I'm normally not one to get excited about the marketing of Christmas, but I make one exception: Starbucks Christmas Blend.

This once-yearly coffee treat is so very yummy. I always look forward to it.

One problem: I still have some Panama la Florentina left to consume, so when I make coffee at home, I have a dilemma: Christmas blend, or Panama la Florentina?

Oh, the choices!

Working through 1Ti 2.10 tonight, dealing with the word θεοσέβεια (theosebeia, an NT hapax) I came across a citation to 2Cl 20.4. The whole chapter, however, provokes thought. The below edition is Ehrman's:

⁽¹⁾ But neither should this thought disturb you, that we see the unjust becoming rich while the slaves of God suffer in dire straights. ⁽²⁾ We need to have faith, brothers and sisters! We are competing in the contest of the living God, training in the present life that we may be crowned in the one to come. ⁽³⁾ No one who is upright receives the fruit of his labor quickly; he instead waits for it. ⁽⁴⁾ For if God were to reward the upright immediately, we would straightaway be engaged in commerce rather than devotion to God. For we would appear to be upright not for the sake of piety but for a profit. And for this reason, a divine judgment harms the spirit that is not upright and burdens it with chains.

⁽⁵⁾ To the only invisible God, the Father of truth, who sent us the savior and founder of incorruptibility, through whom he also revealed to us the truth and the heavenly life — to him be the glory forever and ever. Amen. (2Cl 20, Ehrman)

Where to begin?! The whole thing is encouraging and challenging to me. This is, of course, not Scripture. But it is the reflection of a Christian upon the living of the Christian life from the very early Christian era (circa 140 AD) and as such is valuable to consider.

The bit about immediate rewards for those devoted to God implying commerce and not devotion is an interesting thought. And it is true. Pursuit of godliness should never be the means to an end (e.g. fire insurance); the only viable and proper end of the pursuit of godliness must be the honoring and worship of God Himself. We glorify God by serving Him and seeking to live according to His will.

There are also similarities with the Pastoral Epistles. Check out verse 2 in light of 2Ti 2.5. And verse 5 in light of 1Ti 1.17. Also, “slaves of God” is a thoroughly Pauline image.

I read a post on the blog called Blogos about setting up a quicksearch in Firefox to do lookups in the ESV by keyword/verse from the address bar (e.g., type “esv 1Ti 1.4” in the address bar). So I thought I'd share how to look up Apostolic Fathers stuff via my Apostolic Fathers lookup tool as well (form interface available too). The below instructions are for Firefox. You can do the same thing in IE via the “Quicksearch” feature; I just don't remember how to set that up.

• Bookmarks > Manage Bookmarks
• Click the “New Bookmark...” button (they really need a space after the ellipses in the buttons)
• Name: Apostolic Fathers Lookup
• Location: http://www.supakoo.com/rick/af.asp?af=%s&lang=both+
• Keyword: af
• Description: af [ref] to look up passage in Apostolic Fathers in parallel English and Greek
• Example: af mpoly 12.1-2

I use stuff like this all the time. “g” for google (e.g. “g ricoblog”); “mw” to look up words in Merriam Webster's dictionary (m-w.com). You get the picture.

If you understand Web Linking and the LDLS, you can also set up stuff to open Bibles in the LDLS from the address bar.

Enjoy!

I am a fan of BDAG. For those who don't know, “BDAG” is the commonly used abbreviation for A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Third Edition. The abbreviation comes from the editors' last names: Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich, thus “BDAG” 

I use this lexicon (the electronic edition from Logos, of course*) frequently. It is my primary Greek lexicon. And one of the reasons I like it is because the designers of the print edition did an excellent job in designing and implementing the typesetting/layout of the book. It is obvious that they did their homework and understood how the previous edition was used, what the distinctives were, how to accent them, and how to make the book easy to use.

A few examples are necessary.

First, the typesetter/designer of the print edition understood (or perhaps was directed by Dr. Danker) that users rely on NT citations in BDAG. Whether or not it is correct from a didactic perspective, the first thing many users do when they go to a BDAG article is look to see if the verse they are working on is cited. So, in BDAG (print and LDLS electronic version; I'm unsure about other electronic editions) the NT citations are in bold text. They stand out that much more and are easy to evaluate with a quick skim through the text.

Second, the senses within articles are clearly and visibly delineated. The “enclosed alphanumerics” (to use unicode jargon) serve as informative bullets before each major or minor sense. These are the encircled letters and shaded-background numbers that begin paragraphs. These make scanning different senses easier because it is visibly obvious where discussion of a new sense begins. The structure of the entry is also obvious.

Third, the use of bold/italics/bold-italics to differentiate depth of definition or gloss is incredibly handy. BDAG uses bold text in a definition to indicate an “extended definition”, which is a phrase or two that gets at the heart of the sense being discussed. Bold-italic text is used to indicate a “formal equivalent” which are more like functional glosses (though “gloss” is a bad word in some circles) or synonyms. And plain italic text indicates a “translation equivalent”. If a Greek citation has italic text following it, that italic text is almost always a translation of the preceding Greek text. Very handy, especially for non-Biblical citations where vocabulary may be unfamiliar.

Fourth, the references to non-Bible material are frequent and helpful. I find myself looking into Josephus and Philo references more than I would otherwise simply because BDAG cites them. The same is true for pseudepigraphal and apocryphal references. The supporting references illustrate the use of the word and sense under study. They are incredibly useful to examine to understand how the same word was used in the same way in different writings by different writers who are roughly contemporary with the NT literature.

Fifth, the normal advantages that electronic editions give you — immediate lookup destination from your electronic NA27, complete searchability, hypertext Bible references, a built-in comprehensive scripture index, freedom from continually consulting abbreviation tables with hypertext abbreviations that activate on hover, etc.

Are there things I don't like about BDAG? Sure. I disagree with some spots of entries I've studied. I would be worried if I didn't. But all in all, a good example of great context properly implemented by typesetters/designers so that folks can make the most of the information.

Oh, yeah. The Ode (er, Sonnet. Apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning). Here we go:

BDAG, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways:
I love thy extended definitions,
providing depth of insight.
I love thy functional equivalents,
displaying knowledge and delight.
I love thy translation equivalents,
erasing my vocabulary ignorance
I love thy bold enclosed alphanumerics,
giving my eyes guidance in their strain.
I love thy scholarly erudition,
informing my understanding of usage.
But most of all, O BDAG, I love thee in hypertext;
Providing copious citations to secondary sources
Allowing examination of these to expand my understanding.

Sure, it isn't technically a Sonnet (right number of lines, but my syllables are off) but you get that picture. That BDAG, it's about as groovy as a Greek lexicon can get.

* Disclaimer: I implemented the Logos version of BDAG (and several other Greek Lexicons) so my opinion of the LDLS BDAG is incredibly favorably biased.

The more I read of Updike's Essays (The Well-Made Book), the more the guy seems like a character that would just be fun to talk to.

Here he is in an essay on “Ecclesiastical Printing”, talking about decorations on the page of liturgical books (lectionaries, prayer-books, etc.)

When I have said that fancifulness should be avoided, I mean by this, that the trivial sprinkling of crosses and devotional emblems on printing intended for use of the Church is in wretched taste and is the resort only of ignorant incompetence. When a clergyman wants something "churchy and artistic" he usually means this kind of printing. The first page of any devotional book might very properly have a cross upon it or some religious emblem — but nothing else. One colour of ink is generally enough; and it is much better that black ink should be used and good paper, than two colours of ink, and paper of poor quality. For the service of God it is desirable to use the best material and to avoid all display and needless expense. (p. 150)

In my job and due to my own bibliophile-itude, I've seen and paged through a lot of books published into the Christian market. Many are well-made and professionally executed.

However, there have been a few — and I hope I don't sound too elitist here — that were quite horrid. Updike's first sentence made me laugh, but it also made me think of some of the “stupid editorial tricks” I've seen over the years. Stuff like:

• strange and almost incomprehensible methods for representing supposedly “free” verse. Look for this when content was most likely transcribed from audio presentations and minimally edited before being printed. Just because it sounded good doesn't mean it will read well, no matter what you do to the page to try to make it read well. Give up, really edit the content, and have another go at it.
• use of fonts and/or colors that are positively identified with the 1970's. Unfortunately, the Hermeneia commentary series is one of these, from my perspective. Don't get me wrong — the content is informative, well written and quite useful. I've got a volume at home and I'd buy more depending on what I'm studying. But the oddly-shaped orange/yellow hardbacks that don't fit well on any shelf make me cringe when I pick them up. I'm sure they looked modern for awhile, but they look oh-so-dated now. If someone is unfamiliar with the series or the name, and sees a volume in a bookstore or a library, that someone is less likely to pick it up and use it/buy it because it looks like it is dated — in a bad way. You know, like shag carpet and the AMC Gremlin.

There's more stuff deep in this well, but I'm gonna hold back. Updike's quote still makes me smile, though:

 ... the trivial sprinkling of crosses and devotional emblems on printing intended for use of the Church is in wretched taste and is the resort only of ignorant incompetence.

(Random thought: I wonder what Updike would think about the 'Christian' fishes, doves, etc. slapped on the back of cars these days?)

Wow, I just noticed that he worked “wretched” and “ignorant” into the same sentence. Do you have examples of design, editorial practice, or whatnot that you've found  to be indicative of “wretched taste” or “ignorant incompetence”? Or just things that you think look bad? Feel free to drop a comment with your examples. I'm interested to see what you've come across.

Increasing property valuations cut both ways.

Last year (2003) I was able to get a re-appraisal on my house and remove the dreaded “PMI” (aka “Private Mortgage Insurance”) from my mortgage payment based solely on the newfound equity in the new appraisal value. This was based on some insane (yet welcomed, of course) property sales in my neighborhood.

Well, the taxman finally came along for his share of the pie. After voting “no” on every tax increase on the ballot (I'm of the Milton Friedman “Don't ever vote for a tax increase. Ever.” school), Whatcom county extracted their revenge.

My property in Bellingham is now valued at 133% of what it used to be (that is, it was X, now it is (X * 1.33)). Come January 1, my property taxes will increase by a similar proportion. The scary thing? The assessed “fair market” value is less than I'd get if I put it on the market right now.

So that extra chunk plus the 0.1% sales tax increase for the Whatcom county jail that just passed (I think the plethora of other levy measures that could've meant new tax levies for me — state, county, and city — failed) means Rico will be writin' larger checks to the taxman ... er, taxmen.

It almost makes me want to go libertarian.

Nah, I won't do that. Yet. But daggum, we need folks in all levels of “gummint” who won't spend my money (and the money of other taxpayers) like they just won the lottery and there's no tomorrow.

Yet another installment in my ongoing look at the Epistle to Diognetus (Notes on §2). If you'd like to read the text first, you can do so here: EpDiog 3.

In EpDiog 2, the author extolled the virtues of Christianity as compared to paganism. In EpDiog 3, the author does a similar comparison of Christianity with Judaism. I should note at the outset that chapters 3 and 4 get a bit anti-semitic (chapter 4 more so than chapter 3). This is unfortunate.

Chapter 3 starts with a comparison of what is similar between the two groups. Here's verse 2:

Now by abstaining from the kind of divine worship just mentioned, the Jews rightly claim to worship the one God who is over all and to consider him Master. But when they worship him like those already mentioned, they go astray. (EpDiog 3.2)

So, the author mentions agreement with monotheism, yet he mentions that the Jewish form of worship (the offering of sacrifices, much like the pagans offer sacrifices to their gods) is errant. The author indicates that since God is in need of nothing, it is futile to sacrifice to Him:

For the one who made heaven and earth and all that is in them, and who supplies all of us with what we need, is himself in need ofnone of the things that he himself provides to those who suppose that they are giving them. But those who suppose they are performing sacrifices of blood and fat and whole burnt offerings, and thereby to be bestowing honor on him by these displays of reverence, seem no different to me from those who show the same hononr to the gods who are deaf — one group giving to gods who cannot receive the honor, the other thinking that it can provide something to the one who needs nothing. (EpDiog 3.4-5)

This, to me, betrays some ignorance on the part of the author who is writing to Diognetus. The Jews don't offer sacrifices to God because they think God needs something. The Jews offered God sacrifice because they needed something: forgiveness. They were working within the scheme set up by God Himself during the days in the desert, at the giving of the law.

Christians need not worry about continual offering of sacrifices because the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was once for all, the just for the unjust. Christians have forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ and no longer have need to offer sacrifices. This is the new covenant issued by Jesus; the old covenant no longer applies. This transaction is what the book of Hebrews attempts to explain to the Jews in an effort to bring them into faith.

I'm not going to go on record and make any predictions regarding the presidential election. If you know me, you know who I'm voting for.

Under the guise of a post dealing with economic issues, I'm just going to point you to Ray Fair's econometric model that has been quite accurate in the past at predicting elections (see the model's 2000 final prediction). The model is updated every quarter, and new predictions are run.

October 29, 2004 Fair Model Prediction

Note that Fair's model predicts percentages of the two-party vote received by each candidate. So these aren't percentage numbers of all votes cast, these are percentage numbers of only the votes cast for either of the two major parties. His margin of error is 2.5%.

Heck, if you want to, you can play with the numbers on Fair's model yourself and see what happens.

If you live in Whatcom County, polls open at 7:00 AM and close at 8:00 PM. The Whatcom County Auditor's web page has more info, voting guides, etc. There's also a sample ballot that you should check out; unless you've already voted absentee or something.