5 0 -.5 -1 -1.5

not be older and cruder; it may be particularly motivated by a passion to preserve

traits of the original text. When a large set of 1,000-word samples from more of
the LXX is used they spread across a plot similar to Figure C at least as much as
the New Testament texts do.
There is no one LXX style; the LXX translators vary at least as much in style
as the writers of the NT. On this see Jobes 2003: 88, who makes very effective
use of a numerical method developed by Martin (1987) described as Syntax
Criticism. This lacks the more complex statistics offered by Correspondence
Analysis or related methods, but does produce results that are sufficiently com‫־‬
patible with it for each to corroborate the other. A slight variant of her result is
shown in Table 4; the line is reversed to put Daniel on the left.
Checks such as the plot shown in Figure E can confirm or amend initial infer-
enees about the output from Correspondence Analysis. They are needed as
Correspondence Analysis is inevitably making a comparison of all the texts and
all the variables at once, and a plot of the first two dimensions makes some com-
promises in displaying only the most salient comparisons and contrasts. It should
be noted that in the case of the NT texts a high proportion of the entire text is
used in these tests. In the case of much more voluminous authors, the samples
represent a much smaller proportion of the entire work or set of works selected.
It is possible that a greater degree of diversity might appear if a wider selection
of these authors were to be sampled in a more ambitious set of tests. The infer-
enees that are made here are, of course, dependent on the evidence of the chosen
set of words and word-endings in the selected samples of text. Content words
were included in a selection of lexical and other linguistic features used in an
earlier study (Mealand 1991) along with some discussion of the over diagnosis
of Semitisms. The divergent character of Hellenistic and Attic verb forms has
also been discussed elsewhere,15 so these have not been overlooked. To extract
more complete information about the entire texts would require counts of the

15. The experiments discussed here did not include any specific data on Hellenistic or Attic
usages. That issue is discussed in an article (Mealand 1996) which examined some 20 non-
Attic verb forms used in Luke-Acts. Of these 5 are found only in the LXX and/or the papyri,
another 5 have some precedent in literary Greek from Herodotus to Diodorus Siculus, and 10
of the non-Attic forms are found in Dionysius or Plutarch. The conclusions of that study are
compatible with the location of the samples from Luke and Acts in the plots shown in this
study.
342 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34(4)

complete texts for everything in the texts that it would be appropriate to count.16
Even if that could be done, some features of style will rightly remain the prov-
ince of qualitative rather than quantitative appraisal.

O verall Conclusions
In one sense one could say that the statistical exploration gives some support to
each of the main theories about the affinities of NT Greek. There are very observ-
able similarities between various parts of the NT and more Hebraic LXX works,
more polished translations, papyri, some of the technical writers, and also writers
of standard Hellenistic Greek prose. It is, however, just a little more complicated
than this in reality. There is considerable variety of style within the NT. (That
might be even more apparent if the counts had been able to include verb forms
or orthography.) Revelation is more like Daniel, 1 Maccabees and 4 Kingdoms.
Mark is nearer these than the other Synoptics are. The papyri, when carefully
selected for variety and closeness to the relevant period, are nearer to Acts and
Hebrews than to Mark or Revelation. Only if a whole corpus of papyri of totally
indiscriminate date and character is used do they appear further to the left, and
even then they are to the right of the somewhat more polished translation of
Genesis. On similar plots the translations and free compositions of the LXX are
more varied on the left-right contrast even than the NT. So statements comparing
the Greek of the NT with that of the LXX must always be read with the proviso
that they are comparing one very varied collection with another such. The major
Paulines are very distinctive, though some early Christian epistles and Epictetus
are not too distant. Hebrews is close to Philo, but also not distant from some of
the documentary papyri. Acts is 24 points left of Dionysius, but 27 points to the
right of Genesis, closer still to Dioscorides on more detailed tests.
In terms of the first contrast, NT texts are either more like Mark, 1 John and
Revelation, or more like Acts and Hebrews, or somewhere in between. In terms of
register they are more like the narrative sections of Mark and Acts, or, at the other
extreme, more like Paul, or again somewhere in between, like much of Matthew and
Luke. In terms of relation to other texts, one can triangulate between 4 Kingdoms,
Epictetus and Dionysius, and ascertain whether a given work, or section of a work is
nearer to one of these than the others. That must be closer to reality than relying on
counts of infrequent items of vocabulary that are far from statistically significant, or
using terminology that suggests a single stylistic location for the Greek of the whole
remarkable collection of texts given the evident internal stylistic variety.

16. I am grateful to the readers of the article whose recommendations included the initial
simplified diagrams, the explanation or removal of numerous technical terms, and the provi-
sion of a glossary. I also acknowledge the use of TLG (2000) and the tagged text of the New
Testament by Barbara and Timothy Friberg (c.1981).
Mealand 343

Glossary
This glossary explains several technical terms used in literary statistics in sim-
pier but therefore somewhat looser language.

Axis A plot or graph has a first axis running left to right along the
base line, and a second axis running up and down the left
side of the plot.
Character strings A series of letters such as ‘arliamen’ (perhaps also spaces
and punctuation), usually sequences repeated several times
in a text.
Contribution Column of numbers showing which items contribute most to
column the spread of a set of texts contrasted with each other, and so
explaining the contrast shown.
Correspondence A statistical method that shows both the relation between
Analysis (CA) samples of text and also relations between the very common
words each text uses most or least.
Dimension In the method being used the first ‘dimension’ displays the
major contrast in the data running left to right. The second
6dimension’ shows the next largest contrast running from
lower down to higher up the page.
Function words Words (or word-endings) such as but, and’for, into, out of, so
that, while, about, and genitive endings. They relate more to
syntax than to content, and are widely used in stylometric studies.
Horizontal scale The line at the base of a plot, centred on zero in the method
used.
Inertia Special term in the method used. It describes the amount of
variability in the counts of words in the whole set of texts.
Multivariate tests Tests using counts of several criteria simultaneously, as
opposed to more limited tests which use them one at a time.
Observation Count of the number of times a given word occurs in a given
sample of text.
Partitioned data The use of several samples for each type of text so that the
average use in a group of texts can be calculated, and the
amount of variation from the average assessed.
Standard A figure that shows the average variation from the average
deviation in a set of texts. A large result indicates a lot of variation, a
small one more consistency.
Standard error This counts how much variation from the average there is in
a set of texts, and then further adjusts the result in line with
how many samples of text there are in the group.
Variable Something that varies. In this context each of the 30 words
or word-endings counted as criteria.
Variance A measure of the extent of variation in a set of samples.
Used in note 7 to refer to the variation in the entire set of texts.
Vertical scale The line running up and down the left side of the plot.
344 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34(4)

References
Alexander, L.
2004 ‘Septuaginta, Fachprosa, Imitatio: Albert Wifstrand and the Language of Luke-
Acts’, in C. Breytenbach and J. Schröter (eds.), Apostelgeschichte und die hel-
lenistische Geschichtsschreibung (Leiden; Boston: Brill): 1-26.
Alviar, J.J.
2008 ‘Recent Advances in Computational Linguistics and their Application to Biblical
Studies’, NTS 54: 139-59.
Biber, D.
1988 Variation across Speech and Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
1995 Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Comparison (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Caragounis C.C.
2004 The Development o f Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonol-
ogy, and Textual Transmission (WUNT, 167; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Casey, P.M.
1998 Aramaic Sources o f Mark’s Gospel (SNTSMS, 102; Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press).
Friberg, B., and T. Friberg
1981 Morphologically Tagged Electronic Text o f the NT (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Computer Center).
Garson, G.D.
2008 ‘Correspondence Analysis’, from Statnotes: Topics in Multivariate Analysis.
Retrieved 29 June 2009 from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/statnote.
htm
Greenacre, M.J.
1984 Theory and Applications o f Correspondence Analysis (London: Academic Press).
1993 Correspondence Analysis in Practice (London: Academic Press).
Holmes, D.I.
1998 ‘The Evolution of Stylometry in Humanities Scholarship’, Literary and Linguistic
Computing 13: 111-17.
Horsley, G.H.R.
1989 ‘The Fiction of Jewish Greek’, in New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity,
V (N. Ryde, NSW: Macquarie University): 5-40.
Jobes, K.H.
2003 ‘Quantitative Methods for Exploring the Relationship between Books of the Sep-
tuagint’, in E.D. Herbert and E. Tov (eds.), The Bible as Book: The Transmission
o f the Greek Text (London: British Library): 73-95.
Kritzer, R.E., and P. Arzt-Grabner
2006 ‘Adverbien, Konjunktionen und Negationen in den Paulusbriefen und ihre oft
unterschätzte Bedeutung’, Biblische Notizen 128: 65-80.
Mealand 345

Maloney, E.C.
1981 Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (SBLDiss, 51 ; Chico, CA: Scholars Press).
Martin, R.A.
1987 Syntax Criticism o f the Synoptic Gospels (SBEC, 10; Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mel-
len Press).
Mealand, D.L.
1991 ‘Hellenistic Historians and the Style of Acts’, ZNW 82: 42-66.
1996 ‘Luke-Acts and the Verbs of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’, JSNT 63: 63-86.
1997 ‘Measuring Genre Differences in Mark with Correspondence Analysis’, Literary
and Linguistic Computing 12: 228-45.
1999 ‘Style, Genre and Authorship in Acts, the Septuagint, and Hellenistic Historians’,
Literary and Linguistic Computing 14: 479-505.
Micheloud F.-X.
1997 ‘Correspondence Analysis’, retrieved on 23 July 2009 from http://www.
micheloud.com/FXM/COR/e/inter2.htm
Moyise, S.
1999 ‘The Language of the Old Testament in the Apocalypse’, JSNT 76: 97-113.
Spencer, A.B.
1998 Pauls Literary Style: A Stylistic and Historical Comparison o f 2 Corinthians
11:16-12:13, Romans 8:9-39, and Philippians 3:2-4:13 (Lanham, MD: Univer-
sity Press of America).
TLG
2000 Thesaurus Linguae Graecae TLG E (and CD-ROM D 1992) (Irvine: University of
California, Irvine).
Tweedie, F.J., D.I. Holmes and T.N. Corns
1998 ‘The Provenance of “De Doctrina Christiana” attributed to John Milton: A Statis-
tical Investigation’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 13: 77-87.
Voelz, J.W.
2005 ‘The Greek of Codex Vaticanus in the Second Gospel and Marcan Greek’, NovT
47: 209-49.
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(sV express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection w ith perm ission
from the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue o f ajo u rn ai
typically is the journal owner, w ho also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author o f the article may m aintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request perm ission to use an article or specific
w ork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions o f the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For inform ation regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright inform ation in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact inform ation for the copyright holder(s).

A bout ATLAS:

The A TLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions o f previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced w ith permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and m anaged by the Am erican Theological Library A ssociation
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endow m ent Inc.

The design and final form o f this electronic docum ent is the property o f the A m erican
Theological Library Association.