CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

* Kathy Nguyen died from anthrax eight years ago today … Who killed Kathy Nguyen? … We still have no credible answer

Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 31, 2009

CASE CLOSEDCASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question “Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?” … click here to … buy CASE CLOSED by Lew Weinstein

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED  …

“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered … what really happened? … Who did it? … why?” … and finally, why didn’t they tell us the truth?”

“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!! More likely an excellent interpretation of what may have really happened.”

******

Nguyen

Kathy Nguyen died from anthrax eight years ago today

Who killed Kathy Nguyen?

We still have no credible answer

******

Newsweek wrote in November 2001…

The doctors in the Intensive Care Unit at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York see a lot of very sick patients, but there was something particularly ominous about the bloody fluid that was fast filling the woman’s chest cavity. She had come to the emergency room on Sunday, feverish, short of breath, complaining of aching muscles. Doctors quickly put her on a respirator.

Kathy Nguyen lay dying.

Scores of FBI agents and New York police detectives were soon retracing the steps of the kindly 61-year-old Vietnamese woman who lived alone in the Bronx. But when lab tests failed to find any traces of anthrax in her modest one-bedroom apartment or the hospital storeroom where she worked, top investigators in New York became increasingly uneasy.

The case of Kathy Nguyen remained a mystery.

read the entire article at … http://www.newsweek.com/id/76357

Advertisements

43 Responses to “* Kathy Nguyen died from anthrax eight years ago today … Who killed Kathy Nguyen? … We still have no credible answer”

  1. DXer said

    Another recent book addressing the anthrax mailings is WORKING STIFF: Two Years, 262 Bodies and the Making of a Medical Examiner, by Judy Melinek, M.D. and T.J. Mitchell. The very readable book addresses the autopsy of Kathy Nguyen, who died of inhalational anthrax. Her brain was clean due to a heavy dose of antibiotics given at the hospital.

    One of the co-authors of the JAMA article about Kathy Nguyen’s case, Hasan Faraj, actually was working taking Al Qaeda fighters to the front in Bosnia– instead of getting his medical training.

    Did Hasan Faraj know Adnan El-Shukrijumah from all the time he spent in Bosnia while pretending to be receiving a medical education elsewhere? El-Shukrijumah was in Bosnia.

    The lawyer, Stanley Cohen, who represented the fake doctor Faraj emphasized that Faraj wasn’t going to snitch, reported for jail this week. Attorney Cohen says he was targeted for representing terrorists.

    Stanley should agree that Kathy Nguyen was an innocent.

    In a 2005 letter to the federal magistrate, the Department of Justice formally provided additional detail:

    “In the fall of 2004, the government discovered that the defendant used his fraudulently-obtained United States citizenship in January 2002 to sponsor the attempted entry into the United States by suspected foreign terrorist Amir Abdulrazzak, also known as Amir Amrush. At the time, Amir Abdulrazzak was an employee of the Saudi High Commission for Refugees (SHCR) in Bosnia. In October 2001, just a few months before the defendant’s sponsorship of Abdulrazzak, NATO forces raided the SHCR Sarajevo office where Abdulrazzak worked. The search recovered computers containing, among other things, the following information: [stuff showing WMD aspirations and/or planning, such as biochem suits]”

    Computers seized at the foundation’s office in Chicago contained a deleted file stating, “Hassan has spent substantial amount of time with us in Bosnia … and had said that he is willing to do anything.”

    “In addition to a link with the foundation, Faraj used his U.S. citizenship to facilitate the attempted entry of a suspected al- Qaida associate, Amir Addulrazzak, into this country in February 2002, [prosecutor] Buretta stated.

    The Lawyer Who Represented Terrorists Heads to Prison, as Unapologetic as Ever
    By Jon Campbell Tue., Jan. 6 2015 at
    http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2015/01/stanley-cohen.php

    Hassan Faraj Consent Order Provided Today By Virginia Board Of Medicine Announcing He Was Planning To Leave The Country And Never Return
    Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 27, 2012
    https://caseclosedbylewweinstein.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/hassan-faraj-consent-order-provided-today-by-virginia-board-of-medicine-announcing-he-was-planning-to-leave-the-country-and-never-return/

    Fatal Inhalational Anthrax With Unknown Source of Exposure in a 61-Year-Old Woman in New York City
    Bushra Mina, MD; J. P. Dym, MD; Frank Kuepper; Raymond Tso, MD; Carmina Arrastia, MD; Irina Kaplounova, MD; Hasan Faraj, MD; Agnieszka Kwapniewski, MD; Christopher M. Krol, MD; Mayer Grosser, MD; Jeffrey Glick, MD; Steven Fochios, MD; Athena Remolina, MD; Ljiljana Vasovic, MD; Jeffrey Moses, MD; Thomas Robin, M(ASCP); Maria DeVita, MD; Michael L. Tapper, MD
    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=194655

    • DXer said

      Before her popular WORKING STIFF (2014), Dr. Melinek wrote in the scientific literature about the autopsy findings in 2002.

      Dr. Melinek’s gross autopsy findings bear on the detection of anthrax in the remains of the hijacker who had the leg lesion. (He had received antibiotics).

      What anthrax expert concluded that the positive finding of b. anthracis in the hijacker remains should be disregarded? Did Les Ballie participate? He was Ames anthrax expert consulting on Amerithrax who had organized the conference attended by the Al Qaeda anthrax scientist Rauf Ahmad.

      In 2002, Dr. Melinek and her co-author at the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner, explained:

      “Once these initial autopsy findings are noted, touch preparations and cultures of the lymph nodes or pleural fluid must be performed to identify the bacillus. The bacilli are abundant in nontreated persons but may be sparse in antibiotic-treated patients.”

      It is the few remaining proponents of an Ivins Theory who are relying on unsupported assertions and are totally disregarding the evidence — and totally ignoring multiple acute conflicts of interest.

      Background:

      1. Memo on Florida Case Roils Anthrax Probe
      http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/memoroilsanthraxprobe.html
      UCLA School of Public Health
      Jun 26, 2003 – The physician, Christos Tsonas, initially thought the man had a minor infection, but … believed the black lesion on the suspected hijacker’s lower left leg was consistent … He said he treated the lesion with Keflex, an antibiotic.

      2. James R. Gill and Judy Melinek (2002) Inhalational Anthrax. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine: August 2002, Vol. 126, No. 8, pp. 993-994.
      IMAGES IN PATHOLOGY
      Inhalational Anthrax
      Gross Autopsy Findings

      James R. Gill, MD and Judy Melinek, MD
      From the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner (Dr Gill) and Department of Forensic Medicine (Dr Melinek), New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY
      http://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/pdf/10.1043/0003-9985%282002%29126%3C0993%3AIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

      3. NAS: FBI believes positive finding in hijacker remains from Flight 93 was due to laboratory contamination
      Posted by Lew Weinstein on February 15, 2011

  2. DXer said

    At page 28′ the authors of September 2013 Enemy Within:

    On the heels of those [ 911 ] attacks, anthrax started arriving in the mail. The day before Bloomberg was voted into office, a sixty-three-year-old hospital stockroom worker was buried in the Bronx. She died of anthrax inhalation, despite no known contact with any of the letters.

  3. DXer said

    I hope to meet the lawyer for the jihad supporter who published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Kathy Nguyen’s fatal infection.

    The first inhalational anthrax victim in New York City, Kathy Nguyen, had died at Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan, where a former BIF employed worked as an intern and then as a resident in internal medicine. She worked in the stockroom of a nearby hospital that was a subsidiary of Lenox Hill. In late June 2004, when US authorities much later charged the doctor with immigration violations, he was represented by Stanley L. Cohen, the partner of the blind sheik Abdel-Rahman’s lawyer Lynne Stewart. Faraj lived in Brooklyn where he had moved in 1999 from Falls Church. It turns out he had been routing fighters to camps when he had claimed to be finishing his medical education.

    Attorney Cohen recently was indicted on tax charges in June 2012 in Syracuse, New York that he says were related to suspicions relating to terrorism. Cohen represented Ismail Royer a central figure in the Virginia Paintaball case involving anthrax weapons suspect Ali Al-Timimi.

    Attorney Cohen now also represents Al Qaeda’s spokesman Abu Ghaith who in June 2012 claimed (like Ramzi Yousef, I believe) that Al Qaeda could kill 4 million, including 1 million women and children, with biological weapons.

    These jihadists — under their own belief system — have forfeited their souls because of their sloppy interpretation of the hadiths and koran. Dr. Ayman Zawahiri was good as a young boy in rote memorization but has been found to be lacking in reading comprehension.

  4. Ike Solem said

    Ed Lake: Most of those points have been refuted in various discussions here, haven’t they?

    As far as committee investigations, here’s a page from POGO – they’re talking about the Department of Health and Human Services(DHHS), which is the general umbrella that infectious disease falls under, particularly the Centers for Disease Control(CDC) with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) overlapping in cases of bioterrorism. In the anthrax letters case the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reached out to the Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Labs, which are government-owned contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities.

    All issue related to bioterrorism are also of interest the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), for obvious reasons. A large-scale bioterrorism attack on a major U.S. city that used a high-tech spore preparation and many kilogams of material (such as anthrax laced with smallpox) would result in widespread panic and many thousands of deaths, in all likelihood.

    This is why it is reassuring to know that Bruce Ivins could not possibly have produced such material with the means at his disposal, and it seems highy unlikely that even a well-funded cult or terrorist group could do so. As with nuclear weapons, the really dangerous stuff can only be produced by state actors. This does not rule out a “dirty bomb” of some kind or other, but the threat is orders of magnitude lower, in terms of possible damage.

    Regardless, the unchecked proliferation of any and all WMD technology is to be avoided, right? In particular, it is unwise to use the threat of biowarfare as a justification for one’s own biowarfare program, as you may end up training precisely the wrong person, or, some of your “sample material” may end up diverted into someone’s basement freezer, or a nefarious collection of high-ranking government officials in some country or other may scheme to covertly release such material for various reasons, such as inducing a panic. This is why all biological threat assessment programs should be shut down.

    However, this concern also extends to all biowarfare-related vaccine production programs – because for someone to produce a biological weapon without infecting themselves, they typically must be vaccinated. Again, this is why infectious disease prevention should be overseen by public health specialists at CDC, not by the private corporate partners of the DOE & DHHS.

    Now, I think many people here would like to correctly investigate all of your questions in a public congressional arena – you do deserve answers, as does everyone affected by the anthrax attacks.

    Here’s a good primer on how such investigations should be conducted, courtesy POGO – as applied to health care, but it’s a good rule for all investigations – such as the one being carried out by the National Academy of Sciences:

    “At a minimum, all advisory panels created by any final health care law should:

    * Require that all information about each advisory panel, including a full audio or video record of each panel meeting, is accessible via the Internet;

    * Actively seek out advisory panel members without conflicts of interest;

    * Assess financial conflicts of interest, and strive to name only non-conflicted experts to advisory committees;

    * When conflicts are unavoidable, require that any waivers given to a conflicted advisory board member and the reasons for granting the waiver are part of the public record; and,

    * Specifically require disclosure of the names and backgrounds of each member, and whether they are serving as experts or to represent particular constituencies.”

    That’s how you get to the bottom of matters – a Congressional committee with subpoena powers, not by running with what is appearing to be a whitewash committee set up behind the scenes by the FBI and the NAS… and if that ‘unfounded characterization’ turns out to be true, I’d be highly disturbed. Let’s just say, the Soviet Academy of Sciences was not always the most reliable body, either… and neither were the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes of the 1930s, ahem.

    If you’re going to venture into this morass, you better start here:

    Hitler’s Scientists: Science, War and the Devil’s Pact

    “John Cornwell plumbs the history of Nazism for lessons that apply to critical concerns of the present. Once again, his insights are as unsettling are they are revelatory….Those are the small details from which the devil’s pact of the subtitle arises. Those actions of indifference and self-interest transformed independent individuals into enablers of evil…”

    It is a slippery slope… and unfortunately, the expansion of plant, animal and human-targeted biowarfare research in the U.S. has not yet been rolled back. That would lead to a DHHS shakeup and the cancellation/redistribution of billions in contracts & grants, so the resistance is understandable. However, we’d be far better off putting that money into public health initiatives aimed at preventing infectious disease across the board.

    • DXer said

      Ike is mistaken. The September 2001 anthrax threat assessment showed that a Wisconsin dairy processor could make stuff that performed as well. Although done in Canada, it was prepared with a Dugway simulant. Spraydried in Denmark. Mixed in Wisconsin by a dairy processor. It was done in response to the threat to use mailed anthrax if bail was denied Vanguards of Conquest #2. His bail then was denied on October 5. This “so-sophisticated-only-a-state-could-do-it-simply-has-no-basis. As Alibek has said, a sophisticated product can be made by a relatively simple technique — the key is know-how and that travels in the minds of individuals. Now, having said that, there is every reason to think that the Speed Vac available to Bruce Ivins was insufficient and fermenter was inoperable.

      • DXer said

        Specifically, as to performance, in lay terms as soon as the envelope was opened it immediately dispersed to the other side of the room.

        • DXer said

          Given that they had reason to know Rauf Ahmad had learned tricks of processing at the conference — as he reported in writing to Ayman that he did –there’s every reason to think the simulant was made as to represent what Ayman could do given he had a scientist at the same conferences attended by all the USAMRIID and Porton Down getting processing information from them. (This supports your argument, Ike, that proliferation is the underlying problem and on that I agree).

          I just mean to urge that the information, as Dr. Meselson explains, travels in the minds of individuals.

      • Ike Solem said

        As someone who has actually used a Speed Vac (a low-pressure moisture remover for rapidly drying biological samples) and a fermenter, let’s explain the process used in general to collect spores from any spore-forming bacterium.

        First, the bacillus seed culture must be inoculated into the appropriate medium and grown up to a healthy cell density. In this vegetative form, anthrax cells are fragile and non-contagious – it is the spores that you have to worry about. A good picture of the life cycle is here:

        http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxlifecycle.html

        Second, the culture must be induced to sporulate by changing the nutrient conditions. In nature, this occurs on when an infected animal dies – thus, there are patches of anthrax-spore-laced soil all along the old cattle drive trails leading from Texas to Chicago. A film of the sporulation process can be seen here:

        http://www.cells.de/cellseng/1medienarchiv/Zellfunktionen/Fortpfl_u_Genetik_/Sporulation/Milzbranderreger/index.jsp

        Any old microbiology recipe book probably has the recipe, so yes, your Wisconsin dairy producer could probably reach this stage – although now the material, once sporulated, would be infectious and the person would need to be vaccinated or have a steady supply of the right antibiotics. I understand the smell is really bad, as well – an isolated location would be needed. This is, according to press reports, how far the Aum Shinriko cult got in their efforts to create anthrax toxin, June 1993:

        …the cult attempted to release anthrax spores from its mid-rise Tokyo office building laboratory. At that time, police and media reported foul smells, brown steam, some pet deaths, and stains on cars and sidewalks.

        This brings up the containment issue – even without trying to create a dry powder, this is a messy process. Imagine a big vat of overfermented beer bubbling over, but instead of yeast, it’s anthrax – you get the idea.

        Third, the spores must be separated from the growth solution and the dead cell debris or you’ll end up with spores embedded in cellular gunk – perfect for nature, where they’ll sit at the base of a clump of grass for years before some hungry cow ingests them – but no good for aerosolized bioweapons targeting the human lung.

        The initial bioweapons programs (British & American & Canadian & Japanese) avoided that by just using the liquid slurry of spores – it was loaded into small “burster” bomblets or even sprayers, and used in that form. Read Ed Regis, “The Biology of Doom,” for the historical details.

        Dry powders could be stockpiled and stored, however, and so they were developed as well, particularly by massive Soviet biowarfare programs. Ventilation hoods and air sterilization would be needed for handling a dry powder.

        Creating the dry aerosolized powder is the problem. The Speed Vac – lyophilizer business would just not work – you’d have ground up material, but an aerosol?

        First, the cell debris and solution must be removed – likely by centrifugation, pretty common in biology labs. Then, you have a pure solution of spores. However, some additive must be present that keeps the spores from sticking together as they dry – and that’s a silica-based additive of some sort. Then, you need the special drying equipment – but that’s not such a secret, since for a while the idea of spray-dried inhalable vaccines was in vogue. These projects used the “BattellePharma Electrospray Nebulizer” or some variant of it, in addition to several unknown techniques. Here’s a blurb on the process:

        “Electrostatic spray (electrospray) atomization… produces droplets with a very narrow size distribution. Since the control of droplet size is key to maximizing distal lung deposition, the electrospray should be well-suited to targeted drug inhalation.”

        Since the FBI was asking company executives about “spray-driers” during the first months of the investigation, they must have known about this as well.

        This is not really new news, see this:

        “Just collecting this stuff is a trick,” said Steven A. Lancos, executive vice president of Niro Inc., one of the leading manufacturers of spray dryers, viewed by several sources as the likeliest tool needed to weaponize the anthrax bacteria. “Even on a small scale, you still need containment. If you’re going to do it right, it could cost millions of dollars.”

        http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/fbitheorydoubted.html

        The technical demands are so high, that it seems far more likely that theft or diversion from a state-run program is the only plausible scenario.

        Notice, however, that you can still find people arguing for increased “threat assessment” based on the following argument:

        “When considering the potential for harm in a bioterrorism threat assessment, it is necessary to know
        the characteristics of the specific biological agent of concern…. if the assessment is non-specific, all agents conceivably available to potential perpetrators should be incorporated. Relevant characteristics include a biological agent’s level of communicability, its infectiousness, different routes of infection and the disease symptoms associated with these, the organism or toxin’s survivability outside a host, the average incubation period, mean rates of mortality, methods by which the agent can be disseminated, and the susceptibility of the agent to various mitigation efforts such as treatment or prophylaxis.
        – Ackerman & Moran

        How does that differ from an offensive biowarfare program, other than that you are supposedly not creating stockpiles of such weapons?

        These things are floated in order to justify expanded budgets for private biowarfare contractors, not in order to increase security. Project Bioshield is the equivalent of Star Wars missile defense in the nuclear weapons area – it is ridiculously expensive and creates more problems than it solves. (Ackerman, for example, is director of the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies, a division of the Akribis Group, a derivative of the Workthreat Group est. 1988 – apparently, the basic business model is based on using fear to procure large government contracts, in a wide variety of fields).

        The Cold War is over – it’s actually an anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. What a pity, huh? The Soviets made a far more ‘credible threat’ for these purposes than do cults and terrorist groups. Recall, there was supposed to be a “peace dividend” after the Cold War ended – but when will it arrive?

        What you have here is a manufactured threat intended to sustain and expand government contracts for wasteful programs – and it’s hard to believe that this kind of behavior persists in the post-Cold War era, if you ask me. The FBI appeared to have come to that same conclusion in winter 2001 – and then it was all covered up.

        • DXer said

          You allude to a good point about my Wisconsin dairy process reference involving the 2001 simulant used to test the threat of mailed anthrax. That was not anthrax but a simulant. And so did not pose the contamination issues you mention and so you are correct to emphasize the issue of contamination.

          Other experts who know the Speed Vac and who know the fermenter (which Ivins’ supervisor reports was inoperable because of a seized motor) agree with you.

          He had the Speed Vac out for the DARPA vaccine research — not for making an aerosol.

          I find it hilarious that Ed keeps talking about how silicon signature arose during growth and yet can’t bring himself to discuss the microdroplet cell culture technique which involves using silica in the culture medium to concentrate the anthrax.

          He assumes his conclusion — he argues he does not know the source of the silicon but can conclude that it was not intentional.
          His reasoning is fallacious. There is nothing in the powerpoint slides which supports an inference that it was not intentional. The experts say that it was. It was just not intentionally added post-production (on the outside) for the purpose of dispersability.

          The reason he does not link the powerpoints is because they do not support him. They support what I’ve been saying for years.

          As for JM at Sandia, he is not privy to the investigative information and so has never been read into the real significance of his conclusions. His data is very sound. Ed’s conclusions about science are as sound as his understanding of things like the grand jury process.

      • Anonymous Scientist said

        DXer wrote:
        “Ike is mistaken. The September 2001 anthrax threat assessment showed that a Wisconsin dairy processor could make stuff that performed as well. Although done in Canada, it was prepared with a Dugway simulant. Spraydried in Denmark. Mixed in Wisconsin by a dairy processor.”

        No, Ike is not mistaken. It’s DXer that is mistaken. DXer did not take the time to read the entire article. The product made by Chris-Hansen was further enhanced at Dugway.

        http://cryptome.org/anthrax-powder.htm
        One doesn’t have to look very far to find a powder that more closely resembles the Senate anthrax. The U.S. Army’s newest batch of anthrax simulant is a closer match, made with B. globigii (BG) spores, which are similar to anthrax but nonlethal. According to military sources, the Danish company Chris-Hansen spray-dried the spores (along with an unidentified “additive”) in Valby, a suburb of Copenhagen. Although the spore count varied somewhat from batch to batch, Chris-Hansen says that the average concentration was 500 billion spores per gram, about 100 times more concentrated than the Army’s old BG powder. Chris-Hansen shipped the bulk material from Denmark to its New Berlin, Wisconsin, facility in 1996, where, according to Army instructions, it mixed silica into the powder—a product sold commercially under the name Sipernat D 13. Sipernat D 13 is made by Germany’s Degussa AG, the same company that makes Aerosil.

        The initial Chris-Hansen production run wasn’t exactly what the Army wanted, military sources say, so this batch of anthrax simulant was further enhanced at Dugway Proving Ground. An official at Chris-Hansen, speaking on condition of anonymity, says he doesn’t know if the Army added an electrostatic charge or a coupling agent to the powder, and the Army won’t discuss it. But unlike the powder that Dugway reverse engineered earlier this year, the most recent batch of simulant—according to military sources—has great “hang time.”

        A government scientist who had a sample of the Army’s anthrax simulant described it for Science: When he shook a test tube filled with it, a dense fog of particles swirled to the top in roiling eddies. After 10 minutes, the powder still hadn’t settled. This scientist observed two other marked similarities with the Senate material: “There appears to be a lot of static charge,” he said. When he suspended the preparation in water, he saw mostly “single spores.” When Canadian military scientists used this silicalaced simulant in 2001 to assess the risk from anthrax spores delivered by letter, the aerosol behaved like the one that would later contaminate Senator Daschle’s office with real anthrax spores; the weaponized BG particles spread across a 50-cubic-meter room in less than 2 minutes.

        • Anonymous said

          I have exchanged many dozens of emails with the learned author, science journalist Gary Matsumoto. I have also corresponded for 7 years with the expert quoted. Both confirmed to be in writing that no polymer could have been added after mixing. I have a bound volume of 100 emails from Gary that would make a lovely coffee table for Christmas.

          The expert scientist — though not a life scientist — was of the view that perhaps a corona discharge was used at Dugway.
          But it could have been as simple as sequential filtering.

          If a life scientist, an aerosol scientist, studied the microdroplet cell culture patent, I think they’d realize that it is all about electromagnetic stuff. For example, check out the bio that in 2004 took over the old office of Al-Timimi. It’s all about electromagnetic control of anthrax — for detection purposes. The head of the air force lab, who makes anthrax simulant for a living and who you credit as a key expert, describes the patent as a microencapsulation patent.

          I think there is no value in discussing how best to weaponize anthrax — particularly when none of have the relevant expertise. Scientists like Dr. Kiel and Dr. Popov — experts in the field of the weaponization of anthrax — both agree that the silica was added on purpose. The fact that it was not added post-production for the purpose of aiding disperability is just a stupid word game that only has given Ed a reason for existence for 7 years. There is nothing in the Sandia powerpoints that supports an inference that it was not intentionally added.

          If there were an aerosol expert who had made anthrax simulant on the NAS panel, they would know that. If they don’t have Dr. Kiel or Dr. Popov come and testify before them, the process is a joke because they lack the relevant expertise.

      • Anonymous Scientist said

        For the demonstrative o` and the relative o` see chapter on Syntax of Pronouns. It is confusing to say with Seyffart1: “Der Artikel hat die ursprungliche demonstrative Bedeutung.” It is then just the demonstrative, not the article at all. Why call the demonstrative the article? Great confusion of idea has resulted from this terminology. It is important to keep distinct the demonstrative, the article and the relative. II. Origin and Development of the Article. (a) A GREEK CONTRIBUTION. The development of the Greek article is one of the most interesting things in human speech.2 Among the Indo-Germanic languages it is “a new Greek departure.”3 It is not found in Sanskrit nor in Latin. It does not appear to be pro-ethnic4 and first shows itself in Homer. Indeed, the existence of the genuine article in Homer is denied by some.5 But it seems an overrefinement to refuse to see the article in such Homeric phrases as oi` ple,onejà oi` a;ristoi, etc.6 And it is beyond dispute that it is in the Attic prose, particularly in Plato, that the Greek article reaches its perfection.7 The article has shown remarkable persistency and survives with very little modification in modern Greek.8 In the N. T. the usage is in all essentials in harmony with Attic, more so than is true of the papyri.9 But Volker10 finds the papyri in practical accord at most points with Attic. Simcox11 points out that even the Hebrew article does not differ radically in use from the Greek article. THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ARQRON) 755 (b) DERIVED FROM THE DEMONSTRATIVE. The Greek article is the same form as the demonstrative o`à h`à to,. Indeed the German der is used as demonstrative, article, relative. So English the is related to the demonstrative that (also relative). Clyde (Greek Syntax, p. 6) calls the article a “mere enfeeblement” of the demonstrative. So the French le, the Italian il, the Spanish el, all come from the Latin demonstrative ille. But while this is true, the demonstrative, relative and article should not be confused in idea. The Greek grammarians applied avrqron to all three in truth, but distinguished them as a;rqron protaktiko,n (dem.), a;rqron u`potaktiko,n (rel.), a;rqron o`ristiko,n (art.). Some, however, did not distinguish sharply between the demonstrative and the article. The article always retained something of the demonstrative force (Gildersleeve, Syntax, Part II, p. 215). It is an utter reversal of the facts to speak of the demonstrative use of the article. It is only of recent years that a really scientific study of the article has been made.12 Even Brugmann13 gives no separate treatment for the article. But Part II of Gildersleeve’s Syntax (1911, pp. 215-332) has a really scientific treatment of the article. Professor Miller collected material for it. But even here I must demur against “the substantive use of the article” (p. 216) instead of plain substantival demonstrative. Gildersleeve uses “article” in two senses (form and idea). The Latin word articulus has the same root as the Greek a;rqron ( ar- as seen in avrÄarÄi,skw, ‘to fit,’ ‘join’). The origin of the article from the demonstrative can probably be seen in Homer. Monro14 thinks it due to apposition of a substantive with the demonstrative o`. So Iliad, 4. 501, h` d v e`te,roio dia. krota,foio pe,rhsen aivchm. calkei,h. Here aivcmh, explains h` and h` wavers between demonstrative and article and illustrates the transition. So with new proper names o` anticipates the name which is loosely added later. “In Attic the article shows that a particular known person is spoken of; in Homer it marks the turning of attention to a person.”15 In Homer the article usually marks contrast and not mere definiteness. But this contrast or singling out of the special object is in essence the real article which is thus attributive. III. Significance of the Article. The article, unlike the demonstrative, does not point out the object as far or near. It is not deictic. There is either contrast in the distinction drawn or allusion (anaphoric) to what is already mentioned or assumed as well 756 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT known. The article is therefore to. o`ristiko.n a;rqron, the definite article. The article is associated with gesture and aids in pointing out like an index finger. It is a pointer. It is not essential to language, but certainly very convenient and useful and not “otiosum loquacissimae gentis instrumentum,” as Scaliger16 called it. The Greek article is not the only means of making words definite. Many words are definite from the nature of the case.17 The word itself may be definite, like gh/à ouvrano,jà vIhsou/j. The use of a preposition with definite anarthrous nouns is old, as evn oi;kw|. Possessive pronouns also make definite, as do genitives. The context itself often is clear enough. The demonstrative may be used besides the article. Whenever the Greek article occurs, the object is certainly definite. When it is not used, the object may or may not be. The article is never meaningless in Greek, though it often fails to correspond with the English idiom, as in h` sofi,ajà o` Pau/loj) It is not a matter of translation. The older language and higher poetry are more anarthrous than Attic prose. Dialects vary in the use of the article, as do authors. Plato is richer in the article than any one. Its free use leads to exactness and finesse (Gildersleeve, Syntax, Part II, p. 215 f.). IV. The Method Employed by the Article. The Greek article points out in one of three ways.18 It distinguishes: (a) INDIVIDUALS FROM INDIVIDUALS. The article does not give the reason for the distinction drawn between individuals. That is usually apparent in the context. The translators of the King James Version, under the influence of the Vulgate, handle the Greek article loosely and inaccurately.19 A goodly list of such sins is given in “The Revision of the New Testament,”20 such as ‘a pinnacle’ for to. pteru,gion (Mt. 4:5). Here the whole point lies in the article, the wing of the Temple overlooking the abyss. So in Mt. 5:1 to. o;roj was the mountain right at hand, not ‘a mountain.’ On the other hand, the King James translators missed the point of meta. gunaiko,j (Jo. 4:27) when they said ‘the woman.’ It was ‘a woman,’ any woman, not the particular woman in question. But the Canterbury Revisers cannot be absolved from all blame, for they ignore the article in Lu. 18:13, tw|/ a`martwlw|/. The vital thing is to see the matter from the Greek point of view and THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ARQRON) 757 find the reason for the use of the article. In Mt. 13:55, o` tou/ te,ktonoj ui`o,j, it is the son of the (well known to us) carpenter. In 1 Cor. 4:5 o` e;painoj means the praise due to each one. Cf. o` misqo,j in Ro. 4:4. In 1 Cor. 5:9, evn th|/ evpistolh|/, Paul refers to a previous letter which the Corinthians had received. In 15:8, tw|/ evktrw,mati, Paul speaks thus of himself because he alone of the Apostles saw Jesus after His Ascension. The examples of this use are very numerous in the N. T. Thus in Mt. 5:15, to.n mo,dionà th.n lucni,anà the article singles out the bushel, the lampstand present in the room. In 15:26, toi/j kunari,oij, Jesus points to the little dogs by the table. In Lu. 4:20, to. bibli,on avpodou.j tw|/ u`phre,th|, the roll was the usual one and the attendant was there at his place. So in Jo. 13:5, ba,llei u[dwr eivj to.n nipth/ra, the basin was there in the room. The article in Jo. 7:17, gnw,setai peri. th/j didach/j, means the teaching concerning which they were puzzled. (b) CLASSES FROM OTHER CLASSES. The (generic) article is not always necessary here any more than under (a). See pnhrou.j kai. avgaqou,j (Mt. 5:45); di,kaioj u`pe.r avdi,kwn (1 Pet. 3:18). Cf. in particular 1 Cor. 12:13 ei;te vIoudai/oi ei;te [Ellhnej, 12:29. So also pou/ sofo,j* pou/ grammateu,j; (1 Cor. 1:20). But it is quite common to use the article with different classes. So in Mt. 8:20 note ai` avlw,pekejà ta. peteina,. So ai` gunai/kej (Eph. 5:22), oi` a;ndrejgrk grk(5:25), ta. te,knagrk grk(6:1), oi` pate,rejgrk grk(6:4), oi` dou/loigrk grk(6:5). In these examples the vocative often has the article. Cf. Col. 3:18 ff. A good example of the use with classes is found in Mt. 5:3-10 (the Beatitudes), oi` ptwcoi,, etc. Cf. tou.j sofou.jà ta. avsqenh|/à etc., in 1 Cor. 1:27. So oi` avkroatai, and oi` poihtai, in Ro. 2:13. Cf. Rev. 11:18; 22:14. It is very common to find the singular used with the article in a representative sense for the whole class. So in o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou (Mt. 8:20, and often) Jesus calls himself the Son of Mankind. Cf. Lu. 10:7, o` evrga,thj, where the labourer represents all labourers. In Mt. 18:17 note o` evqniko.j kai. o` telw,nhj. The Gospel of John is especially rich in examples of this kind (both ideals and types).21 Other examples are Mt. 12:35 o` avgaqo.j a;nqrwpoj, 12:29 tou/ ivscurou/, Jas. 5:6 to.n di,kaion, 2 Cor. 12:12 tou/ avposto,lou, Gal. 4:1 o` klhrono,moj, Mt. 13:3 o` spei,rwn. But even here the article is not always needed. So vIoudai,ou te prw/ton kai. [Ellhnoj (Ro. 2:9). Cf. kalou/ te kai. kakou/, Heb. 5:14. In examples like o` ouvrano.j kai. h` gh/ (Mt. 24:35), where there is only one of the kind, the explanation is not far from the class from class 758 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT idea. So qeo,j, like proper names, may use the article where we do not need it in English (Jo. 3:16). Volker (Syntax, p. 19) notes in the papyri examples like gunh. kai. ui`oi,à h` gunh. kai. oi` ui`oi,à gunh. kai. oi` ui`oi,à o` avnh.r kai. te,kan. For the generic article see further Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 255 ff. (c) QUALITIES FROM OTHER QUALITIES. The English does not use the article with abstract qualities unless they have been previously mentioned. But French and German are like the Greek in the use of the article here. It is not necessary to have the article with qualities. So in 1 Cor. 12 : 9-11 the gifts mentioned have no article. So in chapter 13, avga,phn in verses 1-3, but h` avga,ph in 4, 8; but pi,stijà evlpi,j avga,ph (verse 13). In 1 Jo. 4:18 fo,boj is first without the article, then is repeated with the article, while h` avga,ph each time. There is much of the same freedom as to the use or non-use of the article here as elsewhere. Cf. Ro. 12:7, 9; 13:9 f.; Col. 3:5. Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 150) from the standpoint of the German sees more difficulty in the absence than in the presence of such articles. But he is correct in saying that the relative in Col. 3:5 explains the use of the article. It is interesting to observe that in the list of attributes of God in the songs in Rev. 4:11; 5:13; 7:12, the article is expressed with each quality, while in 5:12 one article ( th,n) is used with the whole list. In Ro. 13:7 the article is used with each thing and quality. It is possible that tw|/ here is the article also for which the participle has to be supplied. But for the absence of me,n and de, one might suspect tw|/ to be the demonstrative. In Ro. 16:17, skopei/n tou.j ta.j dicostasi,aj ka. ta. ska,ndala para. th.n didach.n ha}n u`mei/j evma,qete poiou/ntaj, note how neatly tou,jà ta,jà ta, th,n come in and illustrate the three uses of the article. Note also the neat classic idiom tou.j- poiou/ntaj. For the article with abstract nouns see further Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 257 ff. V. Varied Usages of the Article. (a) WITH SUBSTANTIVES. 1. Context. Whether the substantive is pointed out as an individual, class or quality, the context makes clear. The English may or may not have need of the article in translation. But that point cuts no figure in the Greek idiom. Thus in Ac. 27:23, tou/ qeou/ ou- eivmi,, the article points out the special God whose Paul is and is to be preserved in English. In the very next verse, o` qeo,j, we in English do not need the article, even if, as is unlikely, the angel has the notion of “the special God.”. Cf. also Jo. 1 : 1. In Mt. 23:2, oi` grammatei/j kai. oi` Farisai/oi, the two classes are THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ARQRON) 759 Addenda 3rd ed. distinguished as in English. In Ro. 11:36, h` do,xa, it is the glory due to God. See o` misqo,j, 1 Cor. 9:18 (cf. Ro. 4:4). 2. Gender of the Article. It will, of course, be that of the substantive. Cf. th,n – to,n – to, in Lu. 2:16. But sometimes the construction is according to the sense. So in Mt. 4:13, th.n Nazara,, because of the implied po,lin. Cf. also Kafarnaou.m th,n. But in Gal. 4:25, to. de. [Agar, Paul purposely uses the grammatical gender of the word rather than the natural feminine. Cf. also o` avmh,n (Rev. 3:14), where Jesus is meant. But note the usual to. avmh,n in 1 Cor. 14:16. The N. T. does not have the neuter article with the plural of a Hebrew word, as we occasionally see in the LXX (Thackeray, p. 34). Cf. tw|/ beelei,m, (Ezek. 27:4). 3. With Proper Names. This seems rather odd to us in English, since the proper name itself is supposed to be definite enough. But at bottom the idiom is the same as with other substantives. We do not use the article with home, husband, wife, church, unless there is special reason to do so. The word itself is usually sufficient. We must rid ourselves of the notion that any substantive requires the article. But, just because proper names are so obviously definite, the article was frequently used where we in English cannot handle it. But this is very far from saying that the article meant nothing to the Greek. It meant definiteness to him. We often have the same difficulty with the article with classes and qualities. Sometimes we can see the reason for the use of the article with proper names. So to.n vIhsou/n o[n Pau/loj khru,ssei, Ac. 19:13. But in most instances the matter seems quite capricious to us. The writer may have in mind a previous mention of the name or the fact of the person being well known. In 2 Tim. 4:9-21 the proper names are all anarthrous. The same thing is true of Ro. 16, , even when the adjective is not anarthrous, as in vApellh/n to.n do,kimon evn Cristw|/ (verse 10). So in the ancient Greek for the most part the article was not used with proper names (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 229). Its use with persons is a mark of familiar style, but Plato uses it for anaphora or for contrast. In some sections it is common to use the article with titles, as The Reverend Doctor So-and-So. In South Germany der is used with the name alone.22 It seems needless to make extended observations about the presence or absence of the Greek article with names of countries, cities, rivers, persons. The usage among Greek writers greatly varies about rivers,, mountains, etc. Cf. Kallenberg, Stu. uber den 760 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Addenda 2nd ed. Addenda 3rd ed. griech. Art., 1891). See exhaustive treatment by Gildersleeve (Syntax, pp. 236-253) and his paper in American Journal of Philol., XI, pp. 483-487. Different words vary. “Names of cities most rarely have the article when connected with prepositions,”23 but that is true of other words also. vIerousalh,m does not have the article save when an adjective is used (so Gal. 4:25 f.; Rev. 3: 12) except in one instance (Ac. 5:28). Curiously vIeroso,luma has the article (in the oblique cases) only24 in Jo. 2:23; 5:2; 10:22; 11:18. As instances of the article used with a city mentioned the second time (anaphoric) see Ac. 17:10, eivj Be,roian, and 17: 13, evn th|/ Beroi,a|; 17:15, e[wj vAqhnw/n; and 17:16, evn tai/j vAqh,naij. For further details see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 152 f. Substantives in apposition with proper names may have the article, as in `Hrw|,dhj o` basileu,j, Mt. 2:1; and o` basileu.j `Hrw|,dhj, Mt. 2:3; or not, as `Hrw|,dou basileu,wj, Lu. 1:5. In basileu/ vAgri,ppa, Ac. 25:26, it is like our ‘King George.’ So in Xenophon, when the King of Persia is meant we find basileu,j. In Mt. 3:6, o` vIorda,nhj potamo,j, we have the usual order, but see the order reversed and the article repeated in Rev. 9:14; 16:12. Cf. tou/ o;rouj Sina, (Ac. 7:30) and o;rouj Sina, (Gal. 4:24), to. o;roj Siw,n (Rev. 14:1) and Siw.n o;rei (Heb. 12:22). For the article with appositive proper names see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 231. Cf. vIou,daj o` vIskariw,thj, Mt. 10:4; `Hrw|,dhj o` tetraa,rchj and vIwa,nhj o` baptisth,j, 14:1 f.; vIshou/j o` Nazarhno,j, Mk. 10:47; Ac. 1:13, Si,mwn o` zhlwth,j, etc. Here the word in apposition has the article, but not the proper name.25 Cf. 1 Cor. 1:1. In the Gospels as a rule vIhsou/j has the article. Cristo,j in the Gospels usually has the article= the Anointed One, the Messiah. In the Epistles it usually is like a proper name and commonly without the article,26 illustrating the development of Christology in the N. T. Indeclinable proper names usually have the article if the case would not otherwise be clear. Cf. the list in Mt. 1: 2-16, where the nominative has no article, but the accusative does have it. So vIsrah,l in Ro. 10:19, but to.n vIsrah,l in 1 Cor. 10:18. See also Mt. 22:42; Mk. 15:45; Lu. 2:16; Ac. 7:8; 15:1 f.; Ro. 9:13; Heb. 11:17. The use of to.n Barabba/n in Lu. 23:18 is not abrupt. In Xenophon’s Anabasis the article is not often used with proper names unless the person is previously THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ARQRON) 761 mentioned.27 In Homer the article appears only occasionally with a proper name when a new person is introduced, and “marks the turning of attention to a person,”28 rather than pointing to a particular person as in Attic. “In short the Homeric article contrasts, the Attic article defines.” But, as a matter of fact, no satisfactory principle can be laid down for the use or non-use of the article with proper names.29 For good discussion of the matter see Gildersleeve, Am. Jour. of Philol., XI, pp. 483 ff. In modern Greek the article occurs with all kinds of proper names (Thumb, Handb., p. 41). Moulton (Prol., p. 83) admits the inability of scholars to solve “completely the problem of the article with proper names.” Abbott (Joh. Gr., p. 57 f.) notes that John generally introduces a proper name without the article and then uses it. The papyri also follow this classical idiom of using the article with proper names when mentioned a second time. So when a man’s father or mother is given in the genitive, we usually have the article. Cf. Deissmann, Phil. Wochenschrift, 1902, p. 1467; Moulton, Prol., p. 83. The papyri throw no great light on the subject. Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 95), claims that the papyri confirm the N. T. usage. In the papyri slaves regularly have the article, even when the master does not (Volker, Syntax, p. 9). For Sau/loj o` kai. Pau/loj (Ac. 13:9) the papyri show numerous parallels. Cf. Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 313 ff. Mayser (Gr. d. griech. Pap., p. 310 f.), as already shown, takes o` here as relative. See also Hatch, Journal of Bibl. Lit., Part II, 1908, p. 141 f. In Luke’s list (Lu. 3:23-38) vIwsh,f has no article, while all the long line of genitives have tou/ including tou/ qeou/. Among the ancient writers o` qeo,j was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods.30 Gildersleeve (Syntax, pp. 232-236) gives a full discussion of the subject. In the N. T., however, while we have pro.j to.n qeo,n (Jo. 1:1, 2), it is far more common to find simply qeo,j, especially in the Epistles. But the word is treated like a proper name and may have it (Ro. 3:5) or not have it it(8:9). The same thing holds true about pneu/ma and pneu/ma a[gionà ku,irojà Cristo,j. These words will come up for further discussion later. 762 A GRAMMAR OP THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Addenda 3rd ed. 4. Second Mention (Anaphoric). The use of the article with the second mention of a word is very frequent. Thus in Jo. 6:9, a;rtouj kai. ovya,ria, but in verse 11 tou.j a;rtoujÄÄkai. evk tw/n ovyari,wn. See Lu. 9:13, 16. Cf. u[dwr in Jo. 4:10 and to. u[dwr in verse 11. So ma,goi in Mt. 2:1, but tou.j ma,gouj in verse 7; ziza,nia in 13:25, but ta. ziza,nia in verse 26. Cf. Ac. 9:4, 7; 9:11, 17; Jas. 2:2, 3; Rev. 15:1, 6. In Jo. 4:43, ta.j du,o h`me,raj, the article refers to verse 40. Cf. Jo. 20:1 with 19:41; 12:12 with 12:1; Heb. 5:4 with 5:1; 2 Cor. 5:4 with 5:1. In Ac. 19:13 we have Pau/loj, but o` Pau/loj in 19:15. Volker (Syntax, p. 21 f.) finds the anaphoric use of the article common enough in the papyri. (b) WITH ADJECTIVES. The discussion of the adjective as attributive or predicate comes up later. Thus kalo.j o` no,moj (1 Tim. 1:8) is a different construction from tw/n a`gi,wn profhtw/n (Jo. 10:11). 1. The Resumptive Article. The use of the article and the adjective is perfectly normal in tw/n a`gi,wn profhtw/n, (2 Pet. 3:2). Cf. th|/ evsca,th| h`me,ra| (Jo. 6:40). See also Lu. 1:70; Jas. 2:7. This repetition of the article with the adjective as in o` poimh.n o` kalo,j above is quite common also. Abbott31 thinks that this reduplication of the article “adds weight and emphasis to the article.” Cf. th|/ tri,th| h`me,ra| (Lu. 9:22) with th|/ h`me,ra| th|/ tri,th| grk(18:33). Abbott32 considers that as a rule John reduplicates the article with the adjective only in utterances of the Lord or in weighty sayings about him. Cf. Jo. 1: 9, 41; 2:1; 3:16; 5:43; 7:18; 10:11, 14. But this is hardly true of Jo. 6:13; 18:10. He notes also that in John the possessive adjective, when articular, nearly always has the reduplicated article. Cf. ta. pro,bata ta. evma,,grk grk(10:27). So to.n avdelfo.n to.n i;dion in Jo. 1:41. In Homer the substantive usually comes before the article and the adjective. The resumptive article “repeats the noun in order to add the qualifying word.”33 Cf. Rev. 1:17; 3:7; 22:16, where the article is repeated, twice. Cf. also Ac. 12:10. So tw/n du,o tw/n avkousa,ntwn (Jo. 1:40). In Lu. 6:45 both the article and adjective are repeated after the form of the first part of the sentence, o` ponhro.j evk tou/ ponhrou/ profe,rei to. ponhro,n. See in the papyri to. kitw,nion auvth/j to. leuko.n to. para. soi, P.Tb. 421 (iii/A.D.). 2. With the Adjective Alone. It appears so with all genders and both numbers. Cf. o` a[gioj (Mk. 1:24), th|/ evrh,mw| (Mt. 3:2), ta. avgaqo,n (Gal. 6:10), oi` ptwcoi, (Mt. 5:3), ta. ne,aj (Tit. 2:4), to. ovrata, (Col. 1:16), ta. polla, in Ho. 15:22, oi` sofoi, in 1 Cor. 1: THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ARQRON) 763 27, ai` e[toimoi, in Mt. 25:10, etc. All these examples are obvious enough. The ellipsis is simple and usually supplied from the context. The three uses of the article occur with the adjective alone. The individual use appears in such examples as o` a[gioj tou/ qeou/ (Jo. 6:69), o` di,kaioj (Ac. 22:14), o` avlhqino,j (1 Jo. 5:20), o` ponhro,j (1 Jo. 5:18), to. polu, and to. ovli,gon (2 Cor. 8:15), to. avgaqo,n sou (Phil. 1:14), to. avdu,naton tou/ ovli,gon (Ro. 8:3), th.n xhra,n (Mt. 23:15), toi/j a`gi,oij (Ph. 1:1), evn toi/j evpourani,oij (Eph. 1:3). The generic or representative (class from class) is very common also, more frequent indeed. So o` di,kaioj (1 Pet. 4:18), tou/ avgaqou/ (Ro. 5:7), to.n ptwco,n (Jas. 2:6), tou.j ptwcou,jgrk grk(2:5), oi` plou,sioigrk grk(5:1). So ta. kaka, and ta. avgaqa, (Ro. 3:8), to. avgaqo,n (Lu. 6:45). Cf. in particular Ro. 12:21 u`po. tou/ kakou/à evn tw|/ avgaqw|/ to. kako,n. Cf. also Ro. 13:3 f., to. avgaqo,n (Gal. 6:10), to. i`kano,n (Ac. 17:9), to. kalo,n (2 Cor. 13:7), to. a[gion (Mt. 7:6), ta. o[ria (Mt. 19:1), tw/n spori,mwn (Mk. 2 : 23). The use of the neuter singular with the article as the equivalent of an abstract substantive Blass34 notes as “a peculiar usage of Paul (and Hebrews)” and considers that “this is the most classical idiom in the language of the N. T., and may be paralleled from the old heathen literature, from Thucydides in particular.” But he cautions us against thinking that Paul imitated Thucydides, since Strabo35 and all other writers of the koinh,, not to mention the papyri,36 show the same construction. Deissmann has made it plain from the papyri that to. doki,mion u`mw/n th/j p`i,stewj in Jas. 1:3 (cf. 1 Pet. 1:7) belongs here. See also to. mwro.n tou/ qeou/ (1 Cor. 1:25), to. u`mw/n auvtw/n su,mforongrk grk(7:35), to. evlafro.n th/j qli,yewj (2 Cor. 4:17), to. th/j u`mete,raj avga,phj gnh,siongrk grk(8:8), to. gnwsto.n tou/ qeou/ (Ro. 1:19), to. crhsto.n tou/ qeou/,grk grk(2:4), to. perisso,ngrk grk(3:1), to. dunato.n auvtou/grk grk(9:22), to. evpieike.j u`mw/n (Ph. 4:5), to. avmeta,qeton th/j boulh/j (Heb. 6:17), to. auvth/j avsqene,jgrk grk(7:18). Examples of the plural in this abstract sense occur in ta. pneumaÄ tika. (Eph. 6:12), ta. avo,rata (Ro. 1:20), ta. krupta. tw/n avnqrw,pwngrk grk(2:16), ta. krupta. tou/ sko,touj (1 Cor. 4:5), ta. pa,nta (Col. 1:16), ta. o`rata. kai. ta. avo,rata (ib.). The neuter adjective with the article sometimes appears in the collective sense for persons. So to. e;latton (Heb. 7:7), to. dwdeka,fulon h`mw/n (Ac. 26:7), ta. mwra. tou/ ko,smou- ta. avsqenh/ tou/ ko,smou (1 Cor. 1:27 f.). See further Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 262. 3. The Article not Necessary with the Adjective. Blass,37 who 764 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Addenda 3rd ed. has the best discussion of the use of the article with adjectives, notes that it is not accidental that, while we have evn tw|/ fanerw|/ (Text. Rec., Mt. 6:4), yet eivj fanero.n evlqei/n prevails (Mk. 4:22; Lu. 8:17), since the thing is not yet in existence. But it is a rather fine point, since both evn kruptw|/ (Jo. 7:4, 10) and eivj kru,pthn (a subst. Lu. 11:33) occur as well as evn tw|/ fanerw|/ (Mt. 6:4, Text. Rec.). In Ro. 2:28 evn tw|/ fanerw|/ is genuine. In Jas. 4: 17 note kalo.n poiei/n. The adjective alone may express class as in Mt. 5:45; Lu. 10:21; Ro. 1:14; 1 Cor. 1:20. 4. With Numerals. The article with numbers is more common in Greek than in English and is a classic idiom (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 228). Blass (Gr. of N. T. Gk., p. 315) notes that with numerals the article points out a certain number now brought forward. So e`pta. ÄÄoi` pe,nte – o` ei-j- o` a;lloj (Rev. 17:10). (c) WITH PARTICIPLES. In all essential respects the article is used with the participle exactly as with the adjective. The article is not necessary to the participle when used as an attribute (Jas. 4:17), though it is most commonly found (Heb. 12:1, 2). For the predicate use see Jo. 10:12. The participle with the article is common without the substantive, as of oi` penqou/ntej (Mt. 5:4). The neuter for a person appears in to. gennw,menon (Lu. 1:35). In to. a`polwlo,j (Lu. 10:10) we have the collective neuter singular. The abstract singular is seen in to. u`pere,con th/j gnw,sewj (Ph. 3:8) and the abstract plural in ta. diafe,ronta (Ro. 2:18). Cf. ta. u`pa,rconta, mou (‘my belongings’) in 1 Cor. 13:3, for the more individual use. The representative or generic sense is found in o` spei,rwn (Mt. 13:3). The article with the participle is very common as the equivalent of a relative clause.38 In Mt. 5:32 pa/j o` avpolu,wn and o[j eva,n- gamh,sh| are parallel. See also Col. 1:8. So oi` pepisteuko,tej (Tit. 3:8), o` eivpw,n (2 Cor. 4:6). Cf. Mt. 7:21. The article is repeated with participles if they refer to different persons (Rev. 1:3) or even if the same person is meant where different aspects are presented (Rev. 1:4, where o` h=n comes in between). But note tw|/ avgapw/nti h`ma/j kai. lu,santi h`ma/jgrk grk(1:5). Winer39 makes a special point of the use of a definite participle with an indefinite pronoun like tine,j eivsin oi` tara,ssontej u`ma/j (Gal. 1:7), mh, tij u`ma/j e;stai o` sulagwgw/n (Col. 2:8), a;lloj evsti.n o` marturw/n (Jo. 5:32).40 He also notes the definite subject where the German would have an indefinite one as in ouvk e;stin o` suni,wn (Ro. 3:11). Cf. also the article and the future participle in o` katakrinw/n (Ro. 8:34), THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ARQRON) 765 Ac. 20:22 ta. sunanth,sonta. Cf. Is. 1:31, ouvk e;stai o` sbe,swn. More of this when the Participle is reached (ch. XX). For the repeated article see th|/ ca,riti th|/ doqei,sh| (1 Cor. 1:4). See further VI, Position with Attributives. (d) WITH THE INFINITIVE. This idiom is so common that it must be merely touched upon here and the discussion of it reserved for the Articular Infinitive. In general it may be said that in the Attic and the koinh, the article is used with the infinitive in any case (save vocative) and very much as with any abstract substantive. The Iliad does not have the article and the infinitive, but it occurs once in the Odyssey41 and is in Pindar. Examples of the articular infinitive may be seen in the nominative to. kaqi,sai (Mt. 20:23), the accusative to. lalei/n (1 Cor. 14:39; cf. Ac. 25:11), the genitive evlpi.j pa/sa tou/ sw,zesqai (Ac. 27:20; cf. Lu. 24:29), the ablative evkratou/nto tou/ mh. evpignw/nai (Lu. 24:16; cf. 2 Cor. 1: 8), the locative evn tw|/ spei,rein (Mt. 13:4), the instrumental tw|/ mh. eu`rei/n (2 Cor. 2:13). The dative does not occur in the N. T. with the article, but see qea,sasqai (Mt. 11:7). For the articular infinitive with prepositions see pp. 1068-1075. The article is frequently missing with eivj pei/n rely in the vernacular koinh, (papyri), as Herodotus three times has avnti. ei=nai.42 Cf. Clyde, Greek Syntax, p. 13 f. But enough for the present. The articular infinitive is curiously rare in the Gospel of John, “almost non-existent.”43 It occurs only four times and only with prepositions (Jo. 1:48; 2: 24; 13:19; 17:5). (e) WITH ADVERBS. This is no peculiarity of the koinh, not to say of the N. T. It is common in the older Greek with adverbs of place, time, quality, rank, manner.44 It is not necessary to repeat what is said under Cases and Adverbs concerning the adverbial expressions (really adjectives), like to. prw/ton (Jo. 12:16), to. loipo,n (Ph. 4:8), ta. polla, (Ro. 15:22). The point to note is that the article is used somewhat freely with adverbs as with substantives and adjectives. As examples observe ta. a;nw and ta. ka,tw (Jo. 8:23), h` au;rion (Mt. 6:34, ellipsis of h`me,ra), h` evpau,riongrk grk(27:62), h` sh,meron (Ac. 20:26), o` avmh,n (Rev. 3:14), to. avmh,n (1 Cor. 14:16), to. nu/n (Lu. 5:10), ta. nu/n (Ac. 4:29), o` plhsi,on (Lu. 10:27) and note plhsi,on alone ‘neighbour’ in Lu. 10:29 and 36, to. nai, and to. ouv (2 Cor. 1:17), to. e;xwqen (Mt. 23:25), oi` e;xwqen (1 Tim. 3:7), oi` e;xw (Mk. 4:11, W. H. text), to. evnto,j (Mt. 23:26), ta. e;mproÄ sqen and ta. ovpi,sw (Ph. 3:13 f.), etc. Note two adverbs in Heb. 766 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 12:27, to. vEti a[pax (quotation). In some of these examples there is the ellipsis of a word (note different genders), but not always. There are besides the adjectival uses of the adverb, like o` e;sw a;nÄ qrwpoj (Eph. 3:16), o` e;xw a;nqrwpoj (2 Cor. 4:16), o` nu/n kairo,j (Ro. 3:26). Clyde45 compares to. nu/n with Scotch “the noo.” (f) WITH PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES.46 Cf. of oi` avpo. th/j vItali,aj (Heb. 13:24), oi` evk no,mou (Ro. 4:14), oi` evk peritomh/j (Ac. 11:2), oi` kaq v e[na (Eph. 5:33), to. evk me,rouj (1 Cor. 13:10), ta. peri. u`mw/n (Ph. 1:27), oi` su.n auvtw|/ (Lu. 9:32), to. kaq v h`me,ran (Lu. 11:3), to. kat v evme, (Ph. 1:12; cf. Ro. 1:15), to. kata. sa,rka (Ro. 9:5), to. evx u`mw/n (12: 18), to. avna. dhna,rion (Mt. 20:10, W. H. text); oi` peri. Pau/lon (Ac. 13:13, classic idiom), oi` met v auvtou/ (Mk. 1:36), toi/j evn th|/ oivki,a| (Mt. 5:15), ta. kata. to.n no,mon (Lu. 2:39), ta. evn toi/j ouvranoi/j and ta. evpi. th/j gh/j (Eph. 1:10), th.n eivj pa,ntaj tou.j a`gi,oujgrk grk(1:15), to. kaq v ei=j (Ro. 12:5), o` evn tw|/ fanerw|/grk grk(2:28 f.), etc. In Ac. 18:15 note no,mou tou/ kaq v u`ma/j, where the article occurs with the prepositional phrase, but not with the substantive. On oi` peri,= a man and his followers see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 264. (g) WITH SINGLE WORDS OR WHOLE SENTENCES. Here the word is used verbatim, as to. evgw, (Plato, Crat., 405 .d).47 Cf. to. ;Eti a[pax dhloi/ above (Heb. 12:27) and to. [Agar (the name Hagar, Gal. 4:25). So to. de. vAne,bh (Eph. 4:9). With sentences the article sometimes marks the quotation as in to. Eiv du,nh| (Mk. 9:23), to. Ouv foneu,seij- w`j seauto,n (Mt. 19:18 f.), evn tw|/ vAgaph,seij to.n plhsi,on w`j seauto,n (Gal. 5:14), to. ga.r Ouv moiceu,seij and evn tw|/ vAgaph,seij ktl) (Ro. 13:9), to. Kai. meta. avno,mwn evlogi,sqh (Lu. 22:37). In particular the article is fairly common in Luke and occurs a few times in Paul with indirect questions. The modern Greek shows this essentially classical idiom.48 Blass49 remarks that the article makes no essential difference to the meaning of the question. It does this at least: it makes clearer the substantival idea of the indirect question and its relation to the principal clause. See 1 Th. 4:1 paraela,bete par v h`mw/n to. pw/j dei/ u`ma/j, Ro. 8:26 to. ga.r ti, proseuxw,meqa, Lu. 1:62 evne,neuon to. ti, a’n qe,loi kalei/sqaià 9:46 eivsh/lÄ qen dialogismo.j to. ti,j a’n ei;h mei,zwn, 19:48 ouvc hu[riskon to. ti, poih,swsinà 22:2 evzh,toun to. pw/j avne,lwsinà 22:4 sunela,lshen to. pw/j paradw|/ 22:23 sunzhtei/n to. ti,j ei;hà 22:24 evge,neto filoneiki,a to. ti,j dokei/à Ac. 4:21 mhde.n eu`ri,skontej to. pw/j kola,swntaià 22:30 gnw/nai to. ti, kathgorei/tai. THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ARQRON) 767 (h) WITH GENITIVE ALONE. This is also a common idiom in the ancient Greek.50 The koinh, uses this idiom very often (Radermacher, N. T. Gk., p. 94), as seen both in the inscriptions and the papyri. The article stands alone, but the ellipsis is usually very plain, as is shown by the gender and number as well as the context. So vIa,kwboj o` tou/ Zebedai,ou (Mt. 10:2), where ui`o,j is implied; Maria, h` tou/ Klwpa/, (Jo. 19:25), where gunh, is to be supplied; Mari,a h` vIakw,bou (Lu. 24:10), where mh,thr is meant; to. th/j do,xhj (1 Pet. 4:14), where pneu/ma is to be understood; oi` tou/ Zebedai,ou (Jo. 21:2), where ui`oi, is meant, etc. In 1 Cor. 15:23 maqhtai, is probably to be supplied (cf. Gal. 5:24), and avdelfo,j in Lu. 6:16 (cf. Ju. 1). The neuter plural is common for the notion of “affairs” or “things.” So ta. e`autw/n and ta. Cristou/ vIhsou/ (Ph. 2:21), ta. Kai,saroj and ta. tou/ qeou/ (Lu. 20:25), ta. th/j au;rion (marg. W. H., Jas. 4:14), ta. tou/ ko,smou (1 Cor. 7:33), ta. th/j sarko,j and ta. tou/ pneu,matoj (Ro. 8:5), ta. th/j eivrh,nhjgrk grk(14:19), etc. One may note also here evn toi/j tou/ patro,j mou (Lu. 2:49) for ‘house of my Father.’ Cf. evn toi/j Klaud$i,ou%, P.Oxy. 523 (ii/A.D.). See eivj ta. i;dia and oi` i;dioi (Jo. 1:11). The neuter singular has an abstract use like to. th/j avlhqou/j paroimi,aj (2 Pet. 2:22), to. th/j sukh/j (Mt. 21:21). (i) NOUNS IN THE PREDICATE. These may have the article also. As already explained, the article is not essential to speech. It is, however, “invaluable as a means of gaining precision, e.g. qeo.j h=n o` lo,goj.”51 As a rule the predicate is without the article, even when the subject uses it. Cf. Mk. 9:50; Lu. 7:8. This is in strict accord with the ancient idiom.52 Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 324) notes that the predicate is usually something new and therefore the article is not much used except in convertible propositions. Winer,53 indeed, denies that the subject may be known from the predicate by its having the article. But the rule holds wherever the subject has the article and the predicate does not. The subject is then definite and distributed, the predicate indefinite and undistributed. The word with the article is then the subject, whatever the order may be. So in Jo. 1:1, qeo.j h=n o` lo,gojà the subject is perfectly clear. Cf. o` lo,goj sa.rx evge,neto (Jo. 1:14). It is true also that o` qeo.j h=n o` lo,goj (convertible terms) would have 768 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT been Sabellianism.54 See also o` qeo.j avga,ph evsti,n (1 Jo. 4:16). “God” and “love” are not convertible terms any more than ” God” and “Logos” or “Logos” and “flesh.” Cf. also oi` qeristai. a;ggeloi, eivsin (Mt. 13:39), o` lo,goj o` so.j avlh,qeia, evstin (Jo. 17:17), o` no,moj a`marti,a; (Ro. 7:7). The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea. Cf. also avnqrwpokto,noj and yeu,sthj (Jo. 8: 44). In Eph. 5:23, avnh,r evstin kefalh,, the context makes it clear (W. H. marg. avnh.r kefalh, evstin) that avnh,r is subject even without the article. In Jo. 9:34, evn a`marti,aij su. evgennh,qhj o[loj, the article with o[loj is not needed, a neat use of the predicate adjective. But the article is quite frequent with the predicate in the N. T. and in strict accord with old usage. It is not mere haphazard, however, as Winer rather implied. Hence W. F. Moulton,55 in his note to Winer, properly corrects this error. He finds that when the article is used in the predicate the article is due to a previous mention of the noun (as well known or prominent) or to the fact that subject and predicate are identical.56 The words that are identical are convertible as in the older idiom.57 If he had added what is in Winer-Schmiedel,58 that the article also occurs when it is the only one of its kind, he would have said all that is to be said on the subject. But even here Moulton’s rule of identity and convertibility apply. The overrefinement of Winer-Schmiedel’s many subdivisions here is hardly commendable. In a word, then, when the article occurs with subject (or the subject is a personal pronoun or proper name) and predicate, both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable. The usage applies to substantives, adjectives and participles indifferently. Cf. o` lu,cnoj tou/ sw,mato,j evstin o` ovfqalmo,j (Mt. 6:22), u`mei/j evste. to. a[laj th/j gh/j (Mt. 5:13), o` de. avrgo,j evstin o` ko,smojgrk grk(13:38), su. ei= o` Cristo,jgrk grk(16:16), ei-j evstin o` avgaqo,jgrk grk(19:17), ti,j a;ra evsti.n o` pisto.j dou/lojgrk grk(24:45), tou/to, evstin to. sw/ma, mouà tou/to, evstin to. ai-ma, mougrk grk(26:26, 28), su. ei= o` basileu,jgrk grk(27:11), su. ei= o` ui`o.j mou (Mk. 1:11), ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` te,ktwngrk grk(6:3), ou-to,j evstin o` klhrono,mojgrk grk(12:7), ouv ga,r evste u`mei/j oi` lalou/ntejgrk grk(13:11), h` zwh. h=n to. fw/j (Jo. 1:4), o` profh,thj ei= su,grk grk(1:21), su. ei= o` dida,skalojgrk grk(3:10), ou-to,j evstin o` profh,thjgrk grk(6:14), ou-to,j evstin o` a;rtojgrk grk(6:50; cf. 51), to. pneu/ma, evstin to. zwopoiou/ngrk grk(6:63), evgw, eivmi to. fw/j grk(8:12), ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` kaqh,menojgrk grk(9:8; cf. 19 f.), evgw, eivmi h` qu,ragrk grk(10:7), evgw, eivmi o` poimh,ngrk grk(10:11), evgw, eivmi h` avna,stasij kai. h` zwh,grk grk(11:25, note both articles), evgw, eivmi h` o`do.j kai. h` avlh,qeia kai. THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ARQRON) 769 h` zwh,grk grk(14:6, note three separate articles), evkei/no,j evstin o` avgapw/n megrk grk(14:21), ou-to,j evstin o` li,qoj (Ac. 4:11), ou-to,j evstin h` du,namijgrk grk(8:10), ouvc ou-to,j evstin o` porqh,sajgrk grk(9:21), ou-to,j evstin o` a;nqrwpojgrk grk(21:28), ouvk a;ra su. ei= o` Aivgu,ptiojgrk grk(21:38), h` kefalh. o` Cristo,j evstin (1 Cor. 11:3), o` de. ku,rioj to. pneu/ma, evstin (2 Cor. 3:17), auvto,j evstin h` eivrh,nh h`mw/n (Eph. 2:14), h`mei/j h` peritomh, (Ph. 3:3), h`mei/j ga,r evsmen h` peritomh,grk grk(3:3), h` a`marti,a evsti.n h`p avnomi,a (1 Jo. 3:4), evgw. eivmi to. ;Alfa kai. to. =W (Rev. 1:8), evgw, eivmi o` prw/toj kai. o` e;scatoj grk(1:17, note both articles), su. ei= o` talai,pwrojgrk grk(3:17), etc. This list is not exhaustive, but it is sufficient to illustrate the points involved. Note o` basileu,j (Mt. 27:11) and basileu,j (Jo. 1:49). Even the superlative adjective may have the article as in Rev. 1:17 above. But see oi` e;scatoi prw/toi kai. oi` prw/toi e;scatoi (Mt. 20:16) for the usual construction. Cf. evsca,th w[ra (1 Jo. 2:18). See further evn evsca,taij h`me,raij, Jas. 5:3; 2 Tim. 3:1; evn kairw|/ evsca,tw|, 1 Pet. 1:5, and th|/ evsca,th| h`me,ra|, Jo. 6:39. For the common predicate accusative see chapter XI (Cases), vii, (i). In the N. T. most examples are anarthrous (Jo. 5:11; 15:15), and note 1 Cor. 4:9 h`ma/j tou.j avposto,louj evsta,touj avpe,deixen. Cf. Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 326. (j) DISTRIBUTIVE. Cf. evk dhnari,ou th.n h`me,ran (Mt. 20:2), a[pax tou/ evniautou/ (Heb. 9:7), di.j tou/ sabba,tou (Lu. 18:12), e`pta,kij th/j h`me,raj (Lu. 17:4). This is, to be sure, an ancient idiom familiar also to the English (cf. our “by the yard,” “by the pound,” etc.). It is found in the papyri.59 But e[kastoj is not used in the N. T. with the article. Cf. oi` kaq v e[na e[kastoj (Eph. 5:33). We have once avmfo,tera ta. ploi/a (Lu. 5:7), and several times oi` avmfo,Ä teroi (Eph. 2:18), ta. avmfo,teragrk grk(2:14). Cf. tou.j du,o in Eph. 2:15. Cf. Thompson, Syntax of Attic Gk., p. 51. (k) NOMINATIVE WITH THE ARTICLE =VOCATIVE. This matter was sufficiently discussed in the chapter on Cases. It is an occasional Greek idiom repeated in the Hebrew and Aramaic regularly and frequent in N. T. As examples see nai,à o` path,r (Mt. 11:26) to. a;lalon kai. kwfo.n pneu/ma (Mk. 9:25), h` pai/j (Lu. 8:54), o` basileu,j (Jo. 19:3). (1) As THE EQUIVALENT OF A POSSESSIVE PRONOUN. The article does not indeed mean possession. The nature of the case makes it plain that the word in question belongs to the person mentioned. The French can say j’ai mal a la tete, avlgw/ th.n kefalh,n.60 The examples in the N. T. are rather numerous. See, 770 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Addenda 3rd ed. for instance, avpeni,yato ta.j cei/raj (Mt. 27:24; cf. Lu. 13:13). In Mt. 4:20 we have ta. di,ktua, while in verse 21 we find ta. di,ktua auvtw/n. Cf. kate,seise th|/ ceiri,. (Ac. 21:40; cf. Mk. 7:32), to.n ui`o.n to.n monogenh/ (Jo. 3:16), tw|/ noi> douleu,w (Ro. 7:25), tou/ patro,j (1 Cor. 5:1). Ti,ton kai. to.n avfelfo,n, (2 Cor. 12:18; cf. also 8:18).61 Cf. Mt. 8:3; Jo. 1:41. (m) WITH POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. The article is always used in the N. T. with these pronouns unless the pronoun is predicate. So ta. evma. pa,nta sa, evstin kai. ta. sa. evma, (Jo. 17:10) h`me,teroj (Ac. 2:11) and u`me,teroj (Jo. 7:6; cf. Lu. 6:20). The article is frequently repeated as in o` kairo.j o` evmo,j (Jo. 7:6). It was usual with possessives in the ancient Greek.62 The Gospel of John shows o` evmo,j very frequently. Cf. Abbott, Joh. Gr., p. 65 f. With i;dioj the article is customary, as in eivj th.n ivdi,an po,lin (Mt. 9:1). This construction is very common in the N. T. A few times we meet i;dioj without the article, as in ivdi,oij ovywni,oij (1 Cor. 9:7), kairoi/j ivdi,oij (1 Tim. 2:6). The anarthrous examples may be only members of a class, not the particular individual in the case. See further ch. XV, Pronouns. (n) WITH Auvto,j. It is only necessary to mention the order auvth. h` kti,sij (Ro. 8:21), and h` auvth. sa,rx (1 Cor. 15:39), to set forth the distinction in the position of the article with auvto,j. So auvto. to. pneu/ma (Ro. 8:26), but to. auvto. pneu/ma (1 Cor. 12:8). See Pronouns. (o) WITH DEMONSTRATIVES. The essential facts have been already stated in the chapter on Pronouns. Here a bare summary is sufficient. [Ode occurs in the N. T. once with the article, eivj th,nde th.n po,lin (Jas. 4:13). The usual position of the demonstrative with the article has already been discussed also. It may be repeated here that we must not confuse this predicate (appositional) position of ou-tojà evkei/noj with the ordinary predicate position of adjectives. The construction may be paralleled to some extent by the French la republique francaise. Still in Homer63 tou/ton to.n a;nalton= ‘this man,’ a;naltoj, ‘that he is.’ Here we probably see the origin of the idiom ou-toj o`) So fixed did the usage become that in the Attic inscriptions the construction is uniform.64 The Boeotian inscriptions reveal the same thing.65 The order is immaterial, whether o` a;nqrwpoj ou-toj (Lu. 2:25) or ou-toj o` a;nqrwpojgrk grk(14:30). THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ARQRON) 771 In general it may be noted that the absence of the article with the noun means that ou-toj is a real predicate, as in Jo. 2:11, tau,thn evpoi,hsen avrch.n tw/n shmei,wn. Cf. Lu. 24:21; Ac. 1:5. Even with proper names the article occurs, as in ou-toj o` vIhsou/j (Ac. 1:11). For further details see chapter on Pronouns. It may be remarked that the rigidity apparent in the use of the article in connection with ou-toj and evkei/noj does not exist in the case of the correlative demonstratives. The article is wanting in the N. T. in connection with toio,sde and thlikou/toj) Tosou/toj occurs once only with the article, a true attributive, o` tosou/toj plou/toj (Rev. 18:16). Toiou/toj, on the other hand, usually appears with the article and in the attributive position, as in tw/n toiou,twn paidi,wn (Mk. 9:37), though once the predicate position is found, ai` duna,meij toiau/tai (Mk. 6:2). Most of the examples have no substantive, like oi` toiou/toi (Ro. 16:18), ta. toiau/ta (Gal. 5:21). (p) WITH [Olojà Pa/j ( [Apaj). [Apaj is found chiefly in Luke and Acts. The MSS. vary greatly between a[paj and pa/j) The text of W. H. now has pa/j in the margin (Lu. 9:15), now a[pajgrk grk(15:13). Blass66 fails to find any satisfactory rule for the use of a[paj, the Attic distinction of a[paj after a consonant and pa/j after a vowel not holding (cf. Lu. 1:3), though in general a[paj does occur (when used at all) after a consonant (cf. Mt. 6:32). [Apaj, when used with a substantive in the N. T., is always with the article. Once only does it appear in the attributive position, th.n a[pasan makroquÄ mi,an (1 Tim. 1:16), ‘the total sum of his long-suffering.’ Elsewe have either the order o` lao.j a[paj (Lu. 19:48) or a[panta to.n lao,n (Lu. 3:21). If ou-toj also is used, we have th.n evxousi,an tau,thn a[pasan (Lu. 4:6). Cf. oi` auvtou/ a[pantej (Ac. 16:33). The construction of pa/j is varied and interesting. It is an exceedingly common adjective in all parts of the N. T. In general it may be said that the idiom of the N. T. is in harmony with the ancient Greek in the use of rag and the article.67 In the singular pa/j may be used without the article in the sense of ‘every.’ So pa,nta peirasmo,n (Lu. 4:13), pa/n sto,ma (Ro. 3:19), pa/san sunei,dhsin avnqrw,pwn (2 Con 4:2), pa/n sto,ma (Mt. 3:10), etc. Blass68 distinguishes between e[kastoj= ‘each individual’ and pa/j =’any one you please.’ Pa/j o`= ‘all.’ So pa/sa h` po,lij (Mt. 8:34) = ‘all the city’ (die ganze Stadt).69 This is the order and it is very common. Cf. pa/san th,n 772 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT gh.n (Mt. 27:45), panti. tw|/ oi;kw| (Ac. 10:2). Even without the article pa/j may be ‘all,’ if it is a proper noun, like pa/sa vIeroso,luma (Mt. 2:3), pa/j vIsrah,l (Ro. 11:26). In Ac. 2:36, pa/j oi=koj vIsrah,l, there is only one “house of Israel,” so that ‘all’ is the idea. Winer70 says that it is treated as a proper name. Abstract substantives also may be used with or without the article. There is very little difference in idea between pa,sh| gnw,sei (1 Cor. 1:5) and pa/san th.n gnw/sin (1 Cor. 13:2). With the abstract word “every” and “all” amount practically to the same thing. There is an element of freedom in the matter. So pa/san th.n pi,stin (1 Cor. 13:2), but pa,sh| sofi,a| (Ac. 7:22). There may indeed be occasionally the difference between a specific instance like pa,sh| th|/ qli,yei h`mw/n (2 Cor. 1:4) and a general situation like pa,sh| qli,yei (ib.).71 But see pa,sh| u`pomonh|/ (2 Cor. 12:12), pa,sh| a`gni,a| (1 Tim. 5:2), meta. parrhsi,aj pa,shj (Ac. 4:29), etc. See also pa/sa sa,rxÊ rf’B’-lK’ (Lu. 3:6), usually with ouv (Mt. 24:22). But note again plhrw/sai pa/san dikaiosu,nhn (Mt. 3:15) and pa,shj th/j prosdoki,aj (Ac. 12:11). See pa/sa evxousi,a (Mt. 28:18), pa,shj pleonexi,aj (Lu. 12:15). Cf. 2 Tim. 1:15. In Ph. 1:3, pa,sh| th|/ mnei,a|, the article is pertinent as in pa/sa h` kti,sij (Ro. 8:22). But in Col. 1:15, 23; 1 Pet. 2:13 pa/sa kti,sij has its true idea of ‘every created thing.’ But what about prwto,tokoj pa,shj kti,sewj (Col. 1:15)? See also Co1.1:9 ff. and pa/san cara,n (Jas. 1:2). Other examples somewhat open to doubt are pa/sa oivkodomh, (Eph. 2:21) which is most probably ‘every building’ because of eivj nao,n. So in Eph. 3:15 pa/sa patria, is ‘every family,’ though ‘all the family’ is possible. In 2 Tim. 3:16 pa/sa grafh, is ‘every Scripture,’ if separate portions are referred to. Cf. Jo. 19:37, e`te,ra grafh,. Usually in the singular in the N. T. we have h` grafh,, but twice grafh, occurs alone as definite without the article, once in 1 Pet. 2:6, evn grafh|/, once in 2 Pet. 1:20, grafh/j. Twice in the plural (Ro. 1:2; 16:26) the article is absent. In Col. 4:12 evn panti. qelh,Ä mati tou/ qeou/ it is ‘every,’ ‘whatever be the will of God for you’ (Moffatt). In Jas. 1:17, pa/sa do,sij, we have ‘every,’ as in panto.j prosw,pou (Ac. 17 : 26).72 Pa/j o` and the participle is a very common construction in the N. T. Here the idea is ‘every,’ and o` and the participle are in apposition. Thus pa/j o` avkou,wn (Mt. 7:26) is practically equivalent to pa/j o[stij avkou,eigrk grk(7:24). Cf. pa/j o` ovrgizo,menoj (Mt. 5:22), pa/j o` THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ARQRON) 773 Addenda 3rd ed. Addenda 3rd ed. ble,pwngrk grk(5:28), pa/j o` avpolu,wn grk(5:32), pa/j o` aivtw/ngrk grk(7:8), etc. But sometimes we find pa/j without the article as in panto.j avkou,ontoj (Mt. 13:19), panti. ovfei,lonti (Lu. 11:4), where some MSS. read tw|/) See panti. tw|/ pisteu,onti (Ro. 1:16). The abstract neuter pa/n to, is regular. So pa/n to. eivsporeuo,menon (Mt. 15:17), pa/n to. ovfeilo,Ä menongrk grk(18:34). Cf. pa/n o[ in Jo. 6:37, 39. The idiom o` pa/j= ‘the whole,’ ‘the totality,’ is not frequent in the singular. It occurs twice.73 See to.n pa,nta cro,non (Ac. 20:18), o` pa/j no,moj (Gal. 5:14), das gesamte Gesetz.74 Cf. also Barn. 4:9, 6 pa/j cronoj. Here the whole is contrasted with a part. `O pa/j no,mojÊ ‘the entire law,’ ‘the whole law.’ It was never so common a construction in the ancient Greek75 as pa/j o`. In the plural pa,ntej is used sometimes without the article. The article is not necessary with proper names, like pa,ntej vAqhnai/oi (Ac. 17:21). Cf. pa,ntej vIoudai/oigrk grk(26:4). But the article is absent elsewhere also, as in pa,ntej evrga,tai avdiki,aj (Lu. 13:27), pa,ntaj avnqrw,pouj (Ac. 22:15; cf. Ro. 5:12, 18), pa/sin avgaqoi/j (Gal. 6:6; cf. pa/sin toi/j in 3:10), pa,ntwn a`gi,wn (Eph. 3:8), pa,ntej a;ggeloi (Heb. 1: 6). These examples are not numerous, however. Cf. 1 Pet. 2:1; 2 Pet. 3:16. Blass76 considers it a violation of classical usage not to have the article in Eph. 3:8 and 2 Pet. 3:16, because of the adjectives, and in Lu. 4:20, pa,ntwn evn th|/ sunaÄ gwgh|/, because of the adjunct. But that objection applies chiefly to the literary style. See of oi` a[gioi pa,ntej (2 Cor. 13:12). The usual construction is pa/sai ai` geneai,. (Mt. 1:17), pa,ntaj tou.j avrcierei/jgrk grk(2:4), etc. Sometimes we have the other order like ta.j po,leij pa,saj (Mt. 9:35). Cf. 2 Cor. 13:12. Pa/j may be repeated with separate words (Mt. 3:5). For the use with the participle see Mt. 8:16. A few examples of the attributive position are found, like oi` pa,ntej a;ndrej (Ac. 19:7)= ‘the total number of the men,’ as in the ancient idiom. See, also, ai` pa/sai yucai, (Ac. 27:37), tou.j su.n auvtoi/j pa,ntaj a`gi,ouj (Ro. 16:15), oi` su.n evmoi. pa,ntej avdelfoi, (Gal. 1:2), tou.j pa,ntaj h`ma/j (2 Cor. 5:10). The last example= ‘we the whole number of us.’ Cf. Ac. 21:21. But we also find oi` pa,ntej without a substantive, as in 2 Cor. 5: 15; 1 Cor. 9:22; Ro. 11:32; Eph. 4:13; Ph. 2:21. In 1 Cor. 10:17, oi` pa,ntej evk tou/ e`no.j a;rtou mete,comenà note the contrast with tou/ e`no,j. Still more common is ta. pa,nta for ‘the sum of things,’ the all.’ Cf. Ro. 8:32; 11:36; 1 Cor. 11:12; 12:6, 19 (cf. here ta. pa,nta 774 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT Addenda 3rd ed. Addenda 3rd ed. and e[n); 2 Cor. 5:18; Col. 1:17, etc. The use of pa,ntej alone (1 Cor. 12:29), or of pa,nta (1 Cor. 13:7), calls for no comment. The story of o[loj is brief. It is never attributive in position in the N. T. It has also an indefinite meaning which pa/j does not have. Thus evniauto.n o[lon (Ac. 11:26)= ‘a whole year.’ Pa/j does not have this idea apart from the article. So Jo. 7:23, o[lon a;nÄ qrwpon u`gih/, ‘a whole man sound.’77 Cf. Lu. 5:5; Ac. 28:30. In Mk. 12:30 compare evx o[lhj kardi,aj ( evn o[lh| kardi,a| Mt. 22:37) with evx o[lhj th/j yuch/j. In this sense the plural also is found as in o[louj oi;kouj (Tit. 1:11). One may compare o[lh vIerousalh,m (Ac. 21:31), with pa/sa vIeroso,luma (Mt. 2:3). We usually have in the N. T. the order o[lh h` po,lij (Mk. 1:33), but sometimes h` po,lij o[lh (Ac. 21:30). Sometimes we have o[loj and pa/j in the same sentence as in 2 Cor. 1: 1; 1 Th. 4:10. The word may be repeated several times (Mt. 22:37; Mk. 12:30, 33). It occurs alone also as a predicate (Jo. 9:34), or with tou/to (Mt. 1:22). (q) WITH Polu,j. There is a peculiar use of the article with polu,j that calls for a word. The regular construction with the article (attributive) like to. polu. auvtou/ e;leoj (1 Pet. 1:3) occurs in the singular (cf. o` to. polu,, 2 Cor. 8:15) and much more frequently in the plural. So oi` polloi, alone (Ro. 5:15; 12:5; Heb. 12:15; 1 Cor. 10:17), ta. polla, (Ro. 15:22). With the substantive added note u`da,twn pollw/n (Rev. 17:1), ai` a`marti,ai ai` pollai, (Lu. 7:47), ta. polla. gra,mmata (Ac. 26:24). This is all in harmony with classic idiom78 as well as the frequent use of polu,j without the article in an indefinite sense. But in o` o;coloj polu,j (Jo. 12:9, 12) Moulton79 finds “a curious misplacement of the article.” Moulton cites a piece of careless Greek from Par.P. 60, avpo. tw/n plhrwma,twn avrcei,wn. It is possible that o;cloj polu,j came to be regarded as one idea. Gildersleeve (Syntax, p. 284) cites a few rare attributive examples of the type o` avnh.r avgaqo,j from Homer and AEschylus where the adjective is appositive rather than predicative. The Homeric examples may be demonstrative. One may note also evk th/j matai,aj u`mw/n avnastrofh/j patroparado,tou (1 Pet. 1:18) and u`po. th|/j legome,nhj peritomh/j evn sarki. ceiropoih,tou (Eph. 2:11). See VI, (c), 5. We do find the usual order o` polu.j o;cloj in Mk. 12 : 37. But it is a fact that o;cloj polu,j is the usual order in the N. T. (Mt. 26:47 Mk. 5:24;. Lu. 7:11; 9:37; Jo. 6:2, 5). The analogy of pa/jà o[lojà ou-toj may have played some part in the matter. For o;cloi polloi, see Mt. 19:2; Lu. 14:25. In Mt. 21:8 (parallel THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ARQRON) 775 with Mk. 12:37, o` polu.j o;cloj) we have o` plei/stoj o;cloj, but it is difficult to lay much stress on this point of variation. One is reminded of the constant French idiom, but that is merely an independent parallel. The idiom oi` plei,onej may be seen in 1 Cor. 9:19. See further ch. XIV. (r) ;Akrojà [Hmisujà ;Escatojà Me,soj. As to a;kroj, it does not appear as an adjective in the N. T. In Lu. 16:24 and Heb. 11:21 to. a;kron is a substantive. The same thing is probably true of a;krou and a;krwn in Mk. 13:27 and Mt. 24:31. This is in harmony with the Septuagint (Ex. 29:20; Is. 5: 26).80 The same situation is repeated in the case of h[misuj. Cf. e[wj h`misouj th/j basilei,aj (Mk. 6:23), h[misu kairou/ (Rev. 12:14). Cf. h[misu alone (Rev. 11:9, 11). But e;sca,th| is used attributively as in h` evsca,th pla,nh (Mt. 27:64), th|/ evsca,th| h`me,ra| (Jo. 6:39, etc.), to. e;scaton lepto,n (Lu. 12:59), etc. The construction o` e;scatoj alone (Rev. 2:8) and ta. e;scata tou/ avnqrw,pou (Lu. 11:26) is classical.81 So is indeed also pa,ntwn e;scatoj (Mk. 9:35), evn kairw|/ evsca,tw| (1 Pet. 1:5). vEp v evsca,Ä tou tw/n h`merw/n (Heb. 1:2) is probably a substantive use. But in 2 Pet. 3:3 evp v evsca,twn tw/n h`merw/n we may have the partitive construction in the predicate position. There is no doubt of it as to me,soj. Here also we find usually to. me,son (like to. a;kron above) absolutely (Mk. 3:3), or the various prepositional phrases like eivj me,son (Mk. 14:60), evnme,sw| (Mk. 6:47), dia. me,sou (Lu. 4:30), avna. me,son (Mk. 7:31), kata. me,son (Ac. 27:27), evk me,sou (Mt. 13:49) or me,son as preposition (Ph. 2:15). But the old partitive construction occurs in me,shj nukto,j (Mt. 25:6), h`me,raj me,shj (Ac. 26:13) without the article. The true predicate is found in to. katape,tasma tou/ naou/ me,son (Lu. 23:45). So me,soj in Ac. 1:18. Cf. also to. ploi/on me,son th/j qala,sshj (Mt. 14:24, marg. W. H.), where me,son is probably a preposition. In Jo. 19:18, me,son to.n vIhsou/n, we have ‘Jesus in the midst.’ There is, however, no example in the N. T. like the old classic idiom which is seen in the LXX. Cf. evk me,shj th/j po,lewj (Ezek. 11:23).82 See also ch. XIV. (s) WITH ;Alloj AND [Eteroj. The article is frequent with a;lloj but never in the sense of ‘the rest of,’ like ancient Greek. But oi` a;lloi. (1 Cor. 14:29) is close to it. It is used where only two are meant, as in o` Pe,troj kai. o` a;lloj maqhth,j (Jo. 20:3), h` a;llh Mari,a (Mt. 28 : 1). The order o` maqhth.j o` a;lloj occurs (Jo. 18:16). Cf. also tou/ a;llou tou/ sunstaurwqe,ntoj (Jo. 19:32) where the article is repeated, like toi/j loipoi/j toi/j, etc. (Rev. 2:24). Blass83 776 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT says that no Attic writer would have said tai/j e`te,raij po,lesin= ‘the remaining cities’ (Lu. 4:43). He considers eivj th.n e`te,ran (Mt. 10:23 aB) “incorrect” for ‘the next’ city, as well as o` e[teroj= ‘the third’ in Lu. 19:20. But it is not the use of the article here that displeases Blass, but the free interchange of a;lloj and e[teroj in the koinh,. See ch. XV, Pronouns. (t) Mo,noj. This need detain us but a moment. The essential facts are succinctly given by Winer-Schmiedel.84 Without the article mo,noj occurs usually even with proper names, as vIhsou/j mo,noj (Lu. 9:36). So mo,nw| qew|/ (Ro. 16:27; 1 Tim. 1:17). But the predicate use occurs also. So Mt. 12:4 toi/j i`ereu/si mo,noij;grk grk(24:36) path/r mo,noj ( aBD); mo,noi oi` maqhtai, (Jo. 6:22); mo,noj o` avrciereu,j (Heb. 9:7). The articular attributive use is found a few times, as in tou/ mo,nou qeou/ (Jo. 5:44). Cf. Jo. 17:3; 1 Tim. 6:15 f.; Ju. 4. See ch. XIV. VI. Position with Attributives. The article does not make a word or phrase attributive. It may be attributive without the article. It is necessary to go over much of the same ground again (Adjectives and Participles, Genitives, Adverbs and Adjuncts) in order to get the subject clearly before us. (a) WITH ADJECTIVES. So e;rgon avgaqo,n (Ph. 1:6) is attributive= ‘a good work,’ though it is anarthrous. Cf. also e;rgoij avgaqoi/j (Eph. 2:10). Cf. mikra. zu,mh (1 Cor. 5:6). But when the article is used before a word or phrase there is no doubt about its being attributive. 1. The Normal Position of the Adjective. It is between the article and the substantive, as in to. kalo.n o;noma (Jas. 2:7), o` avgaqo.j a;nqrwpoj (Mt. 12:35), to. evmo.n o;nomagrk grk(18:20). In this normal attributive type the adjective receives greater emphasis than the substantive.85 Cf. correct text Lu. 12:12; 1 Cor. 10:3 (correct text); 1 Jo. 5:20. So tou/ makari,ou qeou/ (1 Tim. 1:11). There must be a special reason for the other construction.86 2. The Other Construction (Repetition of the Article). In the order87 o` poimh.n o` kalo,j (Jo. 10:11) both substantive and adjective receive emphasis and the adjective is added as a sort of climax in apposition with a separate article.88 Cf. o` ui`o,j mou o` avgaphto,j (Mt. THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ARQRON) 777 17:5), th.n gh/n th.n avgaqh,n (Lu. 8:8), to. fw/j to. avlhqino,n, (Jo. 1:9), to. u[dwr to. zw/ngrk grk(4:11), o` kairo.j o` evmo,jgrk grk(7:6), h` a;mpeloj h` avlhqinh,grk grk grk(15:1), to. pneu/ma to. ponhro,n (Ac. 19:15). Cf. also Mt. 6:6; Lu. 7:47; Jo. 6:13; 1 Cor. 12:31; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 6:13; Col. 1:21; Heb. 13:20; 1 Jo. 1:2; 2:25; 4:9. There is an apparent difficulty in Heb. 9:1, to, te a[gion kosmiko,n, which may be compared with o` o;cloj polu,j, p. 774 (Jo. 12:9).89 Perhaps both a[gion and kosmiko,n were felt to be adjectives. 3. Article Repeated Several Times. So in Ac. 12:10, th.n pu,lhn th.n sidhra/n th.n fe,rousan. Cf. to. pu/r to. aivw,nion to. h`toimasme,non (Mt. 25:41), o` maqhth.j o` a;lloj o` gnwsto,j (Jo. 18:16), th.n r`omfai,an th.n di,stomon th.n ovxei/an (Rev. 2:12). In particular note the repetition of the article in Heb. 11:12; Rev. 3:14; 17:1; 21:9. In Rev. 1:5 note four articles, o` ma,rtuj o` pisto,jà o` prwto,tokoj- kai. o` a;rcwn. Cf. Rev. 12:9; 1 Pet. 4:14. For this common classic idiom see Gildersleeve, Syntax, pp. 328 ff. In Ph. 1:29, u`mi/n evcaÄ ri,sqh to. u`pe.r Cristou/, the two infinitives following, each with to, explain the first to,. 4. One Article with Several Adjectives. When several adjectives are used we find an article with each adjective if the adjectives accent different aspects sharply. So o` prw/toj kai. o` e;scatoj kai. o` zw/n (Rev. 1:17; cf. 22:13). Cf. also o` w;n – kai. o` evrco,menojgrk grk(1:4, 8). But ordinarily the one article is sufficient for any number of adjectives referring to the same substantive. So o` talai,pwroj kai. evleino.j kai. ptwco.j kai. tuflo.j kai. gumno,j (Rev. 3:17). In Mt. 24: 45, o` pisto.j dou/loj kai. fro,nimoj, the kai. carries over the force of the article.90 So likewise the presence of another attribute may explain the probable predicate position patroparado,tou (1 Pet. 1: 18) and ceiropoih,tou (Eph. 2:11).91 See further (c), 5. 5. With Anarthrous Substantives. There is still another order.92 It is eivrh,nhn th.n evmh,n (Jo. 14:27). Here the substantive is indefinite and general, while the attribute makes a particular application. Cf. no,moj o` duna,menoj (Gal. 3:21). Radermacher (N. T. Gr., p. 93) finds this idiom frequent in koinh,. So gunai/ka th.n euvgenesta,thn (I. G., XII, 7 N. 240, 13). 6. With Participles. The participle may come between the article and the substantive like the attributive adjective, as in th.n h`toimasme,nhn u`mi/n basilei,an (Mt. 25:34). Cf. 1 Tim. 1:10; Ro. 8:18; 1 Cor. 12:22; 1 Pet. 1:13. On the other hand (cf. 5), 778 A GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT all else may come between the article and the participle, as in 1 Pet. 1:10, oi- profhteu,santej. A long clause (including a relative clause) may come between the article and the participle, as in Ro. 16:17, tou.j- poiou/ntaj. Once more, the participle may come in the midst of the attributive phrases, as in 1 Pet. 1:3, o`- avnaÄ gennh,saj, or immediately after the article, as in 2 Pet. 1:3. Either the participle or the modifier may occur outside of the attributive complex (Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 289 f.). Gildersleeve gives copious illustrations of the various constructions of the attributive participle. The article may be repeated after the substantive, like to. u[dwr to. zw/n above (Jo. 4:11), oi` grammatei/j oi` ÄÄ kataba,ntej (Mk. 3:22). Cf. Jo. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:54; 1 Pet. 1:25; 5:10; Ac. 7:37; Heb. 13:20. The article may occur with the participle when not with the substantive. This supplementary addition of the article is more common with the participle than with other adjectives.93 Cf. paidi,oij toi/j evn avgora|/ kaqhme,noij (Lu. 7:32), gunai/kej ai` sunakolouqou/sai auvtw|/ grk(23:49), avgge,lou tou/ ovfqe,ntoj auvtw|/ (Ac. 7:35), crusi,ou tou/ avpollume,nou (1 Pet. 1:7), and in particular ouvde. ga.r o;noma, evstin e[teron to. dedome,non (Ac. 4:12). Cf. also Ac. 1:12; Gal. 3:21; Ro. 2:14 $e;qnh ta. mh. no,mon e;conta). But in qeou/ tou/ evgei,rantoj (Gal. 1:1), Cristou/ tou/ do,ntoj grk(1:4), the proper names are definite without the article. So vIhsou/n to.n r`uo,menon (1 Th. 1:10), etc. Participles in apposition with personal pronouns may also have the article. Cf. evgw, eivmi o` lalw/n soi (Jo. 4:26), tw|/ qe,lonti evmoi, (Ro. 7:21), su. o` kri,nwn (Jas. 4: 12), h`mi/n toi/j peripatou/sin (Ro. 8:4), h`ma/j tou.j pisteu,ontaj (Eph. 1:19), auvtoi/j toi/j pisteu,ousin (Jo. 1:12), etc. Note two articles in 1 Th. 4:15, 17, h`mei/j oi` zw/ntej oi` perileipo,menoi. Cf. Eph. 1: 12; 1 Jo. 5:13 ( u`mi/n – toi/j p)); 1 Cor. 8:10. The artic. part. may be in appos. with the verb, as in e;cwmen oi` katafugo,ntej (Heb. 6:18; cf. 4:3). Cf., on the other hand, h`mei/jà avporfaÄ nisqe,ntej (1 Th. 2:17). The article and participle may follow tine,jà as in tinaj tou.j pepoiqo,taj (Lu. 18:9), tine,j eivsin oi` tara,ssonÄ tej (Gal. 1:7). If the substantive has the article and the participle is anarthrous, the participle may be (cf. above) predicate. So th.n fwnh.n evnecqei/san (2 Pet. 1:18), toi/j pneu,masin- avpeiqh,sasin (1 Pet. 3:19 f.), a`rpage,nta to.n toiou/ton (2 Cor. 12:2), to.n a;ndra tou/ton sullhmfqe,nta (Ac. 23:27). Cf. Lu. 16:14; Jo. 4:6; Ro. 2:27; 1 Cor. 14:7; 2 Cor. 3:2; 11:9; Heb. 10:2; 1 Pet. 1:12. The presence of the article with the participle here would radically change the sense. The same article may be used with several par- THE ARTICLE ( TO ;ACRON) 779 Addenda 3rd ed. ticiples, as in tou/ avgaph,santo,j me kai. parado,ntoj (Gal. 2:20), tw|/ avgapw/nti kai. lu,santi (Rev. 1:5). The use of the article with the participle in the predicate is illustrated by qeo.j o` dikaiw/n ti,j o` kaÄ takrinw/n; (Ro. 8:33; cf. Jo. 5:4
  5. DXer said

    From Christopher Andrew’s DEFEND THE REALM (November 2, 2009) at 807-808.

    “In September 2000 the Pakistan microbiologist Rauf Ahmad attended a conference in Britain on dangerous pathogens, where he sought samples from other delegates as well as help in obtaining a bioreactor and cell counter. The Service was alerted to his activities and a search of his luggage on departure from the UK revealed [13,000 pounds], which he claimed was “to buy equipment,” documents detailing his contacts (including UK companies) and a copy of his CV. The CV revealed that Ahmad had a PhD from a university in Pakistan, had attended earlier conferences in Britain in 1997 and 1999 and had published scientific papers on anthrax. Security Service officers visited the UK companies with which Ahmad had made contact and they broke off their dealings with him.”

    “Ahmad’s visits to Britain had much greater significance that was apparent at the time. Their purpose only became clear after 9/11, from documents recovered by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2001. Among the documents was correspondence between “Abu Mohammed” and “Abu Ibrahim” about procurement of equipment, cultures and training for BW production. “Abu Mohammed” was quickly identified as UBL’s deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri. “Abu Ibrahim” took longer to track down. References in the correspondence to his foreign travels, attendance at conferences in the UK and attempts to procure dangerous pathogens, however, were discovered to match exactly the information on Ahmad in Security Services files.”

  6. DXer said

    http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/dogs-forensic-science-and-scent-lineups/

    November 4, 2009, 12:19 am
    Dogs, Forensic Science and ‘Scent Lineups’
    By John Schwartz

    ***

    The ability of animals to read their handlers, known as the “Clever Hans” phenomenon [where the dog senses what the handler wants or interest in a POI], has been written about in The Times for 100 years.

    While some states have used dogs for scent lineups, the Federal Bureau of Investigation says it shuns the practice, and uses dogs to follow a trail to a suspect or a location associated with him, and not to identify one person out of several. Thomas Lintner, the chief of the F.B.I. Laboratory’s evidence response team unit said that the bureau has been using scent dogs to link people to crimes for four years as an “emerging technology” and works under carefully controlled conditions using “scent transfer units” that vacuum air across pads with minimal contamination. Even then, the F.B.I. restricts the uses of the evidence produced by dogs.

    “It’s a lead generation activity,” he said. “It’s not something we’re going to take to court and say, ‘we need to indict this guy.’ ”

    A story written in 2002 by Scott Shane, now a New York Times reporter, when he worked at the Baltimore Sun, suggests, however, that F.B.I.’s approach to using dogs to gather evidence has not always been so scrupulous. That article (which is archived, and requires a payment to see in full), suggested that bloodhound handlers from Southern California brought in to assist in the search for the source of deadly anthrax in letters mailed in 2001 may have contributed to the the F.B.I.’s flawed decision to focus on Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, who was later cleared of suspicion in the case. One news report called bloodhounds the F.B.I.’s “secret weapon” linking Dr. Hatfill to the letters.

    Beyond the general criticism of dog scent lineups as a forensic tool, critics have come to focus on the work of Deputy Keith A. Pikett of the Fort Bend County, Tex., sheriff’s department, who says he has conducted thousands of such lineups for criminal investigations around the state of Texas. Now people jailed or imprisoned because of those lineups are fighting back, with a half-dozen civil lawsuits in the offing and, potentially, more to come.

    The Innocence Project of Texas has brought out a blistering report on dog scent lineups that tries to place the practice in the broader context of other forensic methods that came under harsh scrutiny earlier this year after a report from the National Research Council.

    Comment: The National Resource Council has been very good on forensic science and been an important check on matters affecting individual freedoms. Here, while the good faith of the individuals involved in Amerithrax can be presumed, the FBI’s science is being guided by the former collections scientist of the Bacteriology Division at American Type Culture Collection, which sponsored “anthrax weapons suspect” Ali Al-Timimi. Thus, part of the NAS review necessarily must involve insuring that no conflicts of interest were allowed to continue to exist — and no conflict of interest was allowed to affect the NAS review.

    Given that the NAS/NRC has refused to comply with FACA and produce the FOIA-processed documents, the conflict of interest has been compounded by the lack of transparency. My intelligence source tells me that the conflict of interest has not been resolved by disclosure and recusal. The same issue of conflict of interest — where the good faith of the individual is to be presumed in analyzing the conflict — exists as to the genetics work done by one of the leading FBI consultants who was thanked for providing the lab space to the former Zawahiri associate who thanked Bruce Ivins for supplying virulent Ames. NAS panel members are the experts. It is what they say on the science that is important. But a failure to comply with the plainly worded law — bodes ill for their ability to assess emerging technologies.

    • DXer said

      Stan Bedlington, a retired CIA counterterrorism analyst is one person who in the Summer of 2002 thought the “evidence is mounting,” mistakenly claimed that the letters “obviously had some scent of anthrax.” (That’s not what they would have been testing for given that biological agents such as anthrax apparently do not have a distinctive smell to bloodhounds). Skepticism should have prevailed on the question of bloodhound evidence under these circumstances. Mr. Kristof told Aaron Brown: “So they took those dogs and prepared scent packets from the anthrax letters after they had been irradiated so that they would not actually be dangerous.” Under the applicable case precedent, the bloodhound evidence likely would not be admissible.

      The witness described what was on the deployment sheets:

      “A. Yeah, date and time; case identification; what scent article we would be using; place that we were conducting the search; the response, the outcome of the search; the response, the outcome of the search. Witnesses, and keeper of the — that particular note or that deployment sheet. And things like GPS coordinates; “

      For those who believe in Tinkerbelle (one of the dogs used) , while most jurisdictions allow bloodhound evidence, courts generally have reservations about the possibility of inaccuracy of the evidence. The dog cannot be cross-examined. There is always the possibility that the dog may make a mistake. Accordingly, there are strict foundational requirements. The notion that such evidence is of slight probative value or must be viewed with caution stems at least in part from fear that a jury will be in awe of the animal’s apparent powers and will give the evidence too much weight (as the ABC and Newsweek reports amply illustrated). Putting aside for a moment use of the scent transfer device, five specific requirements are commonly required to establish an adequate foundation for dog-tracking evidence: (1) the handler was qualified to use the dog; (2) the dog was adequately trained; (3) the dog has been found reliable; (4) the dog was placed on the track where the guilty party had been; and (5) the trail was not stale or contaminated.

      For example, a bloodhound provided with the deceased tennis shoes might very reliably lead authorities to the deceased’s body in the woods. What would have been used for the scent pack here is the human scent, if any, on the letter on which the perpetrator rested his hand in writing the letter. Tennis shoes are far more likely to carry a scent than a piece of paper on which the perp rested his hand (while possibly using gloves) to write a 28-word letter. Just ask my wife. The dogs would not have been clued to the biological agent as biological agents such as anthrax tend not to have a distinctive scent.

      Here, there would be no training log because the use of the dog would not have been the subject of pre-911 testing and training showing the dog performed reliably under similar circumstances. At a minimum, the “trail” would have been contaminated by the irradiation and anthrax, and would have grown stale by the passage of time. The FDA concluded that irradiation can produce small changes in the taste, smell, and sometimes texture of foods and that consumers should be informed of this. Jurors should too. Remember that scene from “Miracle on 34th Street” where the official finding of the agency of the United States’ government was deemed binding on the prosecution? Imagine the Hatfill attorneys calling FDA scientists who found irradiation caused changes in smell, no doubt amplified by the much keener sense of a bloodhound.

      The United States Post Office explains in a FAQ that “the materials in the mail are heated and may become chemically altered. Paper dries out and may become dusty, discolored, and brittle.” Some postal workers and federal agency staff have reported symptoms such as eye, nose, throat and skin irritation, headache, nausea and occasional nosebleeds. What does the USPS do under these circumstances? Their solution includes “[u]sing hypoallergenic deodorizers to eliminate any smells.” “Testing each batch of aired-out mail to ensure no detectable amoungs of gas exist before delivery.” Alas, Tinkerbelle’s lengthy pre-911 log shows that perfume does not confuse her, but likely is silent on this question of irradiated paper. The prosecution witness who might testify that a bloodhound’s sense of smell is 200 times as powerful as a human’s sense of smell would merely be helping the defense argument. No amount of log keeping or experiments after the fact would serve to permit admissibility under the court precedent. The bloodhound evidence was always a bogus and hugely prejudical diversion since the first sensational Newsweek story leaked by Daniel Seikaly, head of the Criminal Division of the District of Columbia United States Attorneys Office.

      In any event, the mailer would have worn gloves and only briefly handled the letter. More broadly, there is an article that collects cases from 40 or so states and nothing approaching the delays has ever been found admissible. In a city landscape, the time period is much more restrictive. The Leahy letter, written by the perp sometime prior to the October 9, 2001 postmark, was not discovered until mid-November, and as of November 19, 2001 a protocol was still being developed for its opening. Thus, the 40 day period that had been passed by the (likely glove-wearing) perp already would have resulted in a stale trail.

      There is a separate additional issue of use of the “scent transfer unit” mentioned in the NYT article today. A “scent transfer unit” such as used here looks like a Dustbuster, modified with a small frame at the end to secure a piece of gauze over its intake opening. The user attaches a piece of sterile gauze to the unit, activates the unit, and holds it against the item from which the scent is to be taken (such as where the person sat the night before). Depending on the jurisdiction, the scent transfer unit, which is a new technology, may be subject to the rule regarding new scientific methodology. Under that rule, the proponent of such evidence must establish the new scientific principle or technique is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs under the circumstances of the case. There is no such general acceptance as explained by Scott Shane in an article in the Baltimore Sun relying on experts in the Maryland area. The purpose of the requirement is to avoid factfinders from being misled by the `aura of infallibility’ that may surround unproved scientific methods. This would constitute a possible third independent grounds for excluding the evidence. Absent a training log showing the dog performed reliably under similar circumstances, given the time period that had passed, and in light of the use of the scent transfer unit, there is nothing the FBI or trainers would be able to do to save the admissibility of the bloodhound evidence. The trainers reportedly tested their dogs on irradiated paper — presumably before actually doing the search but after being asked to do so. That would not pass muster that past training be substantiated by a training log.

      Both of the major police bloodhound associations howl against the reliability of the Scent Transfer Unit used by the three blood handlers. One of the dog handlers is an urban planner and reserve officer with the South Pasadena Police Department. One of the other dog handlers is a civilian who runs his own bloodhound business. Shane, in his very impressive Baltimore Sun article, explained that an FBI agent, Rex Stockham, examining the technology for the FBI lab says: “It’s going to be criticized. I’m critical of it myself.” The President of the Bloodhound Association, who is critical of the technology used by these handlers, had testified 21 times, and likely will have testified 22 if the FBI attempts to rely on the evidence in a prosecution. A federal jury awarded $1.7 million to a man wrongly accused of rape after police identified him in part based on the use of the bloodhound, TinkerBelle. Shane’s article gives the further example of their use in the sniper investigation, where “given the scent taken from spent shell casings, followed two false trails in Montgomery County. One led to a house, for which a search warrant was obtained and which turned out not be relevant. The other led to a dog-grooming parlor, the officer said.” Phew. It’s no wonder Lucy responded to Hatfill. He is a ladies’ man, after all.

      The New York Times also had an excellent article in December 2002 surveying the field that noted the case where dogs falsely indicated the presence of explosives in the cars of three medical students bound for Miami. The country watched the drama unfold on television as the men were held and authorities closed a major highway across Florida. No trace of explosives was found. When dog handlers are excited, dogs can overreact and give a false positive. “Dogs want rewards and so they will false alerts to get them. Dogs lie. We know they do,” an expert told the Times. One of ‘TinkerBelle’s most incredible talents,”her homepage touts, is her ability to find the person responsible for loading a gun using scent from an expended bullet casing.” Indeed, she finds the “smoking gun.” Most of all, the page notes, she too is a people person.

      With the investigation having gone to the dogs, nearly 100 law enforcement officers gathered to watch some of their colleagues jump in a lake near where Dr. Hatfill lived, and in late January 2003, the FBI continued searching the forest in Frederick. Locals were amused that some of the ponds had been dry earlier that year. While they may seem to enjoy their dinners at Georgetown, FBI agents and surveillance specialists do not have an easy job. The public demands that they exhaustively pursue all leads, but then there is an uproar if they cross some unpredictable line and step on — or run over someone’s toe. They did just that in Hatfill’s case and he got ticketed for putting his foot under the car’s tire.

      • DXer said

        In October 2007, the former Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Daniel Seikaly, was deposed in the civil rights action by Steve Hatfill about whether he was the source of leaks relating to Steve Hatfill in connection the use of bloodhounds in the anthrax investigation and the draining of ponds in Frederick, Maryland. Key stories appeared in Newsweek and Washington Post. Attorney Seikaly pled the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination in connection with most substantive questions.

        Attorney Seikaly’s daughter came to represent Ali Al-Timimi pro bono in defense of his prosecution for sedition. His lead counsel has described him in a court filing as an “anthrax weapons suspect.” He shared a suite with a leading anthrax scientist and former deputy USAMRIID Commander who co-invented in March 2001 a process used to concentrate anthrax using silica dioxide in the culture medium. The pair were leading Battelle consultants and were funded by DARPA. The FBI anthrax expert made the anthrax, according to what Bruce Ivins had heard, closest to the anthrax used in the attacks. The FBI’s expert (JE), even though he explained to me that his telephone was likely wiretapped and that he was under a gag order, confirmed to me that he had made the anthrax at the request of DARPA. He said when he gave it to John Hopkins it had been gamma irradiated and tested to be inactive. The former Zawahiri associate tested the decontamination product both at John Hopkins and at Dugway. (See Sandia powerpoints).

        Attorney Seikaly has had a very distinguished career. In 2001, Mr. Seikaly went from being Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at the Central Intelligence Agency to Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. There he supervised eighty-five Assistant United States Attorneys involved in the prosecution of all federal offenses in the District of Columbia. He also served as a technical expert for U.S. Department of State funded rule of law programs in Croatia, Estonia, Kazakhstan, and Thailand. Before accepting the appointment to Criminal Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Mr. Seikaly was Assistant Inspector General for Investigations at the Central Intelligence Agency. While with the CIA, a profile at his current law firm’s webpage explains, “he conducted and supervised numerous investigations concerning allegations of misconduct by employees, contractors and vendors involved in CIA programs. In that position, he routinely interacted with senior officials within the intelligence community, other executive branch agencies and Congress concerning intelligence investigations.” The profile continues: “From 1996 to 1998, Daniel served as an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice and was Director of the Department’s Executive Office for National Security. There he was responsible for the coordination and oversight of the national security activities of the Department of Justice, including intelligence operations, international law enforcement, relations with foreign countries and the use of classified information. Reporting directly to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General and acting with their authority in national security matters, Daniel was a primary point of contact between the Department of Justice and other executive branch agencies with national security interests such as the National Security Council, the Department of State and the Department of Defense.”

        One USA article concluded: “One of the law enforcement sources says investigators sometimes wonder whether they focused on Hatfill too soon and ignored someone who deserved more attention. So much has gone into investigating Hatfill, the source says, that abandoning the focus on him ‘would be like starting all over.’ ” The press has been so focused in defending itself from the charge that it was unfair to Dr. Hatfill — and law enforcement officials have been so chastened by the civil rights suit brought by Dr. Hatfill — that five years ago there stopped being meaningful coverage of Amerithrax by the mainstream press altogether. Given that it seems the press nowadays only ever has the budget to take spin handed under the table to them by government officials anyway, perhaps the First Amendment is not as worth prioritizing, in the balance of competing interests, as it used to be. The wisdom of the fictional City Desk Editor at the Baltimore Sun on the HBO’s series “Wired” in parsing out such First Amendment issues involving competing considerations — and that of Professor Archibald Cox — will be sorely missed.

        But as to the FBI’s current “Ivins Theory,” there’s “no there there” which is why the FBI has not allowed USAMRIID to produce Ivins’ emails from September and October 2001, for example, or the Lab Notebook 4010.

        Ken Alibek, who first told me 5 years ago that the FBI suspected Al-Timimi, always would say, “This isn’t rocket science.”

        If the FBI had done a proper leak investigation in 2002, the leaks would not have recurred in 2003. We cannot go back in time — and there’s no reason to think we could do any better. No stone could be left unturned. It is inevitable that most leads would not pan out.

        But the parties can scrupulously apply with the legal standards going forward. It is time for NAS to be part of the solution, and not part of the problem, and comply with the mandatory command of the Federal Advisory Committee Act regarding production of the FOIA-processed documents. AUSA Ken Kohl once breathed a sigh of relief on the leak issue and reported to colleagues that “it looks like we still have our jobs.” Well, it would help in that regard for everyone to scrupulously apply to FACA and FOIA in that regard from this point forward.

        • DXer said

          In early August 2002, the head of the District of Columbia Field Office initiated a leak investigation related to Amerithrax information. The first leak investigation concerned leak of bloodhound story to Newsweek (according to email discussed in deposition of lead prosecutor Daniel Seikaly in which he repeatedly pled the Fifth Amendment). A memo from DC Field Office head Van Harp read:

          TO: OPR
          NSD
          From: Washington Field
          ADIC’s Office: Harp Van A (202) xxx-xxxx
          ***
          Title: UNSUB
          UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE AND/OR
          MEDIA LEAK IN CONNECTION WITH THE
          AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION
          ***
          [REDACTED]
          [REDACTED]
          The appearance of this information in the media affects the conduct of this investigation as well as the morale of the dedicated personnel who have expended enormous energy and effort on this investigation.
          As such, I am requesting that either a media leak or OPR investigation be initiated. In the event a leak investigation is initiated then the enclosed LRM should be hand delivered to AAG Chertoff. [REDACTED]
          The investigation was closed in October 2002. The memo read:
          Date: October 8, 2002

          To: Mr. H. Marshall Jarrett
          Counsel
          Office of Professional Responsibility
          United States Department of Justice

          From: David W. Szady
          Assistant Director
          Counterintelligence Division
          Subject: [REDACTED[
          The purpose of this memorandum is to notify your office of the closing of the FBI’s criminal investigation of the captioned media leak matter. It is the understanding of the FBI that your continued investigation of this matter will be pursued by your office.
          [REDACTED]

          After a January 9, 2003 “exclusive” report by ABC’s Brian Ross that the FBI was focusing on Hatfill and was going to conduct a second round of interviews with other former and current government scientists so that they might rule them out by the process of elimination, the FBI initiated a second media leak investigation. This time it was to proceed with “extreme zeal.”
          The memo read:

          Precedence: PRIORITY Date: 1/13/2003
          To: Director’s Office
          Washington Field
          From: Washington Field
          Contact Richard L. Lambert 202-xxx-xxxx
          Approved by: Harp Van
          Lambert Richard L
          Title: AMERITHRAX
          MAJOR CASE 184
          00: WFO
          Synopsis: To request the opening of new OPR media leak investigation regarding captioned case.
          [large redacted passages]

          To demonstrate the seriousness with which the FBI views this matter, it is requested that the OPR inquiry commence with an interview of IIC Rick Lambert who will waive all Fifth Amendment privileges and accede to a voluntary polygraph examination to set a tone of candor, forthrightness and cooperation.
          [redacted]

          The instant matter is the second unauthorized media disclosure to occur in this investigation. Its potential detriment to the effective prosecution of the case is substantial. Accordingly, in the interests of both specific and general deterrence, the Inspector in Charge requests that this OPR inquiry be pursued with unprecedent zeal.”
          ~
          A June 2003 email then shut the barn door long after the horse had walked through that barn door:

          From: DEBRA WEIERMAN
          To: Lisa Hodgson
          Date: Wed, June 4, 2003 12:18 PM
          Subject: AMERITHRAX INVESTIGATION
          Lisa: Please disseminate to all WFO employees. Thanks, Debbie

          For the information of all recipients, Director Mueller has ordered that no one discuss the AMERITHRAX case with any representative of the news media. The WFO and Baltimore Media Offices have released several media advisories, which were coordinated with the US Attorney and FBIHQ, to explain specific milestones in the case. However, NO FBI WFO EMPLOYEE, INCLUDING MYSELF AND INSPECTOR RICK LAMBERT, WHO IS IN CHARGE OF AMERITHRAX, IS TO RESPOND TO ANY MEDIA INQUIRIES, THE ONLY EXCEPTION IS DEBBIE WEIERMAN IN THE MEDIA OFFICE. All inquiries from reporters or journalists received by any WFO employee are to be immediately referred to Debbie at xxx-xxxx, and she will handle.
          I thank everyone at WFO for their dedication to the job and to this office. I also thank you for your cooperation in this very important matter.
          Mike Rolince

          Now if you will recall Mike Rolince is the fellow who told the National Security Council not to worry about Ali Mohammed — that everything was under control, when the White House national security people expressed concern that he had taken Ayman Zawahiri on a tour of the United States to recruit supporters. But not to worry. Who cares that Amerithrax was left unsolved given that its former managers have gone on to lucrative jobs and not suffered the inconvenience of the public knowing that the case in fact was not solved.

  7. DXer said

    The reason Ed doesn’t dare address the Microdroplet Cell Culture Technique patent or defense counsel’s description of Al-Timimi as an “anthrax weapons suspect” is that the only argument he has ever been able to mount against a Salafist-Jihadi theory is that the hijackers were dead, dead, dead. See his webpage. Which is really stupid given that it was known even at the time that not even all those in Summer 2001 involved in the Planes Operation (e.g., Jdey) were dead. Moreover, the 911 imam coordinating with Al-Timimi certainly was not dead. He doesn’t address such a theory because he is too busy posting the hundreds of nude pictures. All he has time for is to cut-and-paste his standard schtick. Ed does not deny that his GED certificate is forged.

    US moves on domestic jihadis
    By WES BRUERNovember 1, 2009 4:10 PM

    Luqman Ameen Abdullah. Photo from the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Fox News.

    In recent months, the US has experienced an alarming rise in jihadist activity. In the last two months alone, five terror plots have been foiled by the FBI, and there have been dozens of other arrests for various related crimes, such as providing material support for terrorists. The plots have been directed at targets at home and abroad, both civilian and military. The arrests clearly demonstrate the potential for al Qaeda and other extremist groups to recruit and carry out attacks in the US.

    The extent of influence by al Qaeda and allied groups is evident in their ability to convince potential terrorists in other countries to come to the US with the intention of carrying out attacks; it is also shown by the capacity of these groups to indoctrinate US citizens and nationals. The case of Najibullah Zazi, the Afghan national accused of plotting attacks in the US, stands out in what has been described as the biggest plot against America since 9/11. Listed below are the incidents that have occurred so far in 2009.

    Feb. 20, 2009: An Afghan national was arrested for his ties to terrorist groups and for trying to obtain a US passport by fraudulent means. Ahmadullah Sais Niazi was indicted on charges of perjury, naturalization fraud, misuse of a passport obtained fraudulently, and making false statements to authorities. After a 2004 trip to Pakistan, Niazi denied any association to terrorist organizations. One one occasion, Niazi reportedly met with Dr. Amin al-Haq, commander of the Black Guard, which is Osama bin Laden’s security unit. Authorities later discovered that Niazi had ties not only with the Taliban but also with al Qaeda and Hezb-i-Islami.

    March 20, 2009: After at least 20 Minneapolis-based Somali-American men had traveled back to the war-torn county, only “several” have returned to the United States. The remaining men are reported to be currently fighting, or have been killed fighting, on behalf of the al Qaeda-linked, Somali-based terror group known as al-Shabaab. Counterterrorism officials do not believe the men have returned to conduct attacks on the US. During the investigation, Osama bin Laden urged Somalis to fight against the government and “the international crusade.” In April, federal agents raided money transfer businesses that served the Somali community, in an effort to halt the flow of money from the US to terror groups abroad. In July, authorities indicted three Somali-Americans for recruiting the 20 men to fight abroad, including one who carried out a suicide attack against the Somali government.

    May 21, 2009: Four men were arrested shortly after planting inactive explosives outside two New York City synagogues. James Cromite, David Williams, Onta Williams, and Laguerre Payen are reported to have been “disappointed that the World Trade Center wasn’t still around to attack,” and often vowed to wage jihad. The men, three Americans and a Haitian, also plotted to shoot down a military plane with surface-to-air missiles. A confidential informant, whom the men thought belonged to the group Jaish-e-Mohammed, provided the men with the decoy explosives and missile that led to their arrest after an investigation of almost a year. The charges against the men include conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction within the US and conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles.

    July 28, 2009: Daniel Boyd, an American, and six other North Carolina men were arrested for plotting terrorist attacks in Israel and Pakistan. They are believed to have taken a half dozen trips in which they intended to engage in violent jihad abroad; each attempt ended in failure. An eighth man, Jude Mohammed, a Raleigh resident whom investigators believe is a member of the North Carolina terror cell, was arrested for trying to illegally enter Pakistan’s tribal region and is believed to be still in Pakistan after he failed to make a courtroom appearance. Prosecutors played tapes in early August at Daniel Boyd’s trial that indicated his intent on engaging in jihad. “I love jihad. I love to stand there and fight for the sake of Allah,” Boyd had said.

    Sept. 14, 2009: The FBI, along with local law enforcement, raided several residences in Queens, New York City. The men had aroused suspicion by what authorities described as “espousing militant ideology” and had apparent ties to al Qaeda. No arrests were made at the time, but this raid was the first in what would become a string of arrests and foiled plots over the following two months.

    Sept. 22, 2009: A federal judge ordered Najibullah Zazi to be held without bail. Zazi’s actions roused suspicion after law enforcement officials discovered bomb-making documents on his computer. After being interrogated by officials, Zazi admitted he had received weapons and explosives training in Pakistan. It was later discovered that his ties to al Qaeda went all the way to Mustafa Abu Yazid, the head of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Two other men, including Zazi’s father and Ahmad Wais Afzali, were detained in connection with the case. The three are being prosecuted for lying to investigators about a conspiracy to detonate improvised explosives within the US.

    Sept. 24, 2009: A 19-year-old Jordanian man was arrested after attempting to detonate what he thought was a car bomb, in the garage of a Dallas skyscraper. Hosam Maher Husein Smadi caught the attention of authorities after they discovered him on an extremist website. FBI agents say Smadi “stood out based on his vehement intention to actually conduct terror attacks.” Three undercover agents, posing as al Qaeda sleeper cell members, had been in communication with Smadi for several months during which they discussed potential targets within the US. The undercover agents provided the potential terrorist with an inert car bomb, which he parked under the skyscraper. Smadi pled not guilty to the charges of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and bombing a public place on Oct. 26, 2009.

    Sept. 24, 2009: An Illinois man, Michael Finton or Talib Islam, was arrested for attempting to detonate a car bomb at a federal courthouse in Springfield. Finton raised suspicion after letters were discovered by authorities that indicated his sympathy for al Qaeda and his intention to engage in jihad. Undercover agents posing as al Qaeda operatives befriended Finton back in February; he later discussed with them making specific attacks on the US. In August, Finton recorded a video, which he thought would be delivered to Osama bin Laden, that sought to justify the attacks on government targets. On Sept. 24, Finton, along with an undercover agent, parked the car that he believed contained nearly a ton of explosives in front of the federal building. With the undercover agent, Finton drove a few blocks away where he twice used a cell phone to remotely detonate the “bomb.” He was immediately arrested and faces charges of attempted murder of federal employees and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.

    Oct. 3, 2009: Two Chicago men were arrested for planning to carry out attacks on overseas targets. David Coleman Headley, a Pakistan-born US citizen who changed his name from Daood Gilani in 2006, was detained while attempting to board a flight to Philadelphia.The flight would have eventually taken him to Pakistan to meet with Ilyas Kashmiri, the operational leader of al Qaeda’s Brigade 313. The other man arrested in the case was Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Pakistani national from Canada. The two allegedly plotted to attack Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper whose publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed caused outrage in the Muslim world. In January, Headley had traveled to Denmark to conduct reconnaissance on the building and commenced planning for an assault similar to the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

    Oct. 21, 2009: Tarek Mehanna was arrested in Boston for conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and has been indicted for plotting terrorist attacks at home and abroad. Mehanna, along with Ahmad Abousamra, plotted to kill US civilians, soldiers serving in Iraq, and two members of the US executive branch. Abousamra traveled to Pakistan twice, and both men later traveled to Yemen, with the intent of joining a terrorist training camp. In each instance the men were turned down for their inexperience. Upon returning home, the men then began to plan attacks in the US that included using automatic weapons on civilians in shopping malls. Mehanna had previously been arrested last year for lying to authorities when questioned about Daniel Maldonado, who pled guilty to undergoing terrorist training in Somalia.

    Oct. 28, 2009: Patrick Nayyar, an Indian national living illegally in Queens, and Stanisclaus Mulholland were indicted on four counts of attempting to provide material support to Hezbollah. Since June, the pair had agreed to provide the Lebanese-based terror group with weapons, ammunition, vehicles, bulletproof vests, and night vision goggles. A confidential informant posing as a Hezbollah operative, working for the FBI, had met Nayyar and Mulholland on several occasions to discuss how the items could be delivered to support the group. Although Nayyar has been taken into custody, Mulholland has yet to be arrested. Prosecutors believe that Mulholland is currently in Britain.

    Oct. 28, 2009: Luqman Ameen Abdullah, the leader of a mosque who also headed the Islamic movement in Detroit called the Ummah, was killed after opening fire on FBI agents. The agents raided two locations and apprehended 10 other men on connection with the case. Three men, including Abdullah’s son Mujahid Carswell, were on the run following the raids. Carswell was apprehended the next day, but the two other men remain on the loose. The Ummah, or “Brotherhood,” is a movement with the goal of establishing a separate state within the US, governed by sharia law and whose national leader is currently serving a life sentence for the murder of two police officers in Georgia. The Ummah is said to preach violence against the US, and its members receive weapons training.

    Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/11/in_recent_months_the.php#ixzz0Vq71LqAY

  8. DXer said

    Speaking of Queens, in the news today,

    Imam pleads not guilty to NYC terror charges
    By TOM HAYS (AP)

    NEW YORK — An imam accused of lying to FBI agents investigating an alleged bomb plot against New York City by a suspected al-Qaida associate pleaded not guilty Monday.
    “I have nothing to hide,” Ahmad Wais Afzali told reporters outside federal court in Brooklyn after his plea.

    The 37-year-old Afzali was arrested in September as federal authorities tried to thwart the alleged plot by Najibullah Zazi, a Colorado airport van driver they say received explosives training from al-Qaida on a trip to Pakistan.

    Authorities say Zazi conspired to use homemade bombs in a large-scale terror attack, possibly on the city’s transit system. Court papers alleged that Zazi bought and tested bomb-making materials in a Denver suburb before traveling by car to New York, all while under FBI surveillance.

    After federal authorities alerted the New York Police Department to the possible threat, detectives tried to gather information about Zazi from Afzali, who was an imam in the Queens neighborhood where Zazi once lived. The next day, Afzali called Zazi, telling him, “They asked about you guys,” according to court papers.
    Through the recorded conversation, the FBI discovered that Zazi “learned directly that the law enforcement officers were tracking his activities,” federal prosecutors said in the court papers.

    “Zazi ultimately purchased an airline ticket and returned to Denver on Sept. 12,” the court papers said.

    Over the next few days, heavily armed investigators staged a series of raids in Queens and arrested Zazi, his father and Afzali on initial charges they misled investigators. Prosecutors allege that the imam lied in a statement denying he had tipped off Zazi.

    Afzali, who is free on bail, faces up to eight years in prison if convicted of four counts of making false statements. He was ordered to return to court Dec. 11.

    Authorities have said the terrorism investigation is still active but haven’t announced additional arrests. Zazi has denied any wrongdoing.

  9. DXer said

    FBI Focusing on ‘About Four’ Suspects in 2001 Anthrax Attacks

    Friday, March 28, 2008
    By Catherine Herridge and Ian McCaleb

    WASHINGTON — The FBI has narrowed its focus to “about four” suspects in the 6 1/2-year investigation of the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, and at least three of those suspects are linked to the Army’s bioweapons research facility at Fort Detrick in Maryland, FOX News has learned.

    Among the pool of suspects are three scientists — a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist — linked to the research facility, known as USAMRIID.

    The FBI has collected writing samples from the three scientists in an effort to match them to the writer of anthrax-laced letters that were mailed to two U.S. senators and at least two news outlets in the fall of 2001, a law enforcement source confirmed.

    The anthrax attacks began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, further alarming a nation already reeling from the deaths of 3,000 Americans. Five people were killed and more than a dozen others were infected by the deadly spores in the fall of 2001.

    A leading theory is that the anthrax was stolen from Fort Detrick and then sealed inside the letters. A law enforcement source said the FBI is essentially engaged in a process of elimination.

    Much of the early public focus fell on a Fort Detrick scientist named Steven Hatfill, who is suing federal authorities for identifying him as a person of interest. Now the FBI is focusing on other scientists at the facility.

    “Fort Detrick is run by the United States Army. It’s the most secure biological warfare research center in the United States,” a bioterrorism expert told FOX News.

    Asked to comment on the likelihood that the anthrax originated at the facility, the expert said:

    “It’s not suprising, except that it would underscore that there was serious security deficiencies that existed at one time at Fort Detrick — the ability of researchers to smuggle out some type of very sophisticated anthrax weapon and in some quantity. And, nevertheless, it was possible.”

    In December 2001, an Army commander tried to dispel the possibility of a connection to Fort Detrick by taking the media on a rare tour of the base. The commander said the Army used only liquid anthrax, not powder, for its experiments.

    “I would say that it does not come from our stocks, because we do not use that dry material,” Maj. Gen. John Parker said. The letters that were mailed to the media and Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy all contained powdered anthrax.

    But in an e-mail obtained by FOX News, scientists at Fort Detrick openly discussed how the anthrax powder they were asked to analyze after the attacks was nearly identical to that made by one of their colleagues.

    “Then he said he had to look at a lot of samples that the FBI had prepared … to duplicate the letter material,” the e-mail reads. “Then the bombshell. He said that the best duplication of the material was the stuff made by [name redacted]. He said that it was almost exactly the same … his knees got shaky and he sputtered, ‘But I told the General we didn’t make spore powder!'”

    Asked for comment, an Army spokeswoman referred all calls to the FBI. The FBI would not comment about the pool of suspects, but a spokeswoman said the investigation clearly remains a priority.

    • Ike Solem said

      See the Dec 21 2001 WP story for the apparently-still-accurate list of plausible labs:

      “The five labs that received the Ames strain from USAMRIID are the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in central Utah; Battelle Memorial Institute in Columbus, Ohio; the University of New Mexico’s Health Sciences Center in Albuquerque; the Canadian DRES; and Porton Down.”

      The UNM deal is interesting:

      “This program is emblematic of the collaborative links between UNM and the computational research activities of Sandia National Laboratories and the unique strengths in inhalational toxicology and primate research at the Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute.”

      Yes, Sandia does spring out at one there…

      http://hsc.unm.edu/research/info/programs_id.shtml

      See also:

      http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/aimsstrainfewlabs.html

      Now, that was the extent of the ability of the FBI and their forensic consultants to narrow down the source by DNA in 2001:

      Two of the labs — both in the private sector — received the strain this spring, only a few months before letters tainted with anthrax spores were mailed to New York and Washington, the records show… Transfer records obtained by The Post under the Freedom of Information Act show that USAMRIID, which is located in Frederick, shared the Ames strain last March with scientists at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, an Albuquerque research institute, and in May and June with the Battelle Memorial Institute, a Columbus, Ohio, corporation involved in anthrax vaccine research.

      The main problem with the FBI effort to tie Ivins to the flask is that they seem to think they are dealing with human fingerprints, not bacterial DNA – and they also did not appear to comprehensively test the other labs for the presence of that specific Ames subtype identified in the Daschle-Leahy letters and in the Florida victim.

      The science, however, seems pretty solid – it’s just that the case for Ivin’s innocence doesn’t really hang on the genetic forensics as much it does on the physical and chemical forensics.

      It is a curious world – for example, TIGR played a key role in the investigation, and TIGR also contracts with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to provide PATHEMA, a sequence database tool for various traditional biowarfare agents, such as anthrax, glanders, and others. AS far as NIAID:

      “Battelle was notified recently that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded a 10-year potential $257 million contract to support the management and operations of a National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) research lab. The High Containment Integrated Research Facility is currently under construction and will be part of Fort Detrick’s National Interagency Biodefense Campus in Frederick, Maryland. When fully functioning, Battelle will provide up to 119 scientists, researchers and technicians to staff the facility.

      More specifically:

      “The $250 million contract award includes a five-year period of performance, with the potential for five subsequent one-year extensions, bringing the projected award value to $500 million. The NBACC, scheduled to open in 2008, will be the nation’s premier research facility for biological threat characterization and bioforensic research. BNBI is the limited liability company formed by Battelle to manage the lab. During the two years prior to completion of the new facility, BNBI will manage ongoing NBACC work from an office in Frederick, MD.”

      What is the private sector doing running the nation’s biowarfare and biodefense sectors – especially the very same private sector that was involved in pre-anthrax attack biological threat assessment?

      Congressional investigations are definitely needed.

  10. DXer said

    FBI Director Mueller says:

    “There is also ongoing criminal and civil litigation concerning the Amerithrax investigation and information derived therefrom, and an independent review of the FBI’s “detective work” at this time could adversely affect those proceedings.”

    Consider the admissibility problem posed. NSA was doing widespread wiretapping of targets related to Al-Timimi and a Salafist network in the US beginning October 7, 2001 or so (to include Fowzia Siddiqui at John Hopkins). What is the admissibility of those wiretaps? The US DOJ (except for 2 people) was not even aware of the intercepts or their content. The prosecutor in US v. Al-Timimi was not aware.

    The Obama Administration – 8 years later – is arguing that such information cannot be revealed because of ongoing intelligence activiities (that relate, for example, to the alleged charity infrastructure that existed in 2001).

    If you look at the production of the White House visitor logs, you see that it was not voluntary at all (and it was extremely limited). Is the Obama administration any different than the Bush Administration on these issues? (If so, I haven’t seen it and I had always been a big fan.)

    Change – Not Just Hot Air

    As an example, EPA recently took 3 months just to respond to whether they had produced any anthrax documents to a previous request — when it would have (should have) taken just minutes to check a computerized law. USAMRIID has delayed for well over a year in producing Ivins’ email even though there is no exemption that has been invoked.

    The Obama Administration has said the right things but then gone ahead and not complied with the Freedom of Information Act. At least Vice President Cheney was not hypocritical.

    • DXer said

      Regarding the NAS and Obama Administration’s approach to FOIA,

      law —> log

    • When I first read this, I thought it said:

      “There is also ongoing criminal and civil litigation concerning the Amerithrax investigation and information derived therefrom, and an independent review of the FBI’s “defective work” at this time could adversely affect those proceedings.”

  11. Anonymous scientist said

    New links

    http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/11/01/fbis-robert-mueller-still-engaging-in-an-anthrax-cover-up/

    http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2009_hr/fbi-qfr.pdf

    • Anonymous scientist said

      Well, is seems the case is still ongoing. Mueller says right here that there is ongoing criminal and civil litigation:

      http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2009_hr/fbi-qfr.pdf

      “There is also ongoing criminal and civil litigation concerning the Amerithrax investigation and information derived therefrom, and an independent review of the FBI’s “detective work” at this time could adversely affect those proceedings.”

      • BugMaster said

        Well, there you have it.

        Do you think Mr. Ed will ever admit he was wrong on his website, or will we soon find instead

        “site not found”?

        • DXer said

          For people interested in intelligence matters, there is a new book on MI5 called “A Genius for Deception” describing ruses used to win two World Wars. Are there any ruses being used to win the war on terror?

          In February 1942, intelligence officer Victor Jones erected 150 tents behind British lines in North Africa. “Hiding tanks in Bedouin tents was an old British trick,” writes Nicholas Rankin; German general Erwin Rommel not only knew of the ploy, but had copied it himself. Jones knew that Rommel knew. In fact, he counted on it–for these tents were empty. With the deception that he was carrying out a deception, Jones made a weak point look like a trap.

          The product description on Amazon explains that “[i]n A Genius for Deception, Rankin offers a lively and comprehensive history of how Britain bluffed, tricked, and spied its way to victory in two world wars. As he shows, a coherent program of strategic deception emerged in World War I, resting on the pillars of camouflage, propaganda, secret intelligence, and special forces. All forms of deception found an avid sponsor in Winston Churchill, who carried his enthusiasm for deceiving the enemy into World War II. Rankin vividly recounts such little-known episodes as the invention of camouflage by two French artist-soldiers, the creation of dummy airfields for the Germans to bomb during the Blitz, and the fabrication of an army that would supposedly invade Greece. Strategic deception would be key to a number of WWII battles, culminating in the massive misdirection that proved critical to the success of the D-Day invasion in 1944.”

          Question: If Amerithrax Squad 3 had the solution (not Squad 1 as claimed) — with the original origin of the anthrax being flask 1029 — and Ivins committed suicide, what would you do? Do you put up the tents? Of course, you bring out the tanks if you have the tanks. The NAS is not the tent. It’s the tank. Think of the NAS as a big tank and let it roll.

        • BugMaster said

          DXer:

          “Criminal Litigation” is a bit of an odd phrase. From a legal point of view, what could Mueller have meant by that?

          An associate of mine says that the only criminal litigation that is secret is that involving grand juries.

          Any other possible interpretation?

        • DXer said

          You raise a good question. In fact, I had to google the phrase to consider why he used that phrase. While his answers rarely say anything, he is precise in his language.

          Let’s consider a possibility other than (or in addition to) a grand jury.

          I’ve always pointed out that that the Battelle connection some folks perceive actually relates to the leading anthrax and threat assessment Battelle consultants who shared a suite with the man coordinating with the 911 imam, whose ongoing criminal prosecution is highly classified. Not even the judge’s clerk or defense counsel was allowed to see the briefing currently before the court. His conviction was remanded by the 4th Circuit due to the NSA wiretapping that was not supported by a warrant. Under the Presidential Surveillance Program, only two people at DOJ knew about the program. No one on the Amerithrax Task Force was privy. You can see that compartmentalization when the information is kept from everyone might pose some difficulties. The person overseeing the Presidential Surveillance Program was Al-Timimi’s former boss, Andrew Card. If this had come out, the Bush Administration would not have won a second term. You can imagine the tension in the room when FBI Director Mueller sat face to face and Mueller refused to support extending the program without changes. As the book on the subject explains, there was something about that encounter — beyond the NSA wiretapping — that has not yet come to light. What it was … was anthrax. And I have this from a highly reliable intelligence source.

          I also can tell you what the briefing currently pending before the court concerns. It concerned the basis for Ali being what his defense counsel terms an “anthrax weapons suspect.” The prosecutor could advise his best guess as to the timing of the court’s decision. He’s very responsive to the extent information can be shared but I haven’t asked. PACER shows nothing has been filed in the past month.

        • DXer said

          The government can’t talk about it or else it would constitute a slam dunk violation of Ali’s due process rights. Which is why they don’t. They would rather just have his conviction reinstated (for life plus 70 years). Which is why the intelligence community and the US DOJ national security division has done what intelligence communities do. After 911, the national security division was created precisely to have the flexibility that was thought needed in such matters.

        • DXer said

          This case is related both factually and legally.

          Obama administration: Toss wiretap lawsuit

          By DEVLIN BARRETT (AP) – 1 day ago

          WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric Holder says a lawsuit in San Francisco over warrantless wiretapping threatens to expose ongoing intelligence work and must be thrown out.

          In making the argument, the Obama administration agreed with the Bush administration’s position on the case but insists it came to the decision differently. A civil liberties group criticized the move Friday as a retreat from promises President Barack Obama made as a candidate.

          Holder’s effort to stop the lawsuit marks the first time the administration has tried to invoke the state secrets privilege under a new policy it launched last month designed to make such a legal argument more difficult.
          Under the state secrets privilege, the government can have a lawsuit dismissed if hearing the case would jeopardize national security.

          The Bush administration invoked the privilege numerous times in lawsuits over various post-9/11 programs, but the Obama administration recently announced that only a limited number of senior Justice Department officials would be able to make such decisions. It also agreed to provide confidential information to the courts in such cases.
          Under the new approach, an agency trying to keep such information secret would have to convince the attorney general and a panel of Justice Department lawyers that its release would compromise national security.
          Holder said that in the current case, that review process convinced him “there is no way for this case to move forward without jeopardizing ongoing intelligence activities that we rely upon to protect the safety of the American people.”
          The lawsuit was filed by a group of individuals who claimed the government illegally monitored their communications. To proceed with the case, Holder said, would expose intelligence sources and methods.

          Holder said U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who is handling the case, was given a classified description of why the case must be dismissed so that the court can “conduct its own independent assessment of our claim.”

          The attorney general said the judge would decide whether the administration had made a valid claim and “we will respect the outcome of that process.”

          That is a departure from the Bush administration, which resisted providing specifics to judges handling such cases about what the national security concerns were.

          Kevin Bankston, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group in San Francisco that is pursuing a similar lawsuit against the government, called Holder’s decision “incredibly disappointing.”

          “The Obama administration has essentially adopted the position of the Bush administration in these cases, even though candidate Obama was incredibly critical of both the warrantless wiretapping program and the Bush administration’s abuse of the state secrets privilege,” said Bankston.

        • Anonymous scientist said

          I doubt Ed Lake will ever admit he was wrong.
          He will read: “There is also ongoing criminal and civil litigation concerning the Amerithrax investigation and information derived therefrom, and an independent review of the FBI’s “detective work” at this time could adversely affect those proceedings.” as:

          “Although here is no ongoing criminal litigation there may be ongoing civil litigation concerning the Amerithrax investigation and information derived therefrom, and an independent review of the FBI’s “detective work” at this time could adversely affect those proceedings.”

        • BugMaster said

          And he refers to us as the “lunatic fringe”.

          Wonder if he now considers Director Mueller one of us as well.

        • Anonymous scientist said

          Yes, that’s one of the most bizarre things about Ed. He has probably spent thousands of hours writing and rewriting tens of thousands of words linking anyone who has the slightest doubts about the FBI’s conclusions as “moonlanding-hoaxers, truthers, conspiracy theorists, true believers, etc” and he calls these persons “obsessive”. I wonder if he has ever considered himself to be obsessive?

        • DXer said

          “For example, I was totally wrong in thinking that weaponized spores were never coated with silica. I believed it because I knew the silica would make the spores heavier than uncoated spores and less able to aerosolize.”

          Anonymous Scientist, how many days, weeks, months and years — how many thousands of messages — did Ed pontificate that, as he says, “weaponized spores were never coated with silica.” All the while, he used the same ad hominem cut-and-paste attacks he does to this day.

          It was years and many hundreds if not thousands of messages.

          This issue illustrates why Ed should have realized that there was no point in addressing such issues. He stridently denying what was being made clear to you in linked articles and theses etc. He still persists in bullshitting and confusing the science instead of posting what the experts say.

          A good researcher would know what constitutes relevant authority and then rely on and provide that expert authority — not his bullshit misunderstanding of it. See, e.g., the genetics point.

          Ed is similarly confused on the Silicon Signature.

        • DXer said

          Ed,

          We’ve never been under the impression that we shared the same theory. We just understood that the US Attorney was only saying that there was access by 100 people to the flask and that there 8 genetically identical isolates. You thought there was only one. So the common thread is that we all appreciate that the FBI has not met its burden of establishing that Ivins is guilty. Whereas given your total confusion on the genetics, you stridently argued that the point established his guilt. After six months of that, you corrected yourself on the genetics and then never just adjusted your view of the probativeness of the evidence.

          You have argued that we cannot prove he was not guilty. You misapprehend the criminal justice system in the United States. That is not only not the burden in a prosecution, it is not the burden at the moral level.

          We also agree that your “it is nearly certain a First Grader wrote the letters” is the stupidest theory of any we have ever heard.

          As for #4 and #5, the fact that you watch so much television and don’t appreciate that deception and suppression of information is commonly used in investigations is surprising. Due process, the Privacy Act and national security considerations require the concealment of information.

          Your suggestion that the view that Ivins is not guilty requires tens of thousands are involved in a conspiracy is especially stupid. There’s been no evidence put forward indicating that Ivins is guilty. And compartmentalization, without more, explains why the three different squads were not able to connect the dots.

          You even accused me of terrorism to the FBI. Before that, it was Mr. Failey and a First Grader.

          You didn’t even know there were three squads! You thought there were two!

        • BugMaster said

          Ed:

          Since there is ongoing criminal litigation, I think it would be best to wait and let the FBI name names when they obtain the indictments they are seeking, if this is in fact what Mueller meant by “criminal litigation”).

          Also, if there is in fact “ongoing criminal litigation”, it is a pretty good bet that the existing “Amerithrax Task Force / Ivins theory squad” has no part in it.

        • DXer said

          I don’t think this follows, BugMaster. The “Ivins Theory Squad” is AMX1.

          We don’t know to what the “ongoing criminal litigation” reference pertains.

          We just know that Ed totally misunderstood “weaponization” for years. He acknowledges this.

          Then he totally misunderstood the genetics. He acknowledges this.

          And that his only argument is ever ad hominem — when it is his First Grader theory that is bizarre and stupid.

          He should post resource materials, not more bullshit from a guy who has a track record of 0 percent on the two principal scientific issues.

        • BugMaster said

          To suggest Ed should be banned from this site is a bit harsh, I for one would miss ornery ol’ Ed.

          Perhaps Ed’s biggest sin is that he bases too much on insufficent information.

          Like anonoymous scientist pointed out, he doesn’t know exactly who posts here, what they know, and who else is monitoring these conversations (besides the FBI).

  12. DXer said

    Let’s consider then this connection between the Manhattan anthrax mystery jihad-supporting doctor.

    In October 2001, NATO forces raided the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia and seized before-and-after photographs of the World Trade Center, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole; maps of government buildings in Washington; materials for forging U.S. State Department badges; files on the use of crop duster aircraft; and anti-Semitic and anti-American material geared toward children. An employee of the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia and another cell member was in telephone contact with Osama bin Laden aide and al-Qaeda operational commander Abu Zubayda. The employee’s planned immigration to the United States was going to be sponsored by Dr. Hassan Faraj, who worked at the hospital where the first New York inhalational anthrax victim died. The doctor was a co-author of a leading article in the Journal of American Medical Association (“JAMA”) about the causes of the woman’s death. Dr. Faraj lived in the building next to Al-Timimi until 1999 when he moved to Brooklyn to take an internship at Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan.

    An arrest warrant issued for a former Falls Church, Virginia resident, Dr. Hassan Faraj, on immigration charges on June 29, 2004. He had been working as an intern and resident at hospital in Manhattan for the past three years.

    The Syrian-born doctor, Hassan Faraj, formerly worked for the Al Qaeda front charity, BIF, in Zagreb, Croatia. He was accused in late June 2004 of supporting an Al Qaeda terrorist. He was listed in 2002 as an author of a key article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (“JAMA”) about the fatal anthrax inhalation exposure of 61- year-old Kathy Nguyen. She had worked in the stockroom of Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital (MEETH), which was a subsidiary of Lenox Hill. The doctor, Hassan Faraj, was an intern there at the time and then finished his residency at Lenox Hill in 2004. The article explained that an epidemiological study of her workplace and residence had not turned up any explanation of how she was exposed. The United States government charged Dr. Farah with immigration violations, accusing him of providing aid to a supporter of Osama Bin Laden and making false statements. In early November 2004, federal prosecutors alleged that they found shredded blueprints for a suburban Washington overpass in a bag in his Brooklyn apartment. His lawyer claimed that they were from his brother, a lecturer at an unidentified Washington-area university who had left the country. Prosecutors said that Faraj’s duties included running recruits to camps in Bosnia. In November 2004, the Daily News reported that “Computers seized at the foundation’s office in Chicago contained a deleted file stating, ‘Hassan has spent substantial amount of time with us in Bosnia . . . and had said that he is willing to do anything.’”
    In an April 11, 2005 letter (provided to me by intelwire.com, an Assistant United States Attorney explained to a federal magistrate the “defendant had engaged in repeated fraud in pursuing a medical career in this country, including lying to obtain his Virginia medical license.” The Virginia medical licensing website, there is a Consent Order confirming that he had surrendered his license. His license in Connecticut was also allowed to expire that year after it had been granted.

    The AUSA in the 2005 letter explained that on June 29, 2004, the defendant had been arrested on charges of falsely obtaining his United States citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1425.
    An Order in Virginia by the medical board explains that he had been warned about his job performance on February 28, 2003.

    The government argued that false statements to the Virginia board were part of a larger pattern of medical fraud by the defendant, dating back several years. In essence, the defendant satisfied two other essential medical requirements beyond the state licensing requirement through fraud: (i) fraudulently securing a required medical residency position at Lenox Hill hospital, and (ii) fraudulently securing a required certification from the Educational Committee for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMGO). The government contended that in 2001, the defendant told at least two significant lies to secure the residency. “First, in his personal statement and application submitted to Lenox Hill, the defendant falsely claimed that, “[f]rom January 1996 to January 1997, I did an internship in Zvijezda Hospital in Zagreb where I rotated in all departments.” The government continued: “In fact, the defendant did not intern at that hospital and was in the United States eleven months of the twelve he was supposedly doing the internship in Croatia.”

    The defendant engaged in similar fraud, the government explained, in his submissions to the Educational Committee for Foreign Medical Graduates, which regulates the practice of foreign medical graduates in the United States. Among other things, the defendant falsely asserted to the ECFMG that he was an intern at yet another hospital in Croatia in 1996, the Venograd Hospital. The defendant even went so far as to submit a fraudulent certification to ECFMG that he interned at Sestre Vinogradska (Sisters of Misericordy) hospital in Croatia from September 1, 1996 to January 31, 1997.

    The good doctor came under suspicion, in part, because of his support for suspected foreign terrorist Amir Abdulrazzak. Associated Press reported in November 2004 that “Sources familiar with the case said Abdulrazzak’s immigration documents were found on a computer recovered during a raid by U.S. Special Forces on a building in Bosnia housing the Saudi High Commission for Relief, an independent group linked to the Saudi Arabian government. The building, also known as “Mecca House,” was targeted after intelligence reports indicated terror suspects using it as a meeting house were planning to attack U.S. and NATO targets in Bosnia, according to a 2001 report by Army Times, a weekly for military personnel.”

    In the 2005 letter to the federal magistrate, the Department of Justice formally provided additional detail:

    “In the fall of 2004, the government discovered that the defendant used his fraudulently-obtained United States citizenship in January 2002 to sponsor the attempted entry into the United States by suspected foreign terrorist Amir Abdulrazzak, also known as Amir Amrush. At the time, Amir Abdulrazzak was an employee of the Saudi High Commission for Refugees (SHCR) in Bosnia. In October 2001, just a few months before the defendant’s sponsorship of Abdulrazzak, NATO forces raided the SHCR Sarajevo office where Abdulrazzak worked. The search recovered computers containing, among other things, the following information:

    – confirmation of Abdulrazzak’s SHCR employment, including as acting manager of SHCR
    – Abdulrazzak’s obtainment of software to hack into Hotmail e-mail accounts;
    – an inventory of chemical protective clothing;
    – anti-American and anti-Israeli propaganda;
    – a German magazine article regarding Usama Bin Laden’s travel to Bosnia in 1993; and
    – documents concerning the appearance of United States State Department identification.

    Due to SHCR’s terrorism ties, the Saudi government eventually closed the SHCR Sarajevo office.”
    The government claimed that “the defendant’s attempt to assist Abdulrazzak was only the most recently known example of the defendant’s support for terrorism-related organizations.”

    As noted above, when he was not sponsoring Al Qaeda operatives, he was serving as a listed author on an article in a prestigious journal addressing the epidemiological puzzle of the anthrax spores that infected a fellow Lenox Hill employee Kathy Nguyen — who worked in the stock room at MEETH. It seems that one never knows what one is hiding in the closet.
    Attorney Stanley L. Cohen represented Hassan Faraj. “The defendant had nothing to give and wouldn’t become one of their snitches,” Cohen told the press in November 2004. Attorney Cohen was the law partner of radical attorney Lynne Stewart, who represented blind sheik Abdel-Rahman. The blind sheik’s son, Mohammed Abdel-Rahman, was on Al Qaeda’s 3-member WMD committee. Mohammed was in frequent contact with the blind sheik’s paralegal, Post Office employee Abdel Sattar. He would use Lynne Stewart as a “dove” to send messages to his father. The blind sheik once bemusedly said that they’ll stop using doves when the US stops using secret evidence. Mohammed Abdel Rahman was captured on February 13, 2003 in Quetta, Pakistan, and that had quickly led to the seizure of anthrax spraydrying documents at the home of a bacteriologist and the raid on Ali Al-Timimi’s townhouse on February 26, 2003. According to the February 2007 Virginia Consent Order, two days later — “on or about February 28, 2003″ — Lenox Hill had issued a warning to Dr. Faraj about his job performance.
    Those massive searches and numerous arrests would be enough to distract even the most committed doctor from their work.

    Now JAMA is just as prestigious and well-regarded as NAS. This case study demonstrates that government in the Sunshine and compliance with FOIA laws is a good thing — because things are not always as they seem.

    The full explanation of the solution to Amerithrax will be posted here once the FBI is given to try again on its sorority and Wikipedia theory.
    http://www.blurb.com/photo-book-contest/view_book/880912

  13. DXer said

    In the aint-it-a-small world department, Dr Hasan Faraj was an author on the below JAMA paper on the death of anthrax victim Kathy Nguyen was arrested

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/287/7/858

    and then a few years later in a letter submitted to a federal judge, prosecutors outlined what they said were ties linking a Syrian-born American doctor, who has been charged with lying to obtain American citizenship, to terrorism and suspected members of Al Qaeda. Those who never even knew there was a Third Amerithrax Squad were not in a position to consider whether that squad was involved in this matter.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9500E2DE123CF935A35752C1A9629C8B63

    CLOSE
    By SABRINA TAVERNISE
    Published: November 6, 2004

    In a letter submitted to a federal judge yesterday, prosecutors outlined what they said were ties linking a Syrian-born American doctor, who has been charged with lying to obtain American citizenship, to terrorism and suspected members of Al Qaeda.

    Still, no new charges have been brought against the man, Hassan Faraj, of Brooklyn, and his lawyer belittled the letter as a scare tactic and called the allegations flimsy.

    Mr. Faraj, 39, was arrested in June and charged with naturalization fraud. Prosecutors accuse him of lying to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, when he applied in 1993 to come to the United States as a Bosnian refugee. He was later released on bail.

    Mr. Faraj worked for three years until June as a resident in internal medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital, a hospital spokeswoman said.

    ”The government loves to dangle all the buzzwords because it’s very seductive,” said the lawyer, Stanley Cohen. ”Quite frankly, Judge, it means nothing. There’s nothing new.”

    In the letter, addressed to Judge Kiyo Matsumoto, prosecutors in the office of the United States attorney for the Eastern District charged that Mr. Faraj tried to help a man they say was a suspected Qaeda associate enter the United States.

    They also raised questions about what they said were shredded blueprints of Washington-area sites found in his apartment and about his association with a Muslim charity group in Croatia.

    Formally, the letter was drawn up to request that Judge Matsumoto order Mr. Faraj taken into custody because of what prosecutors said was a risk that he might flee the country.

    Judge Matsumoto ordered yesterday that Mr. Faraj be electronically monitored, but he delayed a decision on whether he will be held until the next hearing, set for Nov. 10.

    The letter also provided a look into the prosecutors’ thinking on the case. Terror-related charges would carry years of jail time, while Mr. Faraj faces a maximum of six months in jail and deportation under the current naturalization fraud charges, his lawyer said.

    ***

    An assistant United States attorney, John Buretta, the prosecutor who argued the case yesterday, declined to comment on why Mr. Faraj had not been indicted on any terror-related charges, saying only that an investigation into his activities is continuing.

    Among the questions raised in the letter were prosecutors’ claims that Mr. Faraj worked for and later donated money to a Muslim charity, Benevolence International Foundation, whose assets were frozen in December 2001 after the government designated it a terrorist organization.

    It gained national attention when its director was charged with terrorism, and Attorney General John Ashcroft went to Chicago to announce the indictment.

    Mr. Cohen argued that the charity was a United Nations-registered entity at the time Mr. Faraj worked there and that his subsequent donations mentioned by prosecutors totaled just $750.

    In addition, a federal judge in Chicago declined to convict the organization’s director, Enaam Arnaout, a Syrian-born American citizen, on terrorism charges.

    ”Indict him and arrest him and charge him with terrorism,” Mr. Cohen said.

    ”They don’t because they can’t prove it.”

    Mr. Cohen said the destroyed blueprints had belonged to Mr. Faraj’s older brother, a civil engineer, who had lived with Mr. Faraj for several years but had moved out this summer.

    Prosecutors also said Mr. Faraj had tried to help a man they identified as a suspected Qaeda associate enter the United States in December 2001 by filling out an affidavit agreeing to sponsor the man. It was not clear from the letter if the man had eventually entered the United States, or what his precise connection was to Al Qaeda.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: