I just read an excellent post on Lu 2.2 and the census over at Hypotyposeis. You should go read it, really.

One point that Dr. Carlson made immediately caught my attention. He writes:

Nevertheless, the standard interpretion still leaves me cold with a number of problems, the chief among them is why would Luke specify that it was πρώτη ("first"). If Luke merely wanted to tell when the registration happened, presumably under Quirinius (c. AD 6), there is little need to use πρώτη. What does that word do for the text? Of course, the census under Quirinius was hugely important. Josephus had recognized it as as a major factor ultimately leading to the Jewish War in the 60s. In fact, this census is so important that Luke could merely refer to it in Acts 5:37 as "the census" τῆς ἀπογραφῆς.

Dr. Carlson later works through the different major senses of the word πρῶτος:

Danker identifies two major senses for this adjective: (1) being first in sequence, time, number, or space, and (2) being first in prominence or importance. Many examples of the second sense can be found in Luke's writings, e.g. Luke 15:22 "[my] best robe"; Luke 13:30 (first vs. last); Acts 17:4 "quite a few prominent women" (NET); Acts 13:50 "the prominent men in the city"; Luke 19:47 "the prominent leaders of the people" etc.

All of this reminded me of 1Ti 1.15. You know, the part where Paul (assuming Pauline authorship, of course) says he is “the greatest” or “the foremost” of sinners? Here's what I've got in my current draft of notes (emphasizing the word draft) on v. 15. Single ‘quotes’ indicate glosses quoted from a lexicon (BDAG/others, cited in the note); bold text represents the ESV text.

After establishing the general principle that Christ Jesus had come to save sinners, Paul offers that he is the foremost of sinners. While the word translated “foremost” (πρῶτος) literally means ‘first’,³⁸ Paul is not claiming to be the first or primary sinner. The sense is that of ‘most prominent’ or perhaps ‘worst’ of the sinners.³⁹ This is less of a boast and more of an effort to establish a very high bar that all can pass under.
---------------
³⁸ BDAG, p. 893. Occurs 155x in NT; 10x in PE.
³⁹ “ … and I am the worst of them!” is the NET Bible translation of this verse.

Just another instance where πρῶτος doesn't necessarily mean 'first'. (This also happens in 1Ti 1.16, but the eight other occurrences in the PE all seem to be along the lines of ‘first’.) Of course, to relate this back fully to Dr. Carlson's post, I'd have to ask if this use of πρῶτος fits the pattern of use in Luke/Acts, and if that has any merit whatsoever in advancing the argument of Luke as Paul's amanuensis for the Pastoral Epistles.

Addendum: It occurs to me that I should say why I think the original post is so “excellent”. I'm not one who could say one way or the other what the proper translation of Lu 2.2 is. It is a difficult verse for the very reasons mentioned in the original post. What I like about the post, though, is the exploration. Not just dismissing something because it hasn't been looked at recently; but working through it to see if it has merit.

I think sometimes I take a “majority rules” approach to working with the Greek text. My skills aren't the best and I'm still working through issues (particularly syntax). If I'm stumped (which happens more often than I'd like to admit) and if most of the modern translations treat a verse or phrase or word in a similar way, then it must be right. Right? Well, not necessarily.

What I appreciated about Dr. Carlson's post was that he examined an alternative to the typical approach and worked through it, and then posted his stuff for other folks to check out. Dr. Carlson's thoughts could stimulate someone else's thinking on the issue, and who knows where that will lead.

All in all this is fun stuff. This is what “biblioblogging” (or whatever the label ends up being) should be like.

[notes on EpDiog §4]

This chapter (EpDiog 5) is one of the longer sections of the letter. But it is important because it records how Christians were perceived (or how they wanted themselves to be perceived, depending on your view) at a very early point in Christian history.

The author transitions from talking about the inadequacies and problems with the Jewish religion to describing how Christians live in the world. Christians aren't a particular ethnic group; they're present and noticeable across ethnic boundaries. But even in light of this, Christians are unique, writes the author, for a number of reasons. EpDiog 5.1-4 set the stage (Ehrman's translation):

1. For Christians are no different from other people in terms of their country, language, or customs.

2. Nowhere do they inhabit cities of their own, use a strange dialect, or live life out of the ordinary.

3. They have not discovered this teaching of theirs through reflection or through the thought of meddlesome people, nor do they set forth any human doctrine, as do some.

4. They inhabit both Greek and barbarian cities, according to the lot assigned to each. And they show forth the character of their own citizenship in a marvelous and admittedly paradoxical way by following local customs in what they wear and what they eat and in the rest of their lives.

The balance (EpDiog 5.5-17) is dedicated to showing that while Christians may appear to be similar to their neighbors, Christians really aren't similar to their neighbors. A bit paradoxical (as 5.4 mentions above) but that's really the best way to sum it up. The author writes things like “They (Christians) marry like everyone else and have children, but they do not expose them once they are born.” (EpDiog 5.6).

Verses 7-10 are similar; noting that Christians share their meals and not their wives; that while Christians are in the flesh, they do not live after the flesh (allusion to 1Jn 2.16?); that while Christians live on the earth, their citizenship is in heaven; that while they are subject to laws on earth, they surpass the same laws in practice as they live according to a higher standard.

The concluding verse to this chapter (EpDiog 5.17) always leaves me in a state of awe.

17. They (Christians) are attacked by Jews as foreigners and persecuted by Greeks. And those who hate them cannot adequately explain the cause of their enmity.

Even though Christians are similar to their neighbors and arguably peaceable folk, for some reason the lifestyle of Christians stirs up the ire of others. This (of course) reminds me of Titus 2.6-8:

6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. 7 Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.

Next up: EpDiog 6. Not sure when, though.

This is so good, I have to mention it. I noted a post titled “The Complete Norman Granz Jazz Sessions” on the blog rhapsody rock school. The description was interesting, so I gave it a play.

One word describes this: WOW!

Basically, it's a bunch of prominent 1950's-era jazz dudes jamming their brains out, all nicely recorded and beautifully mastered. This is a 5-disc boxed set with 18 tracks. Do the math — it's actually 4 tracks per CD for the first four CDs with two tracks on the final CD. The shortest track is 11:55, the longest is 27:20. Yikes.

If you have Rhapsody, just do a title search for “Complete Jam Sessions”. You'll find it. And if you have any sort of interest in jazz, you'll be lost for hours.

The “Biblioblogosphere” was abuzz last week on the subject of the propriety of the term “Biblioblogger”. The thread started with PaleoJudaica; a summary post from The Coding Humanist sums up many of the suggestions.

I was driving home from my folks' house tonight. They live an hour south of me and are back home for the Christmas holiday. (They usually spend the winter in Arizona). I had a few spare brain cycles to waste during the drive, so I thought about this a bit.

I think I have a suggestion.

It seems the common thread that holds such blogs together as a group is a primary focus on Biblical literature. Yes, it's about the Bible (hence “biblioblogger” and other suggestions “bibliablogger”, “biblicoblogger”, “biblicablogger”) but y'all reference other material as well — as evidenced by the excellent multi-blog thread on NT background literature last week. So, I thought, how about “Bib-Lit Blogger”? I'm not sure if it would be better dashed (Bib-Lit Blogger) camel-cased (BibLit Blogger or BibLitBlogger) or as a compound word (Biblitblogger or Biblit Blogger). But it has some of the same alliterative goodness that makes “biblioblogger” roll off the tongue, with just a bit more specificity than “biblioblogger” offers.

Anyway, that's the best I came up with. If it works, great. If not, I blame it on the blogorrhea.

Update: Jim Davila at PaleoJudaica mentions that “biblit blogger” doesn't grab him, but it's no worse than other suggestions. I think he's right. At the Bible Software Review, Rubén Gómez mentions he still likes “biblioblogger”. For the record, so do I. You'll note the blogroll at the right still uses the term “Bibliobloggers”.

Update II: I'm done with this topic, BTW. When y'all figure it out, let me know so I can change my blogroll title.

Please bear with me. I think I'll return to normal after the Christmas holiday.

In poking around my referrer links, I found a link to a blog that had a Rhapsody playlist. So I thought I'd search for other sites linking to Rhapsody playlists. And I found a blog called Rhapsody Radish that does pretty much just this. Wow.

No, really, it's good. (Unlike the playlists I've posted). Lots of playlists posted apparently daily. As a test, I'm listenting to their “Instrumental Acoustic Christmas Music”. For what it is (er, instrumental acoustic Christmas music) it's good.

They've also got this weird playlist generator thing. Makes me wonder if the guy is scraping Rhapsody data, building his own database, and serving up playlists. Having friends over for dinner? What's that, you're making enchiladas? Well, just drop down the “dinner” box, select “Mexican”, and you're off an running with your soundtrack for the night.

Update: Responding to “matt” in the comments. Actually, it wasn't rhapsody rock school (though thanks for the pointer, BTW). It was a guy who had a blog entry that contained a Rhapsody playlist, and the playlist was actually removed from the page. I couldn't quite figure out how one got from there to ricoblog, which was one of the reasons why I was searching around.

Righteous Pop Music - Volume 2. I'm not sure what's 'righteous' about it. Someone had the bright idea of using the tunes to popular television shows, and changing the lyrics to be more 'righteous' (I guess; that's the only explanation I have for the title).

No, it's not Christmas music, but it sure is ... er ... I'll let you be the judge. For the benefit of all mankind, the page has some samples.

I think that if there was a sample for track 12, “Mary and Joseph's Theme”, set to the tune of the Brady Bunch theme song ... well that would probably crack into my Horrible Christmas Music list. Unfortunately for me, I actually heard a snippet from that song in a story from NPR this morning, prompting me to look for more information and compose this post (too bad for you, huh?). Go to the page for Saturday's show, click on “Again with the Annoying Holiday Tunes” ... if you dare.

I do have to admit, though — there's a sad, strange part of me that really wants to hear “Elijah's Movin' on Up”, which is sung to the tune of the theme from The Jeffersons.

It's been awhile since I've written about the Epistle to Diognetus (notes to §3). For the unaware, I consider the Epistle to Diognetus as "blog fodder". This means when the typical fount of ricobloggian blather is running dry, I turn to Diognetus to keep the exercise of writing up. This means that tonight I'm writing on EpDiog 4.

As mentioned in the notes on §3, EpDiog 3 and EpDiog 4 are written to Diognetus (a Greek pagan) to convince him that Christianity is superior to Judaism.

Actually, to me, it sounds more like EpDiog 4 is written against Judaizers and perhaps not necessarily Jews. The same sorts of things the author chastizes the Jews over are strikingly similar to the sorts of things Paul mentions in some of his epistles regarding Judaizers:

The conclusion of the author to Diognetus is much the same as Paul's conclusion.

Is the author confusing Judaizers with Jews? It's possible, but it is also very possible that the Judaizers were emphasizing the same things that Jews emphasized in worship in their synagogues. There is some similarity in the topics that the author emphasizes to Diognetus with what Paul highlighted in instruction to various churches dealing with similar issues.

The author's rhetoric against the Jews in the last verse (EpDiog 4.6) is a bit over the top. Considering his point made, the author bashes his target with one last flourish. Then he ends with this sentence (this is from Ehrman's translation): "But do not expect to be able to learn from any human the mystery of the Christian's own way of worship".

Huh? I lost the author here. I see four views of this sentence.

• View 1: He's lost it. If this is literally true, why is the author even taking time to write the letter?
• View 2: One word: Gnosticism. Think about it: Diognetus can't learn true Christian worship from "any human"?
• View 3: Another word: Rhetoric. Hey, guess what EpDiog 5 is about? And EpDiog 6? That, and it sounds pretty deep, and we all know that the Holy Spirit plays a role in this sort of thing.
• View 4: He's Calvinist, emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit over the role of man in bringing people to Christ.

What do I think? Well, I think door #3 has some merit. I also know, however, that I only spent about five minutes thinking through this, so I could be wrong on all four counts.

Stay posted for when I hit EpDiog 5, which starts to get into my favorite stretch of chapters of this short epistle.

USPS comes through. My Return of the King DVD was shipped USPS first thing Monday morning, starting the week off in fine fashion. USPS has woefully inadequate shipment tracking (compared to UPS), so I didn't really know when it would come. I figured it would be today (Dec. 15) or tomorrow (Dec. 16).

My hopes where dashed when my friend and colleague Vince rushed to show me that his copy — ordered with 2nd Day UPS shipping — had arrived. Deep doldrums ensued.

And then, the joyous IM from our receptionist staffing the front desk. “Package” was the only word. And the long-awaited DVD was here.

The bad part: I'm already scheduled to be at a friend's house for dinner and a meeting tonight, so I won't get to dig into the appendices until tomorrow (or really late tonight). Won't watch the full show until Saturday, unless I just can't hold out.