It's true. Someone out there had the idea of using limericks to define terms ... and then he used the internet to find people with similar madness ... and then the group started to compile a dictionary. They call it a Limerictionary. Thankfully the entries are only up to "Ba".

I can only respond to this in like form:

I'd thought upon writing a blog
Though my mind had been suff'ring a clog
Upon finding this link
It then made me think
That its author is long due a flog.

The scary part: writing that limerick took me less than two minutes. And no, I'm not considering contributing any verse to the project.

As the topic of Google Scholar has been broached in the biblioblogosphere before, I thought I'd post a link to this review of Google Scholar that was forwarded to me by a friend.

Maybe I'll have an entry later with some of my thoughts on the matter; maybe not.

So, when I go to Merriam-Webster's dictionary in Firefox, I get a pop-under ad. When I go to the same site in IE, no pop-under. Here's the link I tried. Same link in both browsers.

I think this is interesting from an economic perspective. I'll list a few options I just thought up myself:

• Could it be that Firefox has sufficient market share to make it the primary target of nefarious advertisers? They're more motivated to locate and exploit non-IE-browser-specific holes? That is, have they perhaps lost income because more folks are using Firefox and not seeing their popups, so they were motivated to find and exploit Firefox-specific holes?
• Could it be that IE's status as primary target by nefarious advertisers has paid off? That the market has policed itself and Microsoft's response has been adequate — and since Firefox hasn't had this level of real-world use and testing, a shortcoming was found and exploited?
• Pure chance occurrence; the pop-up dudes got lucky on my config.

Note that I only have out-of-the-box popup handling on Firefox; no extensions dealing with popup blocking. Google toolbar is installed on IE but the popup blocker is turned off; perhaps that may have something to do with it. I dunno. But it seemed strange; I can remember when "popup-killing" was one of the killer features of Firefox.

I'd guess it is a combo of the first two options above.

[notes on §9]

EpDiog 10 picks up right where EpDiog 9 left off. §9 ends describing what Christ has done for his beloved; §10 makes the transition asking the reader for a response:

If you also long to have this faith, you must first acquire the knowledge of the Father. (EpDiog 10.1, Ehrman)

This (of course) reminds me of 1Ti 2.3-4:

This [cf. vv 1-2] is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1Ti 2.3-4).

What is the knowledge mentioned in §10.1? It is clarified in §10.2 (which I've reformatted a bit*):

For God loved humans,

for whose sake he made the world,
to whom he subjected everything on earth,
to whom he gave reason,
to whom he gave mind,
whom alone he permitted to look up to him above,
whom he formed out of his own likeness,
to whom he sent his one and only Son,
to whom he promised the kingdom in heaven.

And he will give it to those who love him. (EpDiog 10.2, Ehrman)

Here is a list of what God has done for men, according to the author, and the promise that just as God "loved" men (his reason for doing these things), those who love him will receive the promise of the kingdom of heaven.

§10.3 transitions into thinking about how this knowledge will affect the one who knows it. The author is evangelizing. He's stated what the Godhead has done and does in the transaction of salvation; he is now asking for the response of the reader.

Once you have known him, with what sort of joy do you think you will be filled? Or how will you love the one who so loved you in advance? (EpDiog 10.3, Ehrman).

§10.1 spoke of acquiring the knowledge of the Father; §10.2 conveyed the knowledge. Now that the reader has this knowledge (and the background of §1-9 to understand it a bit more) the author tries to close the sale. The verse also speaks of the love that the reader, upon acquisition of the knowledge of the Father, will have for the Father. The author implies that once this knowledge is imparted and the spirit has truly allowed one to understand it, that the recipient will respond with both joy for the love the Father has bestowed and love for the Father.

§10.4-6 begin to instruct the reader how to respond. It is natural that one will want to be an imitator of God, to live as much as possible like the one who has given such joy and love:

But when you have loved him you will become an imitator of his kindness. And do not marvel that a person can become an imitator of God. It is possible, so long as he desires it. For happiness is not a matter of oppressing your neighbors, or wishing to have more than those who are lowly, or being wealthy and coercing those who are in need. Nor is anyone able to imitate God in these ways, for they form no part of his greatness. For whoever takes up the burden of his neighbor, whoever wants to use his own abundance to help someone in need, whoever provides for the destitute from the possessions he has received from God—himself becoming a god to those who receive them—this one is an imitator of God. (EpDiog 10.4-6, Ehrman)

Of course, when reading about being an imitator of God, one recalls that Paul used similar language in his epistle to the Ephesians: "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children" (Eph 5.1, ESV). The Greek is fairly similar as well:

γίνεσθε οὖν μιμηταὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ὡς τέκνα ἀγαπητὰ (Eph 5.1, UBS4)

ἀγαπήσας δὲ μιμητὴς ἔσῃ αὐτοῦ τῆς χρηστότητος. καὶ μὴ θαυμάσῃς, εἰ δύναται μιμητὴς ἄνθρωπος γενέσθαι θεοῦ. δύναται, θέλοντος αὐτοῦ. (EpDiog 10.4, Lake)

The author realizes that one cannot imitate God to the degree of becoming God. Instead, an imitator of God is one who, through love, strives to help those he encounters who are in need—just as God has done for those whom he saves. And this seems to jive with Paul's use of the same phrase. Paul doesn't teach the Ephesians that they need fully reproduce God in perfection in their actions. Instead Paul uses the picture of small children who try to act and be like the adults in their lives. These small children learn to walk, talk and interact with others based on observation and imitation. Christians should do their best to observe and imitate God. This happens as love is fostered between God and man through the agency of the Spirit.

§10.7-8 continue to develop the apologist's argument. Again, I've reformatted this a bit:*

Then even while you happen to be on earth,

you will see that God is conducting the affairs of heaven.
Then you will begin to speak the mysteries of God.
Then you will both love and admire those who are punished for not wanting to deny God.
Then you will condemn the deceit and error of the world,

when you come to know the true life of heaven,
when you despise that which merely seems to be death here and come to fear that which is truly death,

which is preserved for those who are condemned to the eternal fire,
which will punish those who are given over to it until the end of time.

And then, when you know that other fire, you will admire and bless those who endure the fleeting fire of the present for the sake of righteousness. (EpDiog 10.7-8, Ehrman).

Acting as imitators of God will increase our knowledge of him. The more one strives to imitate God, the more one will become like him and the more one will come to know him. This knowledge will result in a true understanding of life and death, which will only reinforce actions that are rooted in loving and serving the God who has so loved his people. One will come to an understanding of why the martyrs (recall the time frame when this epistle was most likely written, circa 150-180) were willing to suffer and die instead of renounce Christ.

Next up: EpDiog 11.

* These indented versions are loosely based on the underlying Greek, but I've stuck with Ehrman's translation. If I were to attempt a translation, my wording would be a little different and this might affect how these indentations would be made. In other words, I'm not attempting to make any arguments or points from the Greek syntax, I'm just trying to show the basic flow of the argument as it ends up in the translation.

I don't like to post on politics or world events very often, but now is one of those times to make just such a post. If you'd rather not read on, you've been warned.

Don't worry, I'll keep it brief.

I've spent a decent amount of time in South Africa (six weeks of cumulative time over two trips). It is a wonderful place, and the hospitality that the South Africans have for visitors is unlike anything I have ever seen. They (all of them) are a tremendous people. I have friends there that I would do most anything for.

What is taking place in Zimbabwe, South Africa's neighbor to the northeast, is a flat-out tragedy. Please read David Frum for a little more context, especially in light of this "Live 8" thing (which I don't fully understand; I don't have a TV so I don't pay much attention to this stuff). Frum ends his post with "More on this soon". I don't know if it can come soon enough.

Update (2005-06-14): David Frum delivers with two more journal entries. One on how Zimbabwe's slide is affecting South Africa; another that reproduces an email he received from a reader in Zimbabwe who has read these entries. Both are worth reading.

A good friend who knows I'm working on a presentation for the SBL conference in November sent me this link today:

Stop your presentation before it kills again!

This was a timely thing for him to send to me. I don't have the paper written yet (yes, I've started, but I've a ways to go) but I'm already thinking about how to present it. I do know one thing: I'm not going to simply read it. Ever since Mark Goodacre's post about going extempore at SBL, I knew that if I ever presented a paper there, I wouldn't be reading it word-for-word.

I also know I'll have to have PowerPoint slides or something like that. Screen captures, at a minimum, will be involved and the best way to ensure I'll be able to display them is to have a PowerPoint edition of them in the order I want. But I'm of the camp that thinks PowerPoint is a tool that dooms presentations to mediocrity. Ever since attending an Edward Tufte seminar (almost one year ago) with the rest of the development staff from Logos, I've been convinced that PowerPoint, while not inherently evil, allows people (and even directs people) to use some pretty questionable presentation methods. Here are some links to familiarize yourself with Tufte's perspective in case you're unfamiliar:

• Monograph: The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint
• Wired Article: PowerPoint Is Evil: Power Corrupts. PowerPoint Corrupts Absolutely

Now, if that's not enough to scare anyone from using PowerPoint to make a presentation, I don't know what is. To paraphrase a television commerical that aired in the states when I was a young lad: "When Tufte speaks, people listen".*

But I think I'm stuck with PowerPoint because I need to show screen captures as part of the presentation; they provide the visual context so folks will know what I'm babbling on about.

I'll be pondering this more as November approaches. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to pass them along.

Update (2005-06-13): Bradley provides the link to the Gettysburg Address Powerpoint Slides. You've got to see it to believe it.

Update II (2005-06-14): Mark Goodacre links and provides some further thoughts on the utility of Powerpoint. I agree with Mark; PowerPoint's tendency to guide users through auto-magic creation of mediocre presentations isn't reason to avoid the software. Instead, this is the rationale one needs to ensure that PowerPoint usage isn't unthinking or herd-like. If everyone else uses PowerPoint to project bullet points that they then read aloud for their presentation, this doesn't necessarily reflect proper usage of the software. Whatever is projected is secondary and complimentary; not primary. PowerPoint has a tendency to make the fluff primary. This is the aspect that must be guarded against when considering PowerPoint as a tool to assist with a presentation. Of course ... y'all will get to grade me on this come November. Hopefully I'll pass.

* If I remember correctly, the company was E.F. Hutton.

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.