I thought I'd post a little more on the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The following is chapter 12, which picks up right where my previous post left off.

¹ These things then happened with so great speed, quicker than words could tell, the crowds forthwith collecting from the workshops and baths timber and faggots, and the Jews more especially assisting in this with zeal, as is their wont. (MPoly 12.1)

Unfortunately, some of the writings in these “proto-orthodox” documents have an anti-Jewish tinge. Times were touchy between Christians and Jews, and neither side can be proven to be innocent in the words flying back and forth. For other examples, see the Epistle to Diognetus chapters 3 & 4. (EpDiog 3, EpDiog 4).

² But when the pile was made ready, divesting himself of all his upper garments and loosing his girdle, he endeavored also to take off his shoes, though not in the habit of doing this before, because all the faithful at all times vied eagerly who should soonest touch his flesh. For he had been treated with all honor for his holy life even before his gray hairs came. (MPoly 12.2)

This is remarkable to me. The parishioners at Smyrna (Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna) so doted on the venerable old man that he didn't even remove his own sandals. But more important than the particulars of what happened is the general notion that Polycarp wasn't held prior to his execution, but he instead willingly removed his clothes and prepared himself to be burnt at the stake. Wow. 

³ Forthwith then the instruments that were prepared for the pile were placed about him; and as they were going likewise to nail him to the stake, he said; 'Leave me as I am; for He that hath granted me to endure the fire will grant me also to remain at the pile unmoved, even without the security which ye seek from the nails.' (MPoly 12.3)

Even more remarkable. As I understand it, folks that were burnt at the stake were nailed down so that they couldn't run out of the flames once rope that was holding them down had been consumed. Polycarp indicates that they shouldn't worry about such things, that it is his time to go, and that God will grant him the ability to stay put, in the flames. Yikes.

Now, I'm not saying that this account is historically accurate. I'm pretty sure there was a dude named Polycarp who was the bishop of Smyrna at this time, and that he was executed. Whether or not these actions and conversations are accurate recordings is another issue.

But what is so very interesting to me is that, historically accurate or not, the actions attributed to Polycarp in Martyrdom of Polycarp are obviously indicative of actions that would be expected of a holy and pious man persecuted for his faith at the time of his execution. He would be expected to stand firm, and not recant -- but he would also be expected to honor the governor (Ro 13, anyone?) while still remaining true to his faith. It is easy (and convienent) to forget, but honoring the governor may mean submitting to the penalty of the law when the law is irreconcilable with orthodox Christian doctrine. This is pretty much what Polycarp did; this is the example that (historically accurate or not) Martyrdom of Polycarp sets before us.

Again, you should read the whole account in Martyrdom of Polycarp. Only public domain editions are on the internet, so they don't read the easiest (they're all from between 1890-1920, I think). But you can find more information here if you'd like to follow up on the work.

I'm a fan of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. For those who don't know, this is an account of the capture, persecution, and killing of Polycarp. Polycarp (as a child) was, according to early sources, a disciple of the Apostle John.

He was arrested and then killed for sport in a stadium because he wouldn't “repent” for being a Christian. The account, particularly the conversations between Polycarp and the proconsul in the stadium, are the best part. Here are some excerpts, any emphasis provided is mine.

² When then he [Polycarp] was brought before him, the proconsul enquired whether he were the man. And on his confessing that he was, he tried to persuade him to a denial saying, 'Have respect to thine age,' and other things in accordance therewith, as it is their wont to say; 'Swear by the genius of Caesar; repent and say, Away with the atheists.' Then Polycarp with solemn countenance looked upon the whole multitude of lawless heathen that were in the stadium, and waved his hand to them; and groaning and looking up to heaven he said, 'Away with the atheists.' (MPoly 9.2).

I so enjoy the irony here. The proconsul instructs Polycarp to “repent” by saying, “Away with the atheists!” (for reference: Christians were seen as atheists because they denounced all gods but the one God). Polycarp, then, waves his hand around the stadium, indicating he's turning the indictment back upon them, and says, “Away with the atheists”. Can't you just see it? This old man, sure of his faith, doing this?

³ But when the magistrate pressed him hard and said, 'Swear the oath, and I will release thee; revile the Christ,' Polycarp said, 'Fourscore and six years have I been His servant, and He hath done me no wrong. How then can I blaspheme my King who saved me?' (MPoly 9.3)

Polycarp's understanding and response is encouraging to me. Now, I'm sure you're wondering, what does this have to do with 1Ti 1.1? Well, consider that Scripture:

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope,

I've been wondering about the term “savior” in contexts like this in the Pastoral Epistles. The concept of worship of those in power as gods or semi-divine beings did happen, and most likely was happening in Ephesus while Timothy was there. Early citations in LSJ dating back to the third century BC confirm that the Greek word σωτήρ was used in reference to rulers, provincial or otherwise.

Hang with me, I'm going somewhere here.

Could Paul be referring to “God our Savior” with this in mind? The proconsul who persecuted Polycarp could legitimately be seen as a savior of sorts. He was the one with the power to save the life of the one in the arena being persecuted. The proconsul, with a single decision, could stop the persecution and set the prisoner free. He was, in a real sense, a savior.

But in 1Ti 1.1, is Paul pointing back to the real Savior, God, the one with power to save from eternal damnation, to encourage his readers to be properly grounded in God? To recognize the one whom Polycarp later (say, 150 AD) would not deny and, indeed, even testified to while in the arena? Is Polycarp modeling the basic truth of “God our Savior” in 1Ti 1.1 & Titus 1.3? Here's some more from Polycarp:

¹ But on his persisting again and saying, 'Swear by the genius of Caesar,' he answered, 'If thou supposest vainly that I will swear by the genius of Caesar, as thou sayest, and feignest that thou art ignorant who I am, hear thou plainly, I am a Christian. But if thou wouldest learn the doctrine of Christianity, assign a day and give me a hearing.' (MPoly 10.1)

Polycarp refuses to deny. He refuses to be “saved” by the proconsul, but Polycarp is willing to teach the proconsul the ways of the Christian. Hey, I suppose the chance was worth it. But the proconsul continues to be hardnosed:

² The proconsul said; 'Prevail upon the people.' But Polycarp said; 'As for thyself, I should have held thee worthy of discourse; for we have been taught to render, as is meet, to princes and authorities appointed by God such honor as does us no harm; but as for these, I do not hold them worthy, that I should defend myself before them.' (MPoly 10.2)

Heh. Polycarp doesn't want to waste his time with the masses who only want to see him bleed. He realizes his time is up. Next is MPoly 11.1-2:

¹ Whereupon the proconsul said; 'I have wild beasts here and I will throw thee to them, except thou repent' But he said, 'Call for them: for the repentance from better to worse is a change not permitted to us; but it is a noble thing to change from untowardness to righteousness'

² Then he said to him again, 'I will cause thee to be consumed by fire, if thou despisest the wild beasts, unless thou repent.' But Polycarp said; 'Thou threatenest that fire which burneth for a season and after a little while is quenched: for thou art ignorant of the fire of the future judgment and eternal punishment, which is reserved for the ungodly. But why delayest thou? Come, do what thou wilt.' (MPoly 11.1-2)

Wow. Polycarp is sure of his status before God. He essentially tells the proconsul, “Bring it on!”

This is just a small part of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, but it reads quickly. The account of his death is sensational but fascinating. There are 22 chapters, all are about the size of the chapters above. Find it in a modern translation if you can.

But I'm curious as to what y'all think about the use of “Savior” in 1Ti 1.1, and whether Paul may, either directly or obliquely, be addressing a situation like this. That is, by reminding his readers that God is our Savior, could Paul also be reminding them that provincial governors, proconsuls, and the like — while they may claim to have some power to save temporally — have no power to save one from “the fire of the future judgment and eternal punishment”?

I received my Neighborhood News from the Samish Neighborhood Association today. I'm not a dues-paying member, but hey, they send me the newsletter so I read it.

Bottom-right, page 3 has the following paragraph:

Parking in Residential Yards Now Prohibited

Bellingham has a new ordinance that prohibits parking in residential yards (BMC 11.33.185). To report a possible parking violation, call 911 and ask for parking enforcement.

Get that? The emphasis is mine. Call 9-1-1 to report a “possible parking violation”? That's what my “Emergency Services Levy” is funding? Hold on; I thought if the levy didn't pass that much-needed “emergency services” would be denied. Ambulances would stop running. Fire trucks would be mothballed. Police officers would be restricted to walking beats -- uphill both ways, with five feet of snow. Their only weapons would be sling-shots. Response times to vital emergencies would lag, putting people at risk!

Yet, 9-1-1 is supposed to handle calls about parking? That's a 9-1-1-worthy emergency? This is what my “emergency services” tax levy is paying for? An operator to direct calls that should just go to the police department anyway, but don't because some busybody is too lazy to look at the front inside page of the phone book?

When the 9-1-1 services come a-askin' for more money (and they will) be sure to read the fine print and see how the levy will expand services. I know these folks do good work, but if it is an emergency service, let it be an emergency service. If it is directory assistance, then call it that, and implement it that way. Don't guilt folks into voting for “emergency services” so that oh-so-critical “potential parking violations” can be taken care of with swiftness and efficiency.

Rico's Rule of Thumb: If you think, “should I call 9-1-1?” then you've answered your question. Don't. Open the phone book and call the number for whatever service you think you need. These numbers are typically listed on the inside front cover. You'll know when you need to dial 9-1-1. You won't have to think about it, you'll just know. Trust me.

Nat Torkington, perl coder extrordanairre, has a short article on how to convert one's US street address into Latitude/Longitude, and then how to plug that data into a map server. This is not an article on perl, so you don't need to know a thing about perl to use this info.

This allows you to request satellite imagery of the exact spot where your house is located.

Very cool, methinks.

I don't have a TV, so in the mornings I usually listen to the radio a bit to catch up on the news. I usually listen to NPR. Sure, they're a bit biased, but at least you know where they're coming from and can account for it.

Anyway, I caught a snippet of Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry closing out some backyard meeting with voters in, I think, Wisconsin. His closing words to his audience were (I'm paraphrasing the first part from memory; the italic part is a word-for-word quote) “Let's go work hard out there. Thank you, and God bless.”

After getting over the initial shock of NPR actually airing the words “God bless”, I got to thinking about this.

I know that most major candidates bandy about the words “God bless” like this, and it's always bothered me. But it bothers me in other settings too. It bothers me when it happens as an almost liturgical response when people greet you in church. Essentially, it bothers me when the context of usage is unthinking, formulaic, and trite.

Did John Kerry really, sincerely mean to ask God to bless those at that meeting who go out and work hard for him? Or was it just a little formula, a verbal tick of some sort, appended on out of habit and lack of thought because it seemed appropriate? In most contexts, among most people, I think it's the latter. And that's why it bothers me.

My further question: Remember that piece of scripture known as the “Ten Commandments” (Ex 20.1-17)? Is this sort of thing a violation of Ex 20.7? You know, taking the name of the Lord God in vain? Why utter “God bless” if one doesn't truly and sincerely mean for God to bless those to whom he is speaking? And if one doesn't mean it, isn't that taking the name of the Lord in vain, or using the name of God emptily?

Please note that I'm not saying that any and all uses of “God bless” are wrong. There are times when it is sincerely meant and appropriate. But I fear the phrase is used tritely far more often than it is used properly, and I think that as Christians, we should be aware of this and be diligent in ensuring that we say these sorts of things when we mean them, not when they're expected to be said or heard.

Side note: What is the correct response when someone says “God bless you!” to you in a personal conversation? I never know how to respond to this. I'm sure the proper answer isn't “He'd better!” I usually mutter something like, “well, thank you” but this doesn't seem right either. A knee-jerk “well, may God bless you too!” doesn't seem right for the very reasons mentioned above. So, what do you say? How should one respond in this situation?

I'm looking at different translations of a particular word (ESV “enslavers” in 1Ti 1.10).

In comparing translations, I made a mental list to look up: NASB, NET, NKJV, NRSV, RSV, KJV.

I just realized that I forgot about even looking at the NIV. I almost never use the NIV anymore; it has now apparently got to the point where I don't think about it.

For the record, I prefer to use the ESV as my primary English translation, though I usually bring both an ESV (pocket sized) and my trusty UBS3 Greek NT with me to church or to studies, and I prefer to follow along in the Greek when the reading is in the NT.

Why do I prefer the ESV? Well, it isn't condescending. It has a certain style to it. And, as I've worked through the Pastoral Epistles, I've done a good bit of comparing Greek to English at a fairly detailed level. And I like the way the ESV handles things moreso than the NASB. I was on an NKJV kick for awhile, but that was primarily because they told me via footnotes when they went with a majority reading, or when they went with the UBS/NA reading. English translations need to be better about marking where they follow variants; the NKJV is one of the few that does it consistently and well.

But I like the ESV. So I'll be using it as my primary English text.

Typographica (cool typography-related blog) has a posting about the benefits of owning/perusing The Manual of Linotype Typography.

Hear, hear. I agree. I've seen and perused in-depth a copy of this book, and it is astounding. In a design rut? Page through this guy to get inspired. Sure, some would say that the look is dated (the manual is from the 1920s/1930s) but there are good things going on in this book. Drop the over-thick page borders and dated colors, but look at the spacing, sizes, and font selection. And some of the sample text used is simply priceless.

The Typographica article has several links to sample pages.

If you want to get really classically inspired, you could also poke through Alan Bartram's Five hundred years of book design.

Yesterday I picked up a post on B-Greek about the new NA27/NET Diglot from The Biblical Studies Foundation. Check out the photo. This looks exactly like the classic NA27/RSV English diglot, only instead of the RSV it has the NET translation, and instead of the English apparatus it has the oh-so-useful NET text-critical notes.

Thinking about this (yeah, I'm gonna buy one) I was thinking about the usefulness of the NA27 apparatus to the average Greek dude (or dudette, as the case may be). The apparatus is unapproachable for most because it is hopelessly cryptic unless one has diligently taught himself the language of the apparatus. If one desires to use the apparatus, he dooms himself to looking up MSS in the table in the back. And even then, not much info on the MSS are given. The date/century is helpful, but do I really care about what library the MSS is in currently? I'd rather know more about the provenance, not the current location.

Anyway, there are two primary classes of cited MSS for each major portion of the NT (gospels, acts, paulines, catholic epistles, and the apocalypse). These are the “Consistently Cited Witnesses” and the “Frequently Cited Witnesses”. The primary and most important are the “Consistently Cited Witnesses” as all variants of these MSS are cited for the given range (book/portion). No citation means the MSS either agrees or is missing the reading in question. These consitently cited witnesses are, for larger sections, selected on a book-by-book basis.

I think the most useful and innovative thing that the GBS could do with the NA27 would be to devise a running footer for each two-page spread that lists the consistently cited uncial witnesses for the current book with a short bit of info about each. Not much info — there isn't much room left on the page. But they may be able to squeeze the sigla and century/date if they stretch the list in one or two lines across the two-page spread. It would be great if the uncial data from the witness/abbreviation pamphlet could be used. This way folks would at least get familiar with the sigla for the consistently cited witnesses. Some may object because this focuses on the date, which may or may not be misleading text-critical information. I say it's better than the bupkes that's there now, and it sure beats flipping to the back to look things up. It gets people actually starting to use the information in the apparatus on a regular basis because the barrier to entry is much lower.

Or, one could just use the electronic version ... :)