My friend and co-worker Jacob Carpenter just zapped me a link to Jack Johnson's new album, now on Rhapsody: In Between Dreams.

Sounds like typical Jack Johnson — which is awesome. Too often artists seem to get restless with their style and try all sorts of different things when they should stick with their bread and butter. With Jack Johnson, the style is easy, effortless acoustic groove with a laid-back surfer style. Anything by Jack is highly recommended.

If you're interested and don't have Rhapsody, here's Jack Johnson's web site.

I wrote the following short essay in long-hand on January 1, 2005.

I need to preface this by saying that it was written as a stream of consciousness, with very little stopping along the way. I'd only really worked out the first sentence or two before putting pen to paper. I realize I'm making large leaps in some places, but ... hey, you get what you pay for.

I've stewed on it off and on over the past few months and I'm still not sure what I think of it. I'd been reading about Erasmus and humanism, and thinking about how things had progressed from the Erasmian sense of humanism into the "secular humanism" of today. Particularly, I'd been considering the thought that secular humanism has essentially become a religion in its own right. I freely admit I'm rather separated from such things in my day-to-day context, and that some of my understanding of "secular humanism" is based on stereotypical (and thus perhaps erroneous) conceptions.

I've gone back and forth (and back, and forth, and back again) on whether I should post it, but I'm feeling bold right now, so here it is. Feel free to leave comments to tell me what you think.

Ok, that's enough with the disclaimers. On with the show.

Humanism as Religion

Self-determination, self-preservation and no self-condemnation combine to empower man. These convince him that he has no need of God. For when man is his own source of knowledge, his own source of power, and his own source of authority, he has truly replaced God.

Man needs God for atonement. Man needs God for redemption. Man needs God for salvation. When man has devised a system to provide these qualities, he has truly replaced God.

Man removes his need for atonement, redemption and salvation by removing sin from his nature. First man posits a "blank state" at birth; waiting to be filled. Next the humanistic doctrine of innate goodness convinces man that goodness and purity (the non-judgmental humanistic equivalents of atonement and redemption) are available inside of all with simple application of effort.

Man relies on science as the sole basis of knowledge. Man relies on his own posited "innate goodness" to provide moral guidance.

Man is doomed.

Man needs God. We will die without Him.

We have become too smart for our own good. We have forsaken faith in an effort to become omniscient on our own. We have dethroned God and replaced him with rationality. We have deduced our way down an erroneous chain of logic and ended up wholly corrupt.

In denying God and enthroning reason we have taken the ultimate final step. We have enshrined reason as a god and forsaken Christ.

Christians must persevere in these days. Faith is simply that: faith. Faith is not holding to obvious falsehoods in the light of overwhelming evidence; faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you cannot see.

Humanism and its enshrined reason have betrayed this. These presuppose that all is rational and all is knowable; that through the application of reason and intellect man can do whatever he chooses. Thus there is no mystery. If a problem arises -- trivial or serious -- rational man believes he can address it adequately.

This is the sin of Adam and Eve.

We have come full circle.

Come, Lord Jesus. Come.

On the recommendation of a friend, I've been listening to music by an artist named Madeleine Peyroux.

It is bluesy/jazzy with a little bit of country tinge. However, the most remarkable thing is that Ms. Peyroux's voice reminds me of Billie Holiday and, to a degree, Ella Fitzgerald every time I hear it.

I couldn't listen to this all of the time, but it is a refreshing listen on occasion. If you have Real Rhapsody, there are links below to playlists for each of her available albums.

• Madeleine Peyroux: Dreamland
• Madeleine Peyroux: Careless Love

When I realized that I was out of coffee at home last week, I made a mental note to pick up some beans next time I was in the local Starbucks.

I was there on Saturday morning (as usual) and before I left I scanned the selection. I saw the label for Arabian Mocha Sanani, which I'd never tasted before. So I knew I had to have it.

It's early Sunday morning, and I just kind of woke up before my alarm for no explicable reason, so I went to the kitchen to make some coffee. All I can say is: Wow! I hope they have this stuff there again the next time I buy beans, because it is excellent. Dark, strong, black coffee. They didn't have much, though, so I'm not holding my breath.

If you see some and want to splurge, I highly recommend it.

As mentioned earlier, last week I devoured Part I of John Lee's History of New Testament Lexicography. Lee has some interesting and provocative observations, particularly concerning the development of the practice of glossing and the need of lexicographers to focus on providing solid, tested definitions. It is important that the information in these lexicons be sifted and made as accurate as possible, and Lee pinpoints the areas where the most work is needed.

However, after reading Part I of Lee's book (which I need to read again to better understand all that Lee discusses) I can't help but think that the primary problem between lexicography and the popular/common user of the lexicon is a bit of a paradox.

The user of the lexicon typically desires to know what a particular word means at a particular point (e.g., "What does αὐθεντέω mean in 1Ti 2.12?"); but the writer of the lexicon typically wants to transmit the meaning of the word in general, divorced from specific context. The purposes of the user (word meaning in a specific instance) and the purposes of the lexicographer (general meaning in a corpus or collection of corpora) don't quite line up.

The lexicographer pores over all sorts of citations, instances, studies and such to gain a general idea of the word and write a functional definition, as well as provide some well-intentioned glosses. But the probable user of the lexicon is most likely at a particular verse in the New Testament wanting to know what a particular word "means" — quite possibly because this user wants to know what "the Greek" (that strange, magical language) really says here.

The problem that lexicographers need to solve is how to provide responsible information to this sort of user while still actually doing lexicography (instead of translation or an 'amplified' translation). Definitions are one way, but we also need to do better in training folks how to use these resources and what to expect to gain from their usage. My guess is that much NT lexicon usage is that of a magical answer key. Poor glosses and inadequate definition complicate the issue, so they are problems that need to be addressed as John Lee rightly points out. But the problem of proper usage needs to be addressed as well.

Awhile back I happened upon the blog Giornale Nuovo. It is not a biblioblog. I suppose it's an art blog. The posts are not frequent (once a week?) and there are always superb images included. Today's post is about István Orosz, who is apparently a Hungarian graphic artist. The pictures displayed on the blog have an Escher-like quality.

I've found that when posts from Giornale Nuovo appear they are a pleasant distraction to my morning blog reading.

Also served at the site is Isaac D'Israeli's Curiosities of Literature, which may be of interest to some. More info on that:

An incrementally-published online presentation of Isaac D’Israeli’s book Curiosities of Literature, a compendium of book-lore originally published in six volumes between 1791 and 1834. The present text is reproduced from an undated (but probably 1870s or ’80s) single-volume edition published by Routledge. I have also reproduced the book’s Dedication, its Introduction (a Memoir of D’Israeli), and its ‘Advertisement’. Corrections and glosses are welcomed: comments will be moderated.

One of the most inspiring and interesting of the documents classed as the Apostolic Fathers, to me anyway, is that of The Martyrdom of Polycarp.

Several dates have been posited for Polycarp's martyrdom. One of the more probable dates is February 23. The years of 155 or 156 are typically suggested, though others have been put forth. Here's Erhman's translation of MPoly 21.1:

But the blessed Polycarp bore his witness unto death on the second day of the new month of Xanthikos, February 23, on a great Sabbath, at 2:00 in the afternoon. But he was arrested by Herod while Philip of Tralles was high priest, Statius Quadratus was proconsul, and Jesus Christ was ruling as king forever. To him be the glory, honor, greatness, and eternal throne, from one generation to the next. Amen.

If you've not read the account of Polycarp's martyrdom, by all means please do. It is best in a responsible modern edition; for sheer reading pleasure I like Ehrman's translation. It isn't stilted or archaic but still conveys the basic meaning of the Greek (for the most part). It isn't freely available, however. If you don't have access to Ehrman's Loeb edition, then head to Early Christian Writings and check out a few of the copies in the public domain.

There are some fantastic (in all senses of the word) images in the document. My favorite parts have to be the exchanges between the proconsul and Polycarp. Below is one of my favorite points in the narrative:

When he was brought forward the proconsul began trying to persuade him to make a denial, saying, "Have respect for your age," along with other things related to what they customarily say: "Swear by the Fortune of Caesar, repent, and say 'Away with the athiests.' " But Polycarp looked with a stern face at the entire crowd of lawless Gentiles in the stadium; and gesturing up to them with his hand, he sighed, looked up to heaven, and said, "Away with the athiests." The proconsul became more insistent and said, "Take the oath and I will release you. Revile Christ." But Polycarp responded, "For eighty-six years I have served him, and he has done me no wrong. How can I blaspheme my king who has saved me.?" (MPoly 9.2-3)

The image here always makes me smile. The Romans considered Christians "atheists" because Christians didn't believe in the pantheon of gods (let alone any deification of Caesar). So when the proconsul asks Polycarp to say "away with the athiests", it amounts to a denial of Christ and revulsion of his brothers and sisters in Christ. Polycarp looks at the crowd and calls everyone else there an "atheist" (more along the lines of our usage of the word), turning the proconsul's words against him. And Polycarp's simple statement of faith at the end of the passage is encouraging and challenging. Here's another excerpt (immediately following the above in the narrative):

When the proconsul persisted and said, "Swear by the Fortune of Caesar," Polycarp answered, "If you are so foolish as to think that I will swear by the Fortune of Caesar, as you say, and if you pretend not to know who I am, listen closely: I am a Christian. But if you wish to learn an account of Christianity, appoint a day and listen." The proconsul replied, "Persuade the people." Polycarp said, "I think you deserve an account, for we are taught to render all due honor to rulers and authorities appointed by God, in so far as it does us no harm. But as to those [the crowd] I do not consider them worthy to hear a reasoned defense." (MPoly 10.1-2)

Again, Polycarp's wit and approach (remember, he's at least 86 years old here) make me smile when I read the account.

If you've never read this, do yourself a favor and sit down sometime today or tomorrow and give the Martydom of Polycarp a read. If you read an older public domain edition, give yourself some extra time to work through the stilted nature of the narrative.

I'm back from my short holiday. The time in Arizona visiting my folks was great. I played golf (fairly well, strangely enough), devoured John Lee's History of New Testament Lexicography (more posts on that later, to be sure), did some significant structural revision on the Pastorals writing project (though I need to stop revising and start writing new content ... that's the tough part).

But, here are a few choice quotes from John Lee's book. He begins each chapter of part one with some appropriate quotes. Chapter Eleven, "The Way Ahead", has these two (among others):

Therefore, we need not be disturbed when complete precision and certainty elude us; responsible uncertainty will take us considerably further than baseless assurance — Moisés Silva

Change spells pain, but ... scholar's tasks are "not for sissies." — Frederick W. Danker

Sources: Lee, History of New Testament Lexicography, p. 178. Silva quoted from Biblical Words and their Meaning, p. 177. Danker quoted from Review of Nida and Louw, Lexical Semantics, JBL 113 (1994): 533.

I can sense that Silva's terms "responsible uncertainty" and "baseless assurance" will become entrenched in the vocabulary of the Design & Editorial department at Logos (where I work).