# Sunday, May 24, 2009

The NA27 apparatus lists the following contents for P99 (dated as “ca. 400”, currently held in the Chester Beatty Library). I’ve given the references in an English-based system (though I still use “.” for a chapter/verse separator, instead of “:”, because I’m lazy and don’t like to hit the shift key unless I really have to), translated from the German system in the printed NA27 apparatus appendix.

Ro 1.1; 2Co 1.3-6; 1.6-17; 1.20-24; 2.1-9; 2.9-5.13; 5.13-6.3; 6.3-8.13; 8.14-22; 9.2-11.8; 11.9-23; 11.26-13.11; Gal 1.4-11; 1.18-6.15; 1.14-2.4; 2.5-3.19; 3.19-4.9; Eph 1.4-2.21; 1.22(?); 3.8-6.24

I have two questions, actually.

First, what’s up with Galatians? Why the large range covering most of the book (1.18-6.15) followed by subranges amounting to 1.14-4.9? Is this content duplicated in the papyrus? I’ve searched online for other contents listings of P99 only to see the same exact list duplicated in numerous locations. I’m confused as to what the duplication might be indicating—or if it is a typo of some sort (it feels like a book name is missing, but Galatians and Ephesians are in canonical order, so it can’t be that … I don’t think).

Second, what’s up with Ephesians? Why is “1.22(?)” appended? Is it that it occurs out of order after 2.21?

Just trying to get a handle on what’s listed in this particular entry and why. P99 is not in Comfort & Barrett (too late for them, apparently) so I can’t check there; it is also not in Tischendorf because, well, Tischendorf is just far too early. Other ranges in the NA27 appendix do not have overlapping ranges (well, not up through P99 nor through the uncials). Poking through the site for the Chester Beatty Library was a dead end as well (though I’d love to be proved wrong).

If you have any help for me, I’m all ears.

Post Author: rico
Sunday, May 24, 2009 2:25:22 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [5]
# Monday, January 12, 2009

I've mentioned the upcoming Bible Technologies Conference and the paper I plan on presenting there (also info here). I've recently realized that I've got a little more than two months to get the durn thing written.

I also realized that Kenny spent 124 pages talking about Stylometry in the New Testament; I'm giving a paper that is allotted perhaps 30 minutes (some portion of which is intended for questions) for a corpus that is roughly four times the size of the New Testament.

In other words, I'm realizing that I'll have to give a very high level overview with perhaps some glimpses at deeper-level data. Chances are I'll follow most of Kenny's lead, which means:

  • Rough overview of distribution of major parts of speech (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions, etc.)
  • Rough overview of most common words and their distribution/frequency
  • Perhaps some further look at things like conjunctions and articles

Kenny then used portions of his data in the evaluation of certain textual issues, mostly geared toward authorship (Luke/Acts, John/epistles/Revelation, Paulines). I'll have to determine an issue to examine further using the data pulled together, but I have some constraints:

  • No examination of JEDP, whatsoever.
  • No examination of authorship, whatsoever.
  • No examination of translational theory, whatsoever.

Given these constraints, are there stylistic issues in the LXX that you would suggest I use for my example case study?

My own thoughts have to do with genre (say, look at stuff having to do with narrative versus stuff having to do with poetry to see if there are any sorts of things that seem to be indicative of one or the other). But I'm interested in what you might think or suggest. For an idea of the criteria/features I'm tracking, see this post.

Please feel free to leave a comment with your suggestion(s), or drop me an email (textgeek at gmail dot com). Thanks!

Post Author: rico
Monday, January 12, 2009 4:35:53 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
# Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Long-time ricoblog readers know that I have a more-than-passing interest in stylometry and stylistic studies, particularly in the realm of authorship attribution.

I'm also reading a lot about the Fathers of the Church (via Drobner). And for the Church Fathers for whom we have much information and transmitted writings, there always seems to be mention of documents that had been attributed to a Father at one point in time that have since been proven/posited to not be from that Father.

So, the question: Does anyone have any references to stylometric studies of particular Greek church fathers?

There has been much ink spilt on the question of authorship attribution of New Testament epistles; but has anyone ever taken those same theories and applied them to the much larger corpora of some of the Greek fathers? My primary contention is that the NT is too small for the sorts of authorship studies folks do (vocabulary? bah, gimme a million word corpus from an author and maybe we can do something). In other words, I'd be interested in reading through if anyone has ever done for Chrysostom what P.N. Harrison did to the Pastorals in his 1922 tome The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, and what sorts of results they came up with.

Any help?

Post Author: rico
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:11:14 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
# Thursday, November 08, 2007

This morning, Current Epigraphy posted a bleg asking for help with a particular Christian inscription spotted in Imma (which is near Antioch).

Check it out, and if you have the eyes to see, perhaps you can help them out!

Here's a photograph of the inscription, and here's a preliminary text of the inscription. But be sure to check out the comments as well.

Post Author: rico
Thursday, November 08, 2007 1:08:44 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
# Friday, October 26, 2007

I'm curious what you think, so I'm asking. Is "they" == "Jesus and the 12" or is "they" == "the 12"?

Here's the Greek text of Mk 14.17-18 and the ESV text of same.

Καὶ ὀψίας γενομένης ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν δώδεκα. καὶ ἀνακειμένων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσθιόντων ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἷς ἐξ ὑμῶν παραδώσει με ὁ ἐσθίων μετʼ ἐμοῦ. (Mk 14:17-18, NA27)

And when it was evening, he came with the twelve. And as they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.” (Mk 14:17-18)

Feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts. If you'd rather not comment publicly but want to let me know what you think, try textgeek at gmail dot com.

Post Author: rico
Friday, October 26, 2007 5:17:30 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
# Friday, October 05, 2007

I'm curious to know if anyone can recommend resources (books, articles, web sites, whatever) on matters of punctuation, sentence/paragraph delineation, and orthography as they pertain to printed editions of the Greek New Testament.

If you ever compare editions of the Greek NT, you'll see these differences sticking out like sore thumbs. The words themselves (the order of the stream of letters) may not differ, but the other stuff does. Editions differ on paragraph placement, how to break up paragraphs (i.e. NA27's use of sub-paragraphs* within paragraphs?), sentence delineation, treatment of divine names (only upper-cased when also a proper name? or all upper-cased?), and orthographical issues.

The only treatment of orthography of an edition of the Greek New Testament that I know of (offhand) is in Westcott & Hort's appendix volume to their edition, pp. 148-179. I can't say I've read much on the other stuff (outside of discourse analysis/grammar approaches to determining textual units) and, frankly, it seems like more of an art than a science when you actually examine an edition.

Anyone have any references for such things? I can get to some decent libraries if I need to (Trinity Western University or the Vancouver School of Theology, for example).

Thanks!

Update (2007-10-05): There's also Westcott & Hort's introduction volume (actually, the intro & appendix are in the same print volume, though the page numbering starts again for the appendix — at least in my edition, dated 1896). Intro part 4, pp. 288-324 (§§375-425) cover W&H's approach on much of this material. §§393-404 cover orthography; §§405-416 cover breathings, accents and the like; §§417-423 cover punctuation and textual division as well as titles of books. Zounds! Now that's detail. But that's the only place I've found this sort of information. The NA27 preface/intro has no such information; Maurice Robinson's 2005 Byzantine (printed edition) has about a page. R.V.G. Tasker has about two sentences in the intro to his Greek New Testament being the text translated in The New English Bible (he basically says the his Greek follows the NEB NT English practice). Does anyone else have any other references?


* If you ever wondered why there are some longer white space breaks in portions of paragraphs (say, 1/4 to 1/2 inch wide like the space before Jn 1.18 in this screen shot) ... then you've found subparagraph breaks in the NA27. I didn't know about them myself until I asked a contact at the German Bible Society about them while I was working on creating the Logos Bible Software edition of the NA27 with critical apparatus markers found in the SESB. And yes, the Logos editions of NA27 do include visual subparagraph breaks in the text (as well as the paragraphing, casing, etc. of the printed edition).

 

Post Author: rico
Friday, October 05, 2007 9:18:06 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
# Friday, December 15, 2006

Here's a question someone out there in ye olde biblioblogosphere may be able to give me some direction on.

Has anyone seriously proposed and defended (or eviscerated ... I'm equal opportunity here) Paul as one of Luke's sources for the portion of Acts that deals with Paul? I realize (based on the 'we' passages, right?) that Luke himself could be primary source ... but aren't there portions where Luke wasn't with Paul? And couldn't some of those portions likely be traced back to Paul's own testimony?

After all, if you take the epistles attributed to Paul at their word, Luke and Paul were in contact with each other or actually with each other (cf. Col 4.14; 2Ti 4.11; Phm 24). Most do attribute Philemon to Paul, so even if one thinks Colossians and Second Timothy are non-Pauline, one still has to contend with the reference in Philemon.

If you have any pointers here (articles, books, commentaries with good initial discussions, or NT intro volumes, or anything else) I'd appreciate it!

Thanks!

Update (2006-12-18): Upon re-reading this entry, I think I need to supply a little more context for my request. The long and short of it is that I've been reading Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and thinking about the different ways that Bauckham posits eyewitness testimony in the text, and wondering about eyewitness testimony outside of the gospels. Acts seems the logical place to start poking around for various reasons I won't get into here.

So, I was wondering if anyone knew of any similar sort of work in Acts, but I'm guessing there isn't much (else Bauckham would've footnoted it).

Update II (2006-12-21): After a trip up north to the TWU Library, I am now reading H.J. Cadbury's The Making of Luke-Acts. I know it is a bit dated, but hopefully it'll provide some background. If anyone has similar references or pointers to criticism of Cadbury's work, I'd be obliged. Thanks!

Post Author: rico
Friday, December 15, 2006 4:13:38 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
# Thursday, November 02, 2006

I'm in need of an article and don't have time in the near-term future to make it to a library (in either Seattle or the Vancouver area). If you have access to the following article and can provide a copy, please let me know. My email address is on the sidebar.

Terence Y. Mullins, “Petition as a Literary Form”, Novum Testamentum 5 (1962), pp. 46-52.

While you're at it, if you have access to Mullins' article on the disclosure formula, it would be cool to look at. This isn't nearly as much of a need, though.

Terence Y. Mullins, “Disclosure, a Literary Form in the New Testament”, Novum Testamentum 7 (1964), pp. 44-50.

Thanks in advance if you're able to lend a hand.

Update (2006-11-03): Much thanks to ricoblog reader Jan Krans (The Amsterdam NT Blog) for supplying both articles.

Update II (2006-11-03): If anyone else does retrieve and read those articles, please note that there are two typos in Bible reference citations on the last page of the article on petitions (p. 54). “2 Corinthians xx 2” should be “2 Corinthians x 2” and “2 Corinthians v 20; v 1” should be “2 Corinthians v 20; vi 1”.

<soapbox>Speaking as someone who has worked with actually looking up each and every citation in books programatically for the past 10 years ... well, you'd be amazed at how many times invalid references occur in print. If you're using lists of references from articles/books/dictionaries to make a point ... well, you should at least look up those references to ensure they really do make your point.</soapbox>

Post Author: rico
Thursday, November 02, 2006 4:53:39 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
# Wednesday, August 23, 2006

[Background: Sisyphus was the mythical king of Corinth. His punishment in Hades was to eternally push a heavy rock up a hill, only to have it roll back down again at the end of the day. He did it all over again the next day. Forever.]

I was talking with a colleague earlier today. I was lamenting that I saw a new Bart Ehrman book (this one on the Gospel of Judas); he said, "Yeah, I'll probably end up reading it." I asked why. He said that he browses the "New Age" style aisles at the local Barnes & Noble to see what sorts of things the masses are reading and then he reads them so he knows what's up and how to respond.

After hearing this, I responded somewhat cynically, "That seems like a Sisyphean task".

Then I immediately thought, "Hey, that's a good blog post!"

So with all that lead-in: What are the Sisyphean tasks of Biblical Studies? What do you find yourself doomed to eternally repeat in your work? If you're a teacher, are there things that you find yourself returning to over and over again that students don't seem to grasp? If you write, are there things you continually return to to explain over and over?

Additionally, What are the Herculean tasks of Biblical Studies? There have got to be some big things left to do that, realistically, only certain people (or perhaps groups) can do. What are they? And who, in your estimation, is poised to take them on?

I'm still thinking through these things, wondering what I'll come up with in answer to these questions. But I wanted to ask the questions of a larger audience. Anyone out there have any ideas? Feel free to use the comments here, or respond on your own blog. If you email me a link, or if I come across your response, I'll post links here.

Update (2006-08-28): A few responses, though I'd hoped for more. Oh well. Check out:

Also, ricoblog reader Clint Yale emails the following Herculean task:

What about the complete digitizing of all extant manuscripts and then heir conversion into text format? The completion of the UNICODE haracter sets so that they reflect all the diacritics and maverick markings that occur in the Biblical manuscripts.

I can think of three names: Bill Warren, Daniel Wallace and David Parker as heads of the whole process. These three generals with the help of hundreds if not thousands of troops in the field could accomplish this. It would be more profitable to use our computers for this goal then to have them set up to be coordinated in search of ET’s trying to communicate with us. This would take innovation, cooperation, perserverance, money, time and a whole lot of coordination.

There exists in raw form databases of the texts that could be used as the basis for the creation of the electronic editions of manuscripts that need to be converted to electronic format.

 

Post Author: rico
Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:29:56 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
# Tuesday, June 06, 2006

After reading Hill's stuff (see post below) I'm convinced, once again, that I need to do some serious reading of Irenaeus.

The problem is that I have no idea what a good modern edition of Irenaeus would be. I'd like something that doesn't sound like the KJV. If it has the Greek and notes that is bonus. Something like a Loeb edition with a modern translation would be perfect, but I'd also go for a cheap (but good) modern English translation and a recommendation as to which Greek edition to pursue (assuming the organizing schemes between the two editions are compatible).

Any help? Any ideas? Feel free to leave a comment or email me with edition citations.

Thanks!

Update (2006-06-13): I purchased two volumes. One is Irenaeus' Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. The other is Book I of Irenaeus' Against the Heresies. Both are volumes from Paulist Press' Ancient Christian Writers series. Note they only have Book I of Against Heresies, I guess I'll find another edition to cover the balance unless they rush out with the balance of it. If anyone has any leads on decent English editions of others of Irenaeus' works, please feel free to let me know, either via email or through comments on this post (comments are preferred).

bleg | books
Post Author: rico
Tuesday, June 06, 2006 2:58:54 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
# Tuesday, May 02, 2006

If you'll be going to the regional SBL meeting in Spokane this weekend, I'd like to meet with you. Whether it is to talk about ricoblog, Pastoral Epistles, or Logos Bible Software 3 (Greek resources and syntax stuff especially), we can get together.

Zap me an email (text geek at gmail d o t com) and we can set something up. I'm guessing I'll arrive Friday afternoon and be leaving late Sunday morning. Just about any time in there is fair game, so let me know what works for you!

See you there!

Update (2006-05-04): I actually won't be attending due to a family situation that has come up. To those who do attend — enjoy your time!

Post Author: rico
Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:45:15 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
# Monday, April 10, 2006

In working on the paper for the SBL meeting in DC, I've come across a citation for an article I'm interested in reading, but the closest university library (Trinity Western University) does not have the periodical.

If anyone can help out with the article, I'd be very appreciative. Here's the citation:

Reed, Jeffrey T. 'Cohesive Ties in 1 Timothy', Neotestamentica. 26.1: 131-47. 1992.

Otherwise I guess I'll try some other schools in the area and see what I can dig up.

Update (2006-04-10): Cheers to Cliff (Theological Musings) for attempting to locate a copy via interlibrary loan.

Update (2006-04-10): Cheers also to Ken Penner for pointing me to Regent College's Library, which is just up the street in Vancouver BC. Regent/UBC was my next stop, but I don't know when I'll get up there so I thought I'd try seeing if anyone had the article handy in the interim. If interlibrary loan doesn't do it, then I'll schedule a pilgrimage north of the border.

Post Author: rico
Monday, April 10, 2006 12:31:30 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
# Thursday, March 09, 2006

Many moons ago, I had a series of posts on the Epistle to Diognetus. At the end of that series, there was a poll on which text I should blog about next.

Not too many people responded, but those who did specified that the Didache would be a good one to look into. So I will.

But first, some thoughts.

Should examination of non-canonical text (text that isn't Scripture) be different from examination of Scripture? I think it should be as the non-canonical text does not have the same underlying authority that Scripture has. But I'm not sure what that means. [Note: I'm thinking more about application of the text in the life of a Christian here than general examination/exegetical practices. Apologies for the confusion.]

Most editions of non-canonical text I've seen are just that: editions. They have the text and translation. They identify parallels in canonical and non-canonical documents. They discuss language, grammar, syntax, authorship, etc. They have brief notes, usually relating to the definition of a word or two.

That is much different than most commentary on Biblical texts, which seem to center on application or perhaps more homiletical purposes. I have not yet examined the Hermeneia volume on the Didache; a friend has that volume and I hope to borrow it from him shortly. Perhaps that will help me out.

Until then, my basic question is: What should commentary on non-canonical text consist of? What should it look like? What methods should it use?

Currently, my thought is to go very slowly through the text and comment on the Greek as it relates to similar words or grammatical/syntactic structures as they are found in the New Testament. That is, major on the language and minor on the exegesis. But if one was to do exegesis, what would that end up looking like? And would it be valuable? And would it be useful?

Just runnin' at the fingers here. If you have any thoughts, please email, leave some comments, or write away with your own thoughts on your own blog and I'll link to you from here (assuming I find it or you tell me, of course).

Thanks!

Post Author: rico
Thursday, March 09, 2006 5:46:12 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]
# Tuesday, February 14, 2006

The ESV Bible Blog had notice of the MS copying project today. The focus was on Eli's way-cool stuff, though mention of Suzanne's efforts was made as well. They even mentioned me!

To those interested, participation in the project is open. You don't have to have a blog, and you don't have to blog about your experience. I'm just interested in getting copies to collate from folks relatively familiar with Greek (or the script, or who are experienced in scribal type stuff).

If you're interested in helping, send an email to [text geek] at [gmail] dot com for more details.

Thanks!

Update (2006-02-15): Thanks to the publicity from the ESV Bible Blog, the project has picked up four more copyists! That's awesome. Thanks again for your interest, y'all!

I think that puts it at 10 participants (including myself); I may have to put participation on hold until after collation. So if you're interested it is better to act sooner rather than later ...

Update II (2006-02-16): The project has picked up two more participants. The total is now over 10, which means I'll have a lot of Second Timothy to read and collate here in a few weeks. For that reason, I think I need to cut off participation. I have some further ideas (copies of copies of copies to see how families develop?). Also, please check out Suzanne McCarthy's further post on some of her manuscript copying experiences.

Post Author: rico
Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:59:25 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
# Monday, February 13, 2006

After reading Mark Goodacre's belated notice of Biblical Studies Carnival II, I suddenly realized: "Whoa, I'm hosting BSC:III ... I'd better get some things together!"

So this is the official call for submissions and nominations for the third Biblical Studies Carnival. What is a "Biblical Studies Carnival"? Tyler Williams summed it up well:

The Biblical Studies Carnival is patterned after the History Carnival, the Philosophers’ Carnival, and the Christian Carnival, among others.

A blog "carnival" is a blog post where a host blogger links to and sums up the best blog articles in a given subject area in specific period of time. The host typically rotates among a number of different bloggers ensuring diversity and different perspectives in the subject area. Some carnival hots will group entries following different themes, while others go through the entries in order of submission (the former is preferred, though not required).

What does this mean? It means you get to tell me what carnival-itize. You suggest, I assemble (with short consideration as to relevance, of course). I've already flagged a few posts, but I need your help to pull it off. Please note: Only posts made in the month of February 2006 will be considered.

If you read blogs in the Biblical Studies realm, send email with links to suggested posts (your own blog or someone else's blog) to: biblical_studies_carnival AT hotmail DOT com. Or use the submission form at BlogCarnival.com. Either way, I'll get the submissions and cobble together a post that will pale in comparison to the brilliance and mastery displayed by the ineffable Tyler Williams in the Electric Boogaloo version Biblical Studies Carnival.

If you're a blogger in the Biblical Studies realm, send links to your stuff using the above methods. Please don't be bashful about selecting a few of what you consider to be your best posts of the month and send them my way; this is one cool way to expand your blog readership. People who don't normally read your stuff will click on the link and end up at your site; if they like it they may just decide to stick around. What could be better?

BSC:III will run in early March. I'm shooting for March 1 but may be just a little late.

Post Author: rico
Monday, February 13, 2006 8:33:09 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
# Friday, January 21, 2005

[Note: the term 'bleg' is a combination of the words “blog” and “beg”, typically used when blog authors make requests of readers.]

As regular ricoblog readers know, I've been working on writing some stuff on the Pastoral Epistles.

I'm still not sure how to label what it is that I'm doing. It isn't a commentary in the traditional sense, though it does share the same basic structure (verse-by-verse organization). Some have suggested the label “Word Studies”, but I dislike that term and don't think it applies to what I'm doing either. I'd thought “exegetical notes” and that's the alternative I'm sticking with at present, though I still don't think it is really descriptive.

At this point, I'm working through the text at the word/phrase level and examining word/phrase occurrences in the NT and also in the LXX, Pseudepigrapha, Apostolic Fathers, Josephus, Philo or whatever other place I can find (either cited or through searching) where it seems the citation helps with understanding the word as it is used in the Pastoral Epistles. A later project, after these notes are complete, will be to use this data while examining the text at a higher level. I'd say 'discourse' level, but I don't plan on doing full-on discourse analysis.

So, I've decided to upload a sample and ask y'all what you think about it. Please feel free to contact me via email at textgeek (at) gmail (dot) com if you have suggestions for a label that I can use to describe this stuff succinctly, or if you have general feedback be it good or bad or in between somewhere. I'm not looking for an editor or nitpicks; there will be plenty of future opportunity in those areas.

This is a PDF doc with notes on 1Ti 3.5. It's 2.5 pages. The English NT translation is that of the ESV.

1 Timothy 3.5 Rough Draft Sample.pdf (53.6 KB)

I post this with the typical author apprehension about others reading his stuff. It's a rough draft and hasn't been edited at all. The first half is a bit more solid than the second half (which needs some work; I threw that part together pretty quickly). And the translations of the LXX need to be checked again. I'll be editing it in a few weeks. But it's a nice little passage that gives some idea of what I'm doing. Hopefully the conventions (bold, italics, single vs. double quotes) will be clear.

Thanks in advance if you're able to give it a look-see and offer some feedback.

Post Author: Rico
Friday, January 21, 2005 9:51:11 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
# Saturday, January 01, 2005

In typical scatter-brained fashion, I've been thinking the past week or so about Latin and my own ignorance of the language.

I'm looking for recommendations of primer/introduction types of resources. But I need to make my purposes clear.

I'm not interested in Latin for classics. I'm interested specifically in Ecclesiastical Latin of three sorts:

  • The “Old Latin” found in pre-vulgate NT Latin MSS/editions.
  • The Vulgate (of course)
  • Writings of the Latin Fathers

The “scholarly” Latin found through the 19th century (e.g., Tischendorf's apparatus) is of secondary interest to me. My primary interest is textual criticism. In the long run, I hope to have some sort of familiarity with the languages of the primary early editions: Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, etc.

I have absolutely no Latin training, so I need something to inform my pronounciation. But I am familiar with Koine Greek, so anything that points out similarities (and differences) between the two would be nice. A sort of “Latin for Koine Greek Students” would be cool. I'd think that something along the lines of Lambdin's Sahidic Coptic Intro, which specifically notes loanwords from Greek, would be helpful.

I can't help but think with a decent pronounciation guide, some decently annotated paradigms, and some short vocabulary building exercises I could get a decent grasp of the language fairly quickly.

If you have any recommendations for me to check out, I'd appreciate it. If you just say “Get Wheelock”, you'll be summarily ignored unless you explain why Wheelock is appropriate to my situation.

Thanks!

Post Author: Rico
Saturday, January 01, 2005 10:26:31 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
# Monday, October 11, 2004

Well, it's official. The good folks at Logos are, for some reason, cartin' me along to the ETS and SBL meetings in San Antonio in November. Yay!

I've never been to an ETS or SBL meeting. I've wanted to go to the annual SBL meeting for a few years now; it seems like there is always lots of interesting stuff going on there. I'll surely pull booth duty for a decent share of the conferences, but this brings me to my question.

I'm guessing that the few folks that do read this blog (those outside of Logos, anyway) have some familiarity with the ETS and SBL conferences. So take a look at the category listing on the right side of the page. That's the kind of stuff I'm interested in — particularly textual criticism, apostolic fathers, and the pastoral epistles; not to mention Greek (grammars, lexicography, etc.) and early versions of the New Testament. I'm not too familiar with Coptic/Armenian/Ethiopic/etc., but I just generally think such things are cool. Of course, sessions on the use of computers in Biblical study are of primary interest.

Do you have any sessions, papers, or whatnot you'd recommend that I attend? I'm looking at building a list of sessions to potentially attend so that, in the event of free time, I'll have an idea where to go without having to stop and consult the program — I'll just head to the spot on my list for that timeframe. Drop me an email or drop a comment on this thread with some pointers for me. (Please don't just point me to the program book; I'm looking for folks recommending specific sessions. Thanks.)

Also, if you're going to be at ETS or SBL and would like to meet for some reason, drop me a line. The email is textgeek@gmail.com. Apart from booth duty (and I'm unsure what that obligation will be) my schedule is fairly much wide open. So if you want to talk about any of the above subjects, or Bible software, or whatever ... let me know; and please suggest a day and time to meet. I'd love to talk with you further.

Thanks!

Post Author: Rico
Monday, October 11, 2004 11:11:52 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
# Wednesday, September 15, 2004

In 1Ti 1.18-19, I've come across two figurative phrases used by Paul (assuming Pauline authorship) that are also found in the works of Philo.

I posted on one of these a few days ago, in 1Ti 1.18: “wage the good warfare” or “fight the good fight”. Here's the excerpt from Philo:

And he is thought worthy of grace, for having fought the good fight in behalf of virtue he never ceases from warring till he sees the pleasures overthrown and baulked of their object.(Philo, Alleg.Int. III. 14)

Tonight, I came across 1Ti 1.19: “... made shipwreck of their faith.” Here's an example of Philo using very similar nautical terminology in a figurative manner; though Philo carries the illustration much further than Paul:

At all events Jacob does not speak to Joseph more than the sacred scripture speaks to every one who is vigorous in his body, and who is seen to be immersed amid abundant treasures, and riches, and superfluities, and to be overcome by none of them, when he says, “For still thou livest,” uttering a most marvellous sentiment, and one which is quite beyond the daily life of us who, if we have fallen in with ever so slight a breeze which bears us towards the good fortune, immediately set all sail and became greatly elated, and being full of great and high spirits, hurry forward with all our speed to the indulgence of our passions, and never will check our unbridled and immoderately excited desires until we run ashore and are wrecked as to the whole vessel of our souls. (Philo, Mut.Nom. 215)

I don't think there's anything special here; common metaphors (warfare and nautical/maritime terminology) should be seen in different documents from the same general era. But I still think it's interesting to realize that Paul (again, assuming Pauline authorship) and Philo used similar language.

I also think it is interesting that Paul used a metaphor (shipwreck) that he'd personally experienced (cf. 2Co 11.25).

Are there any lists of common metaphors such as these (e.g., “fight the good fight”, “make shipwreck”) found in classical documents that you know about? If so, drop a comment below or send an email to textgeek@gmail.com to let me know about it.

Thanks!

Post Author: Rico
Wednesday, September 15, 2004 10:22:03 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
# Sunday, September 12, 2004

The phrase “fight the good fight” or something akin to it occurs three times in the Pastoral Epistles:

  • 1Ti 1.18
  • 1Ti 6.12
  • 2Ti 4.7

In addition, the phrase (or something like it) also occurs in:

  • 4Macc 9.24 (not figurative)
  • 1Cl 37.1
  • Philo, Alleg.Interp. III.14

In addition, there are military metaphors in 2Ti 2.4. Paul uses military terms figuratively elsewhere (e.g. 1Co 9.7; 2Co 10.3-4). And, of course, Eph 6.

The Apostolic Fathers also have figurative usage of military terms: Poly 5.3; IgnPoly 6.2. The last reference is interesting when compared to Eph 6.

I'm unfamiliar with other literature. LSJ is little help; it is jam-packed with references to use of such words as στρατεύω because, well, Greeks wrote a whole lot about war. Anybody have any other references to point out with figurative use of military terminology? Or any insight on why it seems to be used so frequently?

My only thought is that such language is used frequently because folks would be familiar with it, but that's a deduction and not an authoritative opinion. I'm just curious as to how common such figurative usage is, and if there are established opinions on the reasons for such usage.

If you have any ideas, I'm all ears. Thanks!

Post Author: Rico
Sunday, September 12, 2004 11:25:02 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
# Tuesday, August 17, 2004

I'm on a committee/team/whatever looking into small group stuff for the church I'm attending. I'm supposed to figure out what other churches in the area are doing, but I'm lazy.

So, if you'd like to zap me an email or drop a comment about the basics of what your church does (if anything) in the realm of small groups or Bible studies, I'd appreciate it.

If you have any documentation or web pages you can point me to, that would be quite groovy.

Thanks!

Post Author: Rico
Tuesday, August 17, 2004 1:42:30 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]