Regular ricoblog readers already know that I have a strange fascination with the Pastoral Epistles.

Anyway, I was reading a bit of the Cambridge Greek Testament: Epistles of St. John, published in 1916. The discussion on the authorship of Second John states the following regarding the internal evidence (I took the liberty of changing the formatting a bit, the quote is from p. lxxi):

The internal [evidence] is hardly less strong than the external evidence in favour of the Apostolic authorship of the Second, and therefore of the Third Epistle: for no one can reasonably doubt that the writer of the one is the writer of the other. The argument is parallel to that respecting the Pastoral Epistles:

• There is much in these Epistles that cannot reasonably be ascribed to anyone but S. Paul
• These portions cannot be severed from the rest
• Therefore those portions which are not in his usual style were nevertheless written by him.

So here [with the Johannines]:

• The Second Epistle has so much that is similar to the First, that common authorship is highly probable.
• The Third Epistle has so much that is similar to the Second, that common authorship is practically certain
• Therefore the Third Epistle, though not like the First, is nevertheless by the same hand.

I don't know that I've ever heard of the distributive property applied to authorship studies (A = B; B = C; so A = C), so this is a new approach, at least to me. I can't say that the argument is appealing or convincing to me, but I'm not too concerned about the argument (at least with this post). What got my mind going was that the author compared the authorship situation of the Pastoral Epistles to the authorship situation of the Johannine Epistles.

So I immediately began to wonder: Has anyone ever posited (and seriously defended) a fragmentary hypothesis of the Johannines similar to what Harrison (and others) have suggested for the Pastorals?

I know that Anthony Kenny's book (Stylometric Study of the New Testament) uses his stylometric analysis to compare the Johannine Epistles to the Gospel of John in an effort to deduce authorship. I've also been told that Beale, in his NIGTC volume on Revelation, would discuss this sort of thing if anyone does. I'll check that volume out shortly (a friend of mine has it in his personal library) but I still have the question: Has anyone posited a "fragmentary" hypothesis for the Johannines? You know, 'genuine' Johannine fragments collected and expanded by either a (to follow Harrison's flavor) "dedicated Johannist" or (to follow Miller's flavor) a "Johannine Community"?

Just curious. If so, I'd like to compare the approaches/methods of each with the way folks have approached the Pastorals. If not ... it could be a fun (yes, my idea of fun is a little wacky these days) sort of approach to try to apply to the Johannines. 

Update (2005-06-08): I checked Beale, he doesn't really have anything. His section on authorship is only two pages, though. He basically says that not to many people today take the community of redactors hypothesis (pertaining to authorship of Revelation) seriously and therefore doesn't treat it.

I get a weekly "Religion BookLine" email from Publishers Weekly. I can't tell you how to sign up for it or even how to access the newsletter content on the web because, frankly, I can't remember how I did it and I can't find details on their web site.

This week's email has the following paragraph regarding Stephen C. Carlson's (Hypotyposeis) upcoming book on Secret Mark to be published by Baylor University Press:

A third debut exhibitor was Baylor University Press, there to hawk academic titles with trade appeal. The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith 's Invention of Secret Mark (Nov.) by Stephen C. Carlson is a real-life Da Vinci Code detective story set in academia. The mysterious gospel fragment purportedly found by American academic Smith has been fiercely debated since 1958, with academic dog-fighting over its authenticity and its homosexual innuendo. "This one is hot," said press director Carey C. Newman. "I get an e-mail a day about that book."

That prompted me to check out Baylor University Press' web site to see if they had further info. And they do. Check it out.

Looks like the PR machine is engaged. Enjoy the ride, Stephen!

Update (2005-06-09): Mark Goodacre (NTGateway Weblog) links to this post. Thanks, Mark!

Update II (2005-06-09): Wieland Willker posts a comment asking about email volume and wondering if "an e-mail a day" is a big deal. My guess is that the publisher isn't talking about simple inquiries as to book content, but instead is talking about distribution inquiries from booksellers or distribution agents, or reviewer requests — stuff like that. But that's just a guess on my part. Note also that Wieland has his own Secret Mark web page.

Old books are cool. I came across a copy of the Companion to the Greek Testament published by Cambridge in 1867. The author is A.C. Barrett. I think editions were published as late as 1887.

I've only looked over the (short) chapter on the text of the New Testament. It is short, concise and quite helpful as an introduction. The brief intros describing different uncial codices are interesting. Here's what they say about Claromontanus:

The Codex Claromontanus (D in the Pauline Epistles) was found in the monastery of Clermont, and is now in the Imperial Library at Paris. It is a Greek-Latin MS containing St. Paul's Epistles, and belongs to the sixth century. Bishop Marsh thought that the Epistle to the Hebrews was added by another transcriber; but Tischendorf, after a careful examination of the MS, has decided that it was written by the same person as the rest of the MS. Dr. Mill supposed it to be the second part of the Codex Bezae, but Wetstein and Bp. Marsh have proved that his opinion is erroneous. It was published by Tischendorf in 1852.

That's it. Short and sweet. Although in later portions of the book, Hebrews is grouped with the Paulines instead of the catholic/general epistles.

The ever-helpful Review of Biblical Literature has published a "review" by James Sanders (of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center) of Biblia Hebraica Quinta Fascicle 18: General Introduction and Megilloth.

I place review in quotes because it seems to be less of a review and more of a short history of the development of modern editions (handbook editions or handausgabe, not critical editions) of the Hebrew Bible. As such, the eleven-page review is well worth reading. If you've ever wondered about the differences between the BHK editions and BHS, and what the differences will be in BHQ, then you should read this.

One of the footnotes in this review contained a reference to another review (by Sanders) of the Hebrew University Bible Ezekiel volume. This as well has a historical overview that may be helpful to read.

Hi folks.

This morning (Saturday, June 4) PastoralEpistles.com is having some problems. My host did some firewall upgrading, it caused me to have to change an IP address. Access may be sporadic as this change filters through.

Apologies, hopefully it'll be back to normal by Monday.

Update (2005-06-06): There were issues with both ricoblog and PastoralEpistles.com. I think both are back in fightin' form now, though.

When I came home from work today, I noticed a red flyer stuck in gate of the fence in front of my house.

Big bold letters: Are You Curious About Yourself?

Hoo-boy, I could take a "FREE" personality test. The "Oxford Capacity Analysis", to be exact.

And whom do I have to thank for this? Why, none other than the "Hubbard Dianetics Foundation Bellingham".

That's right, apparently the scientologists have taken a cue from the mormons and jw's and started a door-to-door campaign. Check out this fine print on the 200-question personality test:

(c) 2002 CSI. All Rights Reserved. Oxford Capacity Analysis, OCA and Dianetics are trademarks and service marks owned by Religious Technology Center and are used with its permission. Services relating to Scientology religious philosophy are delivered throughout the world exclusively by licensees of the Church of Scientology International with the permission of Religious Technology Center, holder of the SCIENTOLOGY and DIANETICS trademarks.

No thanks, L. Ron. My hope, by the grace of God, is in Jesus Christ my Savior and Mediator. Without His sacrifice, which absolves my sin and allows me to approach God through Jesus Christ, I have no hope. Scientology can't conquer sin. Only Jesus can conquer sin.

To God alone be the glory.

It's true. Logos Bible Software (my employer) is looking for another programmer. Here's the job listing.

The basics (this is taken directly from the job posting):

The most important characteristic we are looking for in this position is a passion for writing great code. We would like to find someone with experience in professional software development, but we will also consider a new graduate. The key issue is your coding experience and skill — not education or certification.

The ideal candidate will have:

• 3+ years experience with C++
• Experience as part of a multi-person software development team
• Experience with most of a bucket-load of important technologies, including: XML, JavaScript, web services, regular expressions, SQL, and DHTML

The really, really ideal candidate will have:

• Familiarity with the Bible and biblical languages (Greek and Hebrew)
• Experience in the field of information retrieval
• Fluency in a second modern language
• A fantastic recipe for chicken curry

This position is at our offices in the wonderful city of Bellingham, Washington.

Interested? Don't contact me, go directly to the job posting and follow the instructions there.

Yes, there are other jobs listed too. Check them all out. You know you'd love working at Logos ...

Over Memorial Day weekend, I did a decent amount of reading. One of the essays I read was Detlev Dormeyer's The Hellenistic Letter-Formula and the Pauline Letter-Scheme in Stanley E. Porter's The Pauline Canon.

In what is either a sure-fire sign that I'm addicted to blogging, or an insight that I should save for my SBL paper instead of squander on a blog post, the first thing I thought of while reading the article was that the practice of writing epistles (as described by Dormeyer) may really have been nothing more than the equivalent of blogging in ancient Greece.

First, recall some of the more mundane items I personally have blogged about:

• Broken toes (watch out for the picture!)
• How to use a French Press
• Horrible Christmas Music

I could find more, but I'm in a merciful mood. There's no need for you to relive my navel-gazing.

Now, compare that inanity with this excerpt from a letter from Cicero (with salient bits italicised):

I have no doubt that my daily letter must bore you, especially as I have no fresh news, nor can I find an excuse for a letter. If I should employ special messengers to convey my chatter to you without reason, I should be a fool but I cannot refrain from entrusting letters to folk who are bound for Rome, especially when they are members of my household. Beleive me, too, when I seem to talk with you, I have some little relief from sorrow, and, when, I read a letter from you, far greater relief. (Cicero, Att 8.14.1, quoted by Dormeyer in Porter, Pauline Canon, 60)

Basically, Cicero finds relief in writing his thoughts, no matter how insignificant, with a correspondent. And we thought James Joyce centered on the mundane!*

More importantly, check out what Dormeyer says about this sort of letter-writing:

The daily letters of Cicero do not transport 'fresh news' (nova de re aliqua), but serve to console and maintain a personal relationship. Because the writer has no 'definite subject' (nullo argumento proposito) he composes a literary form of talk (ut quais tecum loquor). (Dormeyer in Porter, Pauline Canon, 60).

Dormeyer continues:

Letters have an influence on other, more complex situations in writing: they can include legal questions, advice and honouring all at once. One aspect might dominate. But the fictitious form of the letter does not take on the features of an oral speech genre. ... That is why Deissmann suggested it would be worthwhile to distinguish between letter and epistle: a letter is private and written to an individual congregation or an individual person, whereas epistles are tractates with fictitous addressees. [Deissmann 1923: 157-72, 193-208] However, an objection could be raised to the effect that private writing is also fictitiously shaped, and, depending on the actual situation, can deliberately be designed that way (1Th 5.27). By the same token, epistles can have specific congregations as addressees (Eph 1.1-2). (Dormeyer, in Porter, Pauline Canon, 61)

Now, to be completely fair to Detlev Dormeyer, I am removing his writing entirely from its context, that of dealing with ancient epistlography. But the "ficticious written speech" of blogs could be analogous, in some way, to ancient epistles, couldn't it? Think about this additional quote from Cicero:

But as a sick heart not only robs me of sleep, but will not allow me even to keep awake without the greatest pain, I have begun to write to you something or other without a definite subject, that I may have a sort of talk with you [is] the only thing that gives me relief. (Cicero, Att 9.10.1, quoted by Dormeyer in Porter, Pauline Canon, 60)

How many bloggers can identify with the line, " ... I have begun to write to you something or other without a definite subject ... "? Several blog posts I've written have begun as unfocused notions regarding what I've read, seen or done. Writing about them clarifies; the subject or post title only comes after the post is composed.

That is, the act of writing itself is the discipline, the content is incidental. Well, not quite. The blog post content is a consequence of what I'm reading and experiencing — at least for me; others are most likely more disciplined.

Anyway, I couldn't shake this thought of ancient-day epistlography as an equivalent to modern-day blogging as I read Dormeyer's article. It probably is a sign that I'm addicted to blogging. Oh well. I suppose there are worse things one could be addicted to.

Update (2005-06-01): Jim Davila links from PaleoJudaica.com. Thanks for the link!

Update II (2005-06-02): Rogueclassicism comes through (via Paleojudaica.com) with a link as well. Thanks!

Update III (2005-06-02): The Rogueclassicism post is picked up on a linkblog called "robot wisdom" with the link title "Cicero's defense of blogging".

Update IV (2005-06-06): Perpendere posts a link as well. Thanks!

* No slight to Joyce's Ulysses, which was an amazing literary achievement. But that doesn't make it any less boring.