I use the blog engine dasBlog for this site. In browsing their wiki page, it appears that version 1.7 of the dasBlog engine has been released.

I'll be in the process of updating; if things go wonky that is most likely the cause.

Update: Blog engine updating completed. Not much will be visible on the outside, most of the updates are in handling site logs and such, along with some solutions to handle the ever-growing problem of referral spam. You will see a groovy little RSS logo/graphic in your feed readers now. I've wanted this for a long time. Here's the picture:

This is from a small lit sign at a Mexican restaurant in Port Angeles, WA.

Also, there is some very groovy comment spam prevention going on. It uses MTBlacklist and also allows me to specify keywords and such to block. But coolest is the confirmation code. You really need to click the "comment" link below and check it out, even if you don't leave a comment. An image with a code is generated; the value entered in the confirmation box must match the code, otherwise the comment won't be accepted. Very cool.

Another enhancement is the Archive view. I'll be adding a link on the sidebar for this soon. There's also a larger month calendar view, but it looks pretty dumpy so I won't be highlighting it.

All in all, it seems all right, though the updating process was a bit tedious. If you have problems and think it might be due to the updating, please, by all means, drop me an email to let me know (address in bar to right).

Thanks!

In the context of another project I'm working on (personal project, not for Logos; apart from that I'm not ready to announce anything) I wanted to be able to convert Greek Beta Code text into Greek unicode that utilizes the proper polytonic characters. You know, like this:

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

So I decided to (finally) roll my own Beta Code to Unicode converter. When I got the component written, it was so cool I figured I had to write a seperate ASP page interface so other folks could use it if they wanted to. There are other converters out there, but they don't interpret Beta Code the way I like to. So this has a few quirks that are all my own, though my quirks tend to get closer to the spec instead of migrate away from it (apart from the 'J' as final sigma). Don't worry, these are all documented on the page.

You'll get three things returned to you:

• UTF8 string in the specified font.
• The text you supplied to the tool.
• Hexadecimal character entities. These can be pasted straight into the source of HTML pages in non-UTF8 contexts (e.g., many third party plain-text editors like TextPad).

Anyway, it's online, fully documented, and ready to rock & roll. Give it a shot and let me know what you think.

Update: Zack Hubert, fellow Greek text munger of sorts and head dude of the world-famous zhubert.com graces ricoblog with his presence and asks a question 'bout the converter:

Zack: What is your converter written in?
Rico: Javascript running on IIS. It's nothing super complex or tolerant; as I said I wrote it primarily for my own purposes (which, if I'm able to keep on track, I'll blog about in a few weeks).

Zack mentions his approach. Mine is much less refined. Basically, I've got an XML file with mappings from beta code to UTF8 (just the hex numbers — that gives me some freedom on what I actually can spit back to the user). Rather than parse the string from the back and build it as I go, I simply search and replace the string based on the XML mappings. But there's a catch — I always match the longest possible beta code substring first, no matter where it occurs in the string. So, I match '*A(/' before I match 'A(/' or 'A'.  The letters in my mapped hex numbers are lower-case, so I don't have to worry about clobbering mappings I've already slapped in.

Hey, I said it was less refined. I would write it a little differently if I had different constraints (e.g., two-way conversion, multiple inbound fonts), but it works for me. Hey, quit laughin' out there!

Zack — you're in Seattle? If you're ever up north, you should drop me an email and stop by Bellingham on your way to/from wherever. Coffee or whatever is on me.

Update II: James Tauber joins the Greek-geek party with a comment, pointing us to his Python script that does Beta Code to Unicode conversion. His approach is more forgiving than mine, he allows you to do stuff like '*(/A' or '*A(/' and get the same UTF8 bits on the backside. I really ougtha learn me some Python some day (I can follow the code, but I couldn't write it) but I've been far too corrupted by the sheer lovin' messiness of Perl.

BTW, same offer to you James — if you're ever 'up north', let me know you're in the area. Though it's a bit more of a trip for you than it is for Zack.

[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.

To the person who happened across ricoblog while Googling for “who sat on 26 hours on the toilet” — I hope you find what you're looking for.

Well he must not have found it. He just hit again with “sat 26 hours on the toilet + constipation”.

That's a little more disturbing. Whoever you are, I really do hope you find what you're looking for. Perhaps this will help.

If you're curious, ricoblog came up as a link because of my post on the recent find of Luther's commode (Luther's Loo?).

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[Notes on EpDiog §7.1-2]

EpDiog 7.1-2 discussed the one sent by God to man. §7.3 picks up at this point.

The author of the letter asks Diognetus a question about the nature of the mission this one sent from God is on. Did God “... send him to rule in tyranny, fear, and terror?”

Such a mission could be expected — after all, man pretty much screwed it up at the beginning of it all. Wouldn't God be justified in sending a representative to whip things back into shape and give us what we deserve?

Well, God would be justified in doing that, but thankfully he didn't send someone to rule in tyranny, fear, and terror. The author explains this starting in verse 4. If you look at the Greek, you can catch the rhythm:

4 οὐ μὲν οὖν·
ἀλλ ̓ ἐν ἐπιεικείᾳ καὶ πραύτητι
ὡς βασιλεὺς πέμπων υἱὸν
βασιλέα ἔπεμψεν,
ὡς θεὸν ἔπεμψεν,
ὡς ἄνθρωπον πρὸς ἀνθρώπους ἔπεμψεν,
ὡς σώζων ἔπεμψεν,
ὡς πείθων, οὐ βιαζόμενος·
βία γὰρ οὐ πρόσεστι τῷ θεῷ.
5 ἔπεμψεν ὡς καλῶν, οὐ διώκων·
ἔπεμψεν ὡς ἀγαπῶν, οὐ κρίνων.

You can see the repeated use of ὡς (“as”) and ἔπεμψεν (“he sent”) and pick up the cadence/rhythm. I love passages like this because they beat the syntax into my head through the repetition. (Hint: EpDiog 5.5-16 has similar repetition, though not as direct.)

This one whom God sent was sent as a king sending his own son. Though the author doesn't say it explicitly, he obviously means Jesus, the Son of God. He has been alluded to/referred to with some of the same phrases used in the NT. Now the author is mentioning that this one (Jesus) is sent in the same way that a king would send his own son. Could there even be an allusion to the parable of the wicked tenants of the vineyard (Lu 20.9-18)?

Yet the author of the letter tells Diognetus that this one sent from God comes to “show forth his love”, not to judge — at least not to judge yet; that part comes later (EpDiog 7.6). And when it comes, none will be able to “withstand” it.

There is a lacuna right here in the best and most complete MSS for the Epistle to Diognetus, none of the other sources fill the two-line gap. Meecham* (p. 122) lists various theories as to what is missing, but all we really know is from a marginal note at this point that says something like “and in this manner the copy was found (cut?), being very old”. So the copyist didn't have the material; who knows if the space of two lines accurately measures the amount of missing material.

Whatever the missing content, v. 7 in Ehrman's edition has been emended. The last three verses speak of martyrs refusing to deny “the Lord” and noting the curious phenomena this spectacle had on recruitment — according to EpDiog 7.8-9 these sorts of things only increased the numbers of Christians. As soon as one was martyred, another was in his place. What, asks the author of the letter, could drive men to do this? Surely not anything natural or logical. Surely not common sense. Therefore, this must be evidence that God is in it: “These things do not appear to be human works. These are the power of God; these are proofs of his coming.”

Fragmented, random comments — oh well. Thanks for puttin' up with me.

* Meecham, H.G. The Epistle to Diognetus: The Greek Text with Introduction, Translation and Notes. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1949.

Over at Ralph the Sacred River, Dr. Edward Cook posted Some Lines from Milosz in which he reproduced a poem from Nobel laureate Czeslaw Milosz.

I was unfamiliar with Milosz, and don't know anything of the man besides this poem. But the poem hit me like poetry seldom does. I'd highly recommend that you read it. Then read it again.

Thank you, Dr. Cook.

(also note: Ralph the Sacred River is now on the blogroll to the right) 

[Notes on EpDiog §6. Due to the length of this post, my random thoughts on §7 are broken into at least two posts. The next post will be at some future point, and in it I hope to cover EpDiog 7.3-9]

In §7, the author of EpDiog moves from telling Diognetus about Christians to telling Diognetus about Jesus. This is really a fascinating little chapter — we see how Jesus was seen (in the context of a letter to convince someone else of the rightness of Christianity, anyway) by the early church. There's a lot in here.

EpDiog 7.1 starts out confirming a few things discussed earlier regarding Christians:

• Christianity isn't something conjured up by man (cf. EpDiog 5.3).
• Christianity isn't bound to the topic of “human mysteries” (again, EpDiog 5.3)

EpDiog 7.2 is a marathon verse, taking nearly 3/4 of the page in Ehrman's edition.* It is discussed below in pieces:

But the truly all-powerful God himself, creator of all and invisible, set up and established in their hearts the truth and the holy word from heaven, which cannot be comprehended by humans.

God is all-powerful, he is the creator of the seen and unseen. This all-powerful God has worked (somehow) in the hearts (the innermost part) of Christians, placing the “truth and holy word from heaven” which cannot be comprehended (ἀπερινόητον) by humans into the hearts of humans. Was this dude an Augustinian?

To do so, he did not, as one might suppose, send them one of his servants or an angel or a ruler or any of those who administer earthly activities or who are entrusted with heavenly affairs, but he sent the craftsman and maker of all things himself, ...

Wow. Just above God specifically is “creator of all and invisble” (παντοκτίστης καὶ ἀόρατος θεός) and now the one whom God sends is “the craftsman and maker of all things” (ἀλλ ̓ αὐτὸν τὸν τεχνίτην καὶ δημιουργὸν τῶν ὅλων).

Here's the fun part: τεχνίτην and δημιουργὸν are used together in Heb 11.10 and they're speaking of God: “For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer (τεχνίτης) and builder (δημιουργὸς) is God.” (cf. also Wis. 13.1). Indeed, the author of the epistle himself uses δημιουργὸς of God in EpDiog 8.6. LSJ and BDAG have abundant evidence of δημιουργὸς being used in a number of contexts, so there's not too much to read into the usage of this particular word (which, according to LSJ, has meaning ranging from craftsman to creator to a title used by magistrates). But δημιουργὸς combined with ὅλων, implying the one who made or created everything leads me to think that there is some relation between these two bits of text. I should probably do some searching on Perseus to search for where these words occur in close proximity, to see if they form some sort of stock phrase.

... by whom he created the heavens,
by whom he enclosed the sea within its own boundaries,
whose mysteries all the elements of creation guard faithfully,
from whom the sun was appointed to guard the courses that it runs during the day,
whom the moon obeys when he commands it to shine at night,
whom the stars obey by following the course of the moon,
by whom all things are set in order and arranged and put into subjection, ...

Upon reading this, I immediately have mental cross-references firing off to Col 1.15-17, “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, ... ”. This one who was sent by God is the one by whom God did these things, these works of creation. And these things are under subjection to him.

... the heavens and the things in the heavens,
the earth and the things in the earth,
the sea and the things in the sea,
fire, air, the abyss,
creatures in the heights,
creatures in the depths,
and creatures in between—this is the one he sent to them.

Wow. And that's just verse two! Next up, EpDiog 7.3-9. In it, we see more about the one God sent — how he was sent, in what form he came, and what his task was.

* Ehrman, Bart. The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 2 (Loeb Classical Library vol. 25). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Time for another non-biblioblog entry (sorry, Eli — deal with it. I might feel some sympathy if you posted more often than once a month ... ). I'll be back on track soon, don't worry.

Here's a sampling of what's been in the rotation at the office for the past week or so. As usual, links only work if you have Real Rhapsody.

Recently in the Rotation (January 2005)

• Wolftrap And Fireflies — Carbon Leaf
• Reunion Monticello — Carbon Leaf
• Message To Me — Carbon Leaf
• Life Less Ordinary — Carbon Leaf
• What About Everthing? — Carbon Leaf
• Bella's Birthday Cake — Five for Fighting
• Superman (It's Not Easy) — Five for Fighting
• 100 Years — Five For Fighting
• Monkeys At The Zoo — Charlie Peacock
• Sitting, Waiting, Wishing — Jack Johnson
• You And I Both — Jason Mraz
• The Remedy (I Won't Worry) — Jason Mraz
• Curbside Prophet — Jason Mraz
• Too Much Food — Jason Mraz
• Stay — Lisa Loeb & Nine Stories
• I Do — Lisa Loeb
• If I Had A Boat — Lyle Lovett
• More Pretty Girls Than One — Lyle Lovett
• St. Louis Blues — Peter Cincotti
• Ordinary Day — Great Big Sea
• Sea Of No Cares — Great Big Sea
• Love — Great Big Sea
• Chafe's Celidh — Great Big Sea
• Old Brown's Daughter — Great Big Sea
• A Boat Like Gideon Brown — Great Big Sea
• When I Am King — Great Big Sea
• Out Of My Head — Fastball
• Closing Time — Semisonic
• Across The Great Divide — Semisonic
• Chemistry — Semisonic
• September In Seattle — Shawn Mullins
• Pandora — Shawn Mullins
• Twin Rocks, Oregon — Shawn Mullins

Here's the entire playlist. These are in no particular order, so cue it up, pop it on "shuffle", and enjoy.