With all the election hullaballo, I'd completely forgotten about the fact that it is Oktoberfest time.

Today's National Review Online (yes, this link is informative and not political!) has a review of the preferred brew of many of its contributors.

Insightful. Many of them simply say “Bud”. There are, of course, some Guinness fans. And Guinness is a good thing. I'm surprised, however, that nobody mentioned Widmer Hefeweizen, which (if I had to pick) is what I'd pick — though several of the brews at Boundary Bay (ahem: Scotch!) would rank up there as well.

Update: I forgot to mention my favorite answers from the NROniks.

Best Answer: The award goes to ... Ramesh Ponnuru, with his response of “You mean you have to choose?”

Most Disappointing Answer: The award goes to ... Rick Brookhiser, unfortunately. I was looking for insight and range of experience, but he prefers “Bud.” That boy needs to get out more (as do all of those who profess bud as their fave).

Ok, I'm done with the randomnity. Back to other things ...

A friend of mine just emailed me this link to Christianity Today's weblog. The article is about the Episcopal Church USA, you know, the one that ordained a “practicing homosexual” as a bishop awhile back.

This article on CT's weblog is not about that controversy, and that's why I think that the Episcopal Church USA has “jumped the shark”. I use a humorous metaphor, but the problem is actually quite serious. I can't see how the leadership of the EC-USA can contend that they are a Christian fellowship based on the issue with the bishop and this new issue. Here's the full title and subtitle of the article I'm referring to:

Weblog: Episcopal Church Officially Promotes Idol Worship.
“Women's Eucharist” calls for worship of pagan deities specifically condemned in Scripture.

The article is not a hit & run job. It is from a highly reputable source (CT). It is clearly written, with ample reference to both Scripture and the EC-USA church documents in question (and links to the ESV and the online versions of the document(s) in question). Consider the third paragraph of the article:

“This is not a joke nor an overstatement. In all truth and seriousness, leaders of the Episcopal Church USA are promoting pagan rites to pagan deities. And not just any new pagan deities: The Episcopal Church USA, though its Office of Women's Ministries, is actually promoting the worship of idols specifically condemned in Scripture.”

Friends, this saddens me. I'm not a part of the Episcopal Church USA and I know very little about their liturgy and historical worship. But if this is the sort of stuff that their leadership is both doing and recommending, it's a sad day.

Update (2004-11-06): Here is the response to the CT article from the Episcopal Church USA's Office of Women's Ministries.

My thoughts: while the liturgy under question may not have been “official” in the sense of having received the imprimatur of the church's governing body, I still think it is a sad indictment on the state of things within the church in general (and specifically the Episcopal Church USA). Consider this paragraph from the response:

These liturgies are intended to spark dialogue, study, conversation and ponderings around women and our liturgical tradition. There is quite a difference in presenting resources for people’s interest and enlightenment and promoting resources as official claims of the Episcopal Church.

Well, it certainly sparked dialogue, I'll give them that. But I question the sort of “enlightenment” a partaker in such a liturgy is to receive. I also question the setting in which a church — a church that is supposed to represent the gospel of Jesus Christ — can justify the presentation of such material, even if it is for “people's interest and enlightenment”. This “liturgy” is unquestionably heresy and should be condemned, and the church should distance itself as far from it as possible. Go ahead, read the CT article and try to come to a different conclusion.

A few weeks back, I wrote some quick thoughts on EpDiog 1. Now it's time to do the same thing for EpDiog 2.

EpDiog 1 started out with listing some distinctives of Christianity. EpDiog 2 changes course and differentiates paganism from Christianity. The author's primary argument against paganism involves the physical nature of the things pagans worship as gods. Here's EpDiog 2.3:

Are not all of these formed of destructible matter? Ar they not forged with iron and fire? Were they each not made by the sculptor, coppersmith, silversmith, and potter? Before they were shaped by these crafts into the form that each of them now has, could they not have been made into other forms — indeed, could they not be remade even now? And the utensils that we have now, which come from the same material: could they not be made like them, if they came into the hands of the same artisans?

The author inveighs against the physical properties of the things pagans worship as gods. These things are no different than any other thing made of the same material, he argues. You could melt them down or burn them, and they would either be consumed or reforged into something else. And this is the primary argument: In paganism, the gods are made by men. In Christianity, the men are made by God.

In paganism, whole trades have developed around the production of such gods for household use. They're listed above — sculptor, coppersmith, silversmith, potter. These people made their living, most likely, with a decent amount of their time and craft devoted to production of pagan or cultic items. Don't think so? Check out Acts 19.24-29, and note particularly the motiviation of the silversmiths in rallying against Christianity. Then, if you're so inclined, take a peek at 2Ti 4.14 and start to think about potential reasons that Alexander the coppersmith might've had for his strong (and harmful) opposition of Paul.

But in Christianity, God created and has control over men. Ro 9.19-24 reminds us of this.

The author next shows that the pagans respect of their own idols is dependent not on the so-called god, but rather on the stuff the idol is made of; and that this betrays the true feelings towards these so-called gods. Here's EpDiog 2.7:

But do you yourselves not show disdain for these gods, even while supposing and imagining that you praise them? Do you not much more ridicule and abuse them — worshiping the ones made of stone and clay without keeping close watch on them, but locking up those made of silver and gold, putting guards over them night and day to keep them from being stolen?

The author keeps up this line of argument until EpDiog 2.10 where he wraps things up with an argumentation style I'm not too fond of:

I could say many other things about why Christians do not serve such gods, but if someone supposes that these comments are not enough, I imagine saying anything more would be superfluous.

I don't like this sort of argument. It always strikes me as a bluff. If there are more things to say to convince Diognetus, why not say them? Or is this just a bluster of a conclusion? If you debate/argue with folks that use this line, you should call them on it and ask them to please bore you with their further so-called superfluous examples. I'd say that chances are, they don't have any, they're just trying to close their argument in a strong way.

In my study on the Pastoral Epistles, we recently went over 1Ti 2.1-3. We talked a bit about βασιλεύς and how it represents the highest ruler of a realm, what we would call an “emperor” or a “king”. Then we speculated on reason why the sub-group of “emperors and others in high positions” was included after the general mention of “all people” (after mostly determining that it was a sub-group and not a clarification or refinement of “all people”, and that “all people” really means all people, not some subgroup amongst the Ephesians).

Why were “kings” and “others in high positions” included? Who knows. We had some ideas, one of which was that the earthly rulers weren't being properly respected because, after all, God is King, why bother with those earthly rulers? This helps (me, at least) make sense of the end of 1Ti 2.2, that earthly subjection to and prayer for these rulers helps believers continue to live a peaceful and quiet life.

This morning I was going over 1Ti 1.12-17 in the NA27 (I'm currently doing massive edits on this section of my notes) and 1Ti 1.17 jumped out at me:

To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

So, just a few sentences earlier, Paul had this benediction praising God as King. Then he reminds folks that they need to pray for those ruling over them on this earth. I'm wondering if there is any relationship between these two mentions of βασιλεύς in these verses. Looking at both instances, perhaps Paul really was, in the 1Ti 2.2 instance, reminding the folks of their current situation and how they needed to pray for those in positions of authority (kings and others) even though they were ultimately subject to God, the immortal, invisible and eternal King; and how following the will of the eternal King in praying for the temporal king/emperor would have benefits to the community.

And, of course, it makes me think of the Martyrdom of Polycarp:

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)

Hypotyposes is on a roll.

Today they posted a link to photos of the Gospel of Peter in Greek.

Perhaps of more interest is the site itself, the Photographic Archive of Papyri in the Cairo Museum, though I'm having big-time navigation problems (both IE & FireFox) using the drop-down box. 

Thanks to Hypotyposes for the pointer.

Codex W, a fifth century MS (so, 400's) is one that is important for textual critics to have access to. Thanks to Beloit College, who placed scans (photos?) of Facsimile of the Washington Manuscript of The Four Gospels in the Freer Collection, the book of Mark from W is now online.

The images are of superb size and quality. The uncials are readable with some work. This should be very helpful for those interested in such things.

Also note that Codex W apparently has the longer ending of Mark.

It's October, so that means one thing: squash are cheap and plentiful.

So, it's soup time. I'm not a big fan of squash by itself, but I've found that I like squash in soup. So I made some soup today. I had some for dinner and it's decent, though I think it'll get better with age. The ginger (I used a lot of ginger) adds a nice flavor. I'm planning on serving it when some friends come over for a study on Tuesday.

First, you need to know a little about how I cook. I don't typically measure things, unless I'm really uncertain about a recipe. I will check out a few different recipes of the same dish just to get an idea of what needs to be done. So the instructions will be a little vague, but c'est la vie.

Rico's Squash-Ginger-Mango Soup of Power

Ingredients

2 squash. I used acorn squash, but I'm guessing anything — even pumpkin! — will do.
3 mangoes.
1 hunk o' ginger root. Mine was rather large. I like ginger.
2 cans coconut milk (or coconut cream).
Vegetable or Chicken stock (4 cups?)
Random spices. I think I used salt, curry powder, turmeric. I know there was something else, but can't quite remember what.
1/2 to 3/4 stick of butter. Not margerine, but butter.
Brown sugar (2 tbsp? it's optional)

Process

Steam the squash. You can cook it as per normal in the microwave. Or if you're a lazy bum like me and have a broken microwave that you've yet to replace, you can heat the oven up to 375. Cut the squash in half, clean out the squash guts, poke the outsides all over with a fork and put them on a lightly greased cookie sheet, cut side down. Cover with tinfoil. You want to steam 'em so make sure there aren't any gaps in the tinfoil; you're essentially building a tent to steam the squash in. Stick 'em in for 45 minutes to an hour. Bigger squash = more time. I took my two acorn squash out at 45 minutes, which seems about right for ripe acorn squash.

While the squash are getting oh-so-yummy, take the time to chop up the mangoes into square chunks (no peel). Chop the ginger as well (no peel).

Take the squash out of the oven when they're done. Let them cool somewhat (not all the way). Like, say, 5-10 minutes. Then grab a spoon and clean out the squashy goodness into a bowl of some sort. Throw the squash, mango, and ginger remnants (skin, seed/pit, etc.) on your compost pile.*

Go get your Dutch oven. This is required; if you're not makin' soup with cast iron, you've got a screw loose (unless you're going the crock-pot all-day method, which is not appropriate for this soup).

Got the Dutch oven? Good. Get the burner hot, throw the butter in there and let it start to melt. Throw in less than half of your ginger. Oh, I also threw in some brown sugar here. And, come to think of it, it might have been nice to throw in some chopped onions too. Anyway, stir it up so that the butter and sugar combine and the ginger begins to get soft. If you do go with onions, let it go for, say, 5 minutes or so to saute the onions and get 'em soft and translucent.

Add your squash. Add some chicken stock. Add your mango. Add the rest of your ginger. Pour in enough stock so that things are covered; you want to cook the mangoes down and also get the squash cooked down a bit more. Add spices here — whatever you want, however much feels good. Get it boiling, then slip it down to medium or so to simmer. Stir frequently. If it looks like it may be too thick, add more stock. Remember, though, you're adding coconut milk later. If you think you put in too much stock ... well, find something else in the fridge to throw in. It's all good.

After a while (sorry, no real time frame ... 20 minutes?) head to the blender. You're gonna puree the mixture in small batches, then return the mixture to the Dutch oven.

Once puree'd and back in the Dutch oven, it's time to add the coconut milk. So open the cans and dump away, then stir up the mixture. You want to bring it to a boil again. Then set the temperature to somewhere between medium and medium low. Add some more spices. Curry powder is good, as is salt (this will be bland unless you salt it). If you have some ground peri-peri that could add some kick. Whatever else is handy or seems good, just throw it in. If you're concerned about the color, you could add some turmeric to get it to a brighter shade of yellow. Ok, done? Great. Simmer it for awhile (30 minutes? 45 minutes? I dunno).

And you've got soup! It should be good to eat right away, but I find stuff like this gets better after a few days in the fridge. Warm it up on the stove and serve hot. Enjoy!

* compost pile: When I was growing up, we lived out in the county on 10 acres with some woods around the house. Anytime we had fruit/vegetable remnants, my brother and I had to dispose of these in the “compost pile”. This involved walking out the back door to the woods, and throwing whatever it was as far as possible. It was fun to huck rotten tomatoes deep into the woods, though it requires a certain technique. I don't have this luxury now, and I miss it. But I do have a compost pile.

Awhile back, I posted an offer for Google email account invitations.

In the past week or so, site logs indicate a whole lot of traffic (ok, like five hits a day, but that's a lot for me!) being directed to ricoblog as the result of a google search for account invitations. And folks I wouldn't know from Adam have been sending me requests for invitations.

So, for the record: I'm not giving out any more Google email invitations unless I know you personally.

I've deleted the comments on the earlier post so others don't get hit up. Heck, the post itself is a throwaway so I deleted the whole stinkin' post. Hopefully that addresses the issue.

Thanks to the folks who keep on readin'. Hopefully you continue to find it worthwhile.