The "open access journal" meme has trotted about the biblioblogosphere recently (sorry, no links handy, but you know it has). In reading an economics blog (Truck & Barter), I came across a post linking to the Directory of Open Access Journals or DOAJ.

The listing of religion journals (26 of 'em) is available: DOAJ Religion Journal Listing. 

There is also a listing of Languages and Literatures Journals.

FWIW, the post and lone comment on the Truck & Barter site about sum up my thoughts from an economic point of view. But have fun with the journals -- there are a few in there that look like they may be worth checking out.

I'm like a boy with new toys. What are those new toys? They're PDF versions of way-old editions the Greek New Testament, of course (editions available here; watch out, the downloads are sizeable).

In light of my previous post on the coolness of the Complutensian Polyglot, it makes sense to me to check out the competition: Erasmus' 1516 edition. So here we go.

First, look at this awesome frontispiece from the Gospel of Matthew. It's a little much for my tastes, but it's typical for the style of the day (from the little reading I've done on typesetting from this period). Note that you can click on any of these images to see them in a seperate window, some of them will be larger than they are inline below.

The drop-caps are the coolest part. The artistic stuff around the edges, while interesting, just doesn't do it for me. Another nice aspect of this edition are the introductions to the books. However ... they're in Greek; Erasmus didn't provide the Latin translation. (note: His 1522 edition does have parallel Greek and Latin of this content).

But what about the Bible text proper? Here's the beginning of First Timothy. Again, the drop-caps are prominent. Also interesting (to me, anyway) is the all-cap presentation of the name of Christ in the Greek, but not in the Latin.

But how does this compare to the Complutensian? Well, here's 1Ti 2.3-6, which I also provided for the Complutensian? (image here). 

I see a few differences immediately. First, the Complutensian is much more readable, at least for my minuscule-challenged eyes. If I know the text (as I do in this case) I can figure out that the first two blobs really do represent τουτο γαρ, but I couldn't prove it to you. Second, remember that the Complutensian is aligned at the word level through the use of superscript letters previous to lexical units. No such innovation in the Erasmian text. But Erasmus does have the name of Christ in all-caps, which is an interesting practice, especially in light of the manner in which the tetragrammaton is treated in Hebrew texts.

I do like Erasmus' Latin font better than the font used in the Complutensian. But that's not enough to sway me to Erasmus. My vote is still for the Complutensian. Now that's typesetting.

Lastly, there is the famous historical matter to check into. What did Erasmus really do with 1Jn 5.7-8? (NKJV: For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.) You know what I'm talking about. The legend as I've heard it is that Erasmus didn't put this text into his first edition, but he was beat up by the Vulgate readers such that he made his famous promise: "If you can find a Greek manuscript with that content, I'll publish it". Well, what does Erasmus have in his first edition?

No sign of the explicit mention of the members of the Godhead in Trinity there. So the first part of the legend has merit. What about the second part? I haven't downloaded Erasmus' 1518 edition yet (though it is available, it is 200+ megs) but I did grab his 1522 edition. Check it out:

Do you see that? Yep, it's longer. Through the magic of modern technology, let's get a better look at what's going on in there:

Sure enough. The text is added. And it's been in pretty much every Textus Receptus-based edition since. The Greek MSS with this reading, by the way, are 61 (16th century), 629 (14th century) and 918 (16th century). There are others that have the above as a varia lectio, but who knows when those readings were added to the original MS, or where they came from (most likely a retroversion from Latin back into the Greek, I'd think). I'd guess 629 might be the actual MS that prompted Erasmus to make the change, though that is pure speculation by someone (that's me) with no right to speculate on such text-critical issues.

[NOTE: When this post was written in April 2005, several PDF facsimiles of editions of the Greek New Testament were available from bibles.org.uk. They no longer appear to be available. The downloads are sizeable and I am not able to provide them for download or FTP or delivery on DVD. Apologies, RWB]

I've mentioned this before, but I'm a bibliophile when it comes to stuff dealing with the Greek New Testament. If it has to do with the Greek NT and it was published in the mid to late 1800s or early 1900s, chances are I want it. I enjoy the content, the conclusions, the scholarship and the typesetting.

I'm even more excited about early editions of the Greek New Testament, but I know that I'll never own any of these editions. But I have found a few as PDF files. Today I grabbed a PDF facsimile of the Complutensian Polyglot (PDF is approx. 500 megs, available via bibles.org.uk). And it is so very cool.

The Complutensian Polyglot is notable for a number of reasons. First, it is a polyglot, meaning that it presents the text in more than one language (poly + glot ==> "many tongues", roughly).

It was printed between 1514-1517 and as such is the earliest printed (type-set) representation of the Greek New Testament. But it wasn't available until 1522, which means the Erasmian edition of 1516 was the first available printed Greek New Testament; even though the Complutensian is the better Greek text and despite the fact that it was technically complete before Erasmus completed his text. The NT has Greek and Latin in parallel. Check it out (click any graphic for a larger version):

This is 1Ti 2.3-7. If you look closely, you'll see that each word in the Greek and Latin is preceded by a small superscript character. This is a form of alignment. That's right, the text, while typeset in parallel columns, is aligned at the word level through the superscript number device. I've said it before to others, but these early typesetter dudes were studs. Check it out:

Little known to anyone who hasn't read John Lee's fantastic book A History of New Testament Lexicography, the Complutensian Polyglot also has the earliest example of a printed Greek lexicon. The last volume contains a glossary of Greek words with their Latin equivalents.

But that's not all. The Complutensian Polyglot is an edition of the whole Bible. That is, the Greek New Testament is only 1/3 of the book. There are volumes of Hebrew Bible content. Here's a sample from Genesis 1:

That's right. The left column is the LXX ... with interlinear Latin glosses! The middle column is Jerome's Latin. The right column is the Hebrew. If you look closely ... you'll see superscript letters in the Latin column and in the Hebrew column; so there is (I'd guess) a word-for-word alignment going on here too. How cool is that? I don't know Hebrew, so I have no idea what information the right-most margin contains. In addition, if Targum Onkelos has content to represent, the Aramaic is made available as well.

This is scholarship and typesetting that was going on in the early 1500s. I am continually amazed at what was accomplished just in this edition (let alone other typesetting and scholarship from the era), and that in just a few years (1514-1517? By hand? Whoa!). Here we are today, with our computers and our desktop publishing systems ... and we couldn't set something like the above without a whole lot of complaining, grudging and whining, once we got past the Hebrew font issue and figured out a hack around the interlinear portion. Speaking of which, check out the detail on that interlinear portion:

Look at that beautiful work. The Latin gloss is above the main line of the Greek text. You can barely make out the Greek once you account for the minuscule-esque script. Cross-references in the margin. I'll say it again — these guys were studs.

Not only that, but guess what? The supplementary volume (you remember, the one with the Greek-Latin glossary?) also has a Hebrew-Latin lexicon. Yep. You're reading that correctly. Check it out:

Here's some more detail showing a couple of articles in their entirety:

Now, remember — no computers. Nothing but dudes, type (which they probably cut themselves) and a press, along with desire and a bunch of elbow-grease. Not only that, but they sure knew how to end the NT. Why don't we see typographic devices like this in our modern Bibles? Would it cost too much to have the graphic design department whip something out? Would the extra page and ink really sink the budget and cause us to lose money? This is the right way to end the NT, giving all glory to God. If you know Latin and can translate more than the first line, feel free to send me your translation. I'll post it at the end of this article and link back to your blog/website/whatever.

Update: As I work my way through the Latin (I don't know Latin, so it's mostly what I can intuit based on my knowledge of Spanish and Greek) I see that the first few lines do mention the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but the rest of it seems to list the balance of folks involved in the production -- a few cardinals and some other folk. Then it ends with the date (Jan. 10, 1514?). As I said, I may very well be mistaken as I don't know Latin. But that's what seems to be going on in the final typographical device.

I was just made aware of an article on the Logos web site detailing the available RSS feeds and some options on how to set up feeds.

If you don't use an RSS aggregator (like my personal preference, SharpReader) the article gives some detail on how to use online aggregators like Bloglines and Pluck to subscribe to and read RSS feeds.

Give 'er a look.

In a de-anonymizing move inspired by Mark Goodacre, I've decided to place a small picture of me on the ricoblog front page. Actually, it's on every page. You won't be able to get away from my watchful eye ...

The pic was taken in January 2005 when photos were shot for the article about me (and ricoblog) in Nortwestern College's alumni publication, The Classic, though this particular photo wasn't used in the magazine. I've lost a little weight since then, so that picture really is "larger than life".

Folks --

Just a few notes on things I've come across over the past few days.

1. zhubert.com's "Book Detail" page, with cool graphs and a new "Improbable Phrases" feature. The improbable phrases are three-word combos that are statistically improbable based on Zack's number-crunching prowess. It would be nice to have chapter/verse links next to the phrases generated to head to the full context of the phrase, but it's cool that Zack is doing stuff like this. Thanks, Zack! (Disclaimer: I've been doing some stuff with three-word phrases too, as most of you no doubt know, so my opinion toward the coolness of this type of thing is a little biased.)

2. I stumbled across some cool music on Rhapsody. The band is the Fareed Haque Group, and they simply jam. Fareed can play the guitar (several styles -- jazz, classical, etc.) and everyone else just seems to follow along. These aren't studio recordings, they're recordings of live events. The only one I've listened to in full is the 02-22-02 Tommy Nevin's - Evanston IL [Rhapsody link]. If you need some background stuff with no lyrics but a good guitar groove (and some organ too), this is your stuff.

3. At long last, Tischendorf's full apparatus is now shipping in LDLS format. This is T-dog's eighth major edition. ("Tischendorf" is too much to type, so as Logos was working on this edition, I started using the label 'T-dog' for "Tischendorf"). His full Greek NT, with Eusebian Canon references embedded in the text. The apparatus is the full three-volume edition. The apparatus will scroll with any Greek New Testament. Rather than use cryptic sigla like the NA27, T-dog simply listed the word from his text first, then the support for/against the reading. The LDLS uses bold text to distinguish that first word, so you know the word/phrase under discussion. Associated text is mostly in Latin (apart from MS numbers/sigla) but it is quite usable (though the prolegomena volume takes some work to get through, especially if you don't know Latin). Scroll along and check for variants. Very cool. Check out the screen shot at the bottom of the Logos product detail web page.

Caspar Olevianus, A Firm Foundation, Question 44 (translated by Lyle D. Bierma [more info])

Q. Why do you believe in Jesus, the Son of God?

A. First, seeing as the Son is of one substance and like glory with the Father, I rightly place my trust in Him. As the Scriptures testify, "I and the Father are one" [Jn 10.30], and "You believe in God, believe also in me" [Jn 14.1]. See also Ro 9 and 1Ti 1.

Second, I believe this because it is the Father's command that we believe in the Son. We are firmly to trust Him that through Him and for His sake this salvation comes to us and we are received into grace, heard, and saved. For the command of the Father from heaven, "This is my beloved Son, in whom my soul is well pleased" [Mt 3.17], carries with it the promise that through His Son His heart is pleased with us. We hear the Son explain the command and promise of the Father as follows: "This is the will of the Father, who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him has everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (Jn 6.40). The Father is so serious about this command that He attaches eternal punishment to it for those who do not obey it: "He who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (Jn 3.36). Likewise Jn 8.24: "If you will not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." See also 1Jn 2.

Thus I confess that I believe in the Son of God, that from the heart I submit to this command and gracious promise of the Father, and that I desire, miserable and unworthy though I be, to be accepted for the sake of this eternal Son. I also confess that I do not wish to add to my manifold sins this greatest sin of all -- the rejection of the Son of God. Rather, I heartily desire to withstand all unbelief and to submit to the command of the Father to listen to the Son and trust Him. In this Son He will be pleased with me, as St. Paul says, "In Him you are complete" (Col 2.10).

[Question & answer Copyright 1995 Lyle D. Bierma]

Have you ever stopped to put your own confession of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior into words? Your own words, not someone else's? If you haven't, it is a good exercise. That's essentially what Olevianus is doing with this question, albeit in a general, formalized setting. You can start with just writing the account of when you first believed, as narrative or a story. Remember what happened, and record the event. If you want to expand from there with a more confession-like statement that formally puts forth what you believe, feel free to do so (Here's an example from fellow supakoo dude Eli). It doesn't have to be super-formal.

What's my story? Well ... parts of it are in this article. But for me, the basics why I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior are:

Eternal life is found in Jesus Christ alone.
Salvation from sin* is found in Jesus Christ alone.
He redeems me.
He restores me into right relationship with the Father.
Through Jesus Christ, I am adopted into the family of the Father.
Without Jesus Christ, the Father will reject me and I will be subject to the Father's wrath.

* The totality of our depraved, sinful nature and its manifestation in specific sins.

In the past few weeks, I've splurged and picked up some books. Since Uncle Sam came through and gave me back the money I over-paid him, I figured I'd spend some of it on books. So here are the three I've purchased recently. The title links are to some quick notes on the books I've posted over at PastoralEpistles.com.

• Miller, James D. The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents. Miller applies form and redaction criticism to the Pastorals and in the process finds very little that he would consider having its origin with Paul. I don't agree with his method or conclusion (I think he's seeing what he wants to see ... but then again, I probably am too) but the book is good to read to get an idea of the differing views of authorship/development of the Pastoral Epistles. I'm about halfway through reading this book. My frustration is that Miller writes well — his prose and argument is very clear — I just think he's wrong. There is of course some obvious content of a non-Pauline origin (e.g. the creedal statement in 1Ti 2.5-6 and also 1Ti 3.16) but I don't see any argument against why Paul himself couldn't have co-opted that material for his own purposes in composition of the letter.
• Van Neste, Ray. Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles. Van Neste responds to Miller's thesis with a viewpoint that the Pastorals really are cohesive in structure. I haven't read this yet, I'll dig into it after finishing Miller's book.
• Kenny, Anthony. A Stylometric Study of the New Testament. Kenny's study is the primary work in this area. I just got the book yesterday (found it cheaper than the $100 retail via a used bookseller) and am itching to get into it. This has been recommended to me from three different sources, each of whom I hold in high esteem in this area — so I figured I'd have to get the book. Should be fun to work through, and it should help me in analysing the three-word-phrase data I've been generating and thinking about. 

Next I'll have to actually get some new bookshelves.