Once again, partaking in some shameless self-promotion, I thought I'd mention a rather significant (from my point of view) update I've made to PastoralEpistles.com.

(For the benefit of newer ricoblog readers, PastoralEpistles.com is a second blog that I run that focuses on the Pastoral Epistles)

I've added a new feature that lets one browse through archived posts based on:

• Subjects/Topics/Key Words that I've assigned (including but not limited to post categories).
• People mentioned in the post or somehow associated (e.g. authors of books or journal articles discussed).
• Greek words or phrases that occur within posts.
• Latin words or phrases that occur within posts.

You can read more about it in this article.

If you haven't been to PastoralEpistles.com for awhile, be sure to check out new bibliography view feature (showcased by the Site Map) as well!

Please let me know if you find this sort of thing helpful in your biblioblog-browsin'. Thanks!

Note for Geeks: The above-mentioned "indexes" over on PastoralEpistles.com are probably one of the few places where you'll see HTML's "descriptive list" elements used as (I'm guessing) intended. That's right, I'm using the DL, DT and DD tags to make those babies! I almost forgot they existed, but when the time came to convert to HTML, the light-bulb went off in my head. It's so cool to use the right tag for the right thing.

You may or may not know that Logos hosts a series of newsgroups (news://news.logos.com) dealing with various aspects of Logos Bible Software. The "General" group gets the most traffic by far, but my favorite group is the "Greek" group.

Yesterday, a correspondent asked about Greek lexica. Here's his question:

Can anyone recommend a source of information about the various Greek Lexica, their origins, relative strengths & weaknesses? e.g. BDAG, Kittel, Louw & Nida, Brown (Zondervan), Liddell & Scott?

As I accumulate these lexica in LDLS, I'm trying to learn how to use these tools better, rather than just adopting their insights uncritically, and trying to avoid the exegetical errors and excesses that come from an inexperienced and uninformed handling of these resources.

As you may or may not know, I love Greek lexicons. I had to respond:

John A.L. Lee's A History of New Testament Lexicography traces the history of Greek lexicography from its beginning. He's more concerned with the content and how lexicons have developed than on theological perspectives of the lexicon editors, but you may find it helpful. The book is published by Peter Lang and is volume 8 in their Studies in Biblical Greek series. Once I started reading it, I couldn't put it down.

One thing that has been helpful for me personally, besides Lee's volume, was reading Adolf Deissmann. Both his Bible Studies volume and Light from the Ancient East provided insight on the state of Greek lexicography at the time he was writing (1890s-1920s). This in turn has helped me understand proper usage of these sorts of sources and also made me more aware of the value of Greek sources from the NT era that are not the New Testament.

Another help has been some discipline in looking up and considering citations listed in the lexicon article. I used to simply scan lexicon articles to see if the verse I was studying was explicitly mentioned, and then went with whatever sense the verse citation occurred in. Now I spend time considering many citations, especially citations to the LXX and non-biblical sources (e.g. Josephus, Apostolic Fathers, pseudepigraphal documents) to consider if the cited usage is adequately handled by the definitions (glosses) provided.

Regarding Louw & Nida -- much has been written. Books such as Louw's Semantics of New Testament Greek or (especially) Nida & Louw's Lexical Semantics of the Greek New Testament may be helpful in understanding the practice and principles of Louw & Nida's lexicography.

I should also note that another Logos user responded to the same question, recommending the Frederick Danker fettschrift edited by Taylor & Lee, Biblical Greek Language and Lexicography. I can't believe I forgot that one. I'm so ashamed. Of course anyone interested in lexicography should read that book. 

Update (2005-06-23): Michael Gilleland picks up this thread on his blog, Laudator Temporis Acti. As Michael mentions, the books I've discussed above primarily deal with the Greek of the New Testament. He pads out the discussion. Check out what he's got to say, and check out the linked editions at the end of the post.

So, just under two months ago, I blogged about how ricoblog had received its 10,000th visitor. Now, I know this is small potatoes to many, but just today I noticed that visitor #15,000 made his way to ricoblog! No, I'm not reporting pages served (that's at over 26,000), but total visitors.

It took around eight months to get 10,000 visitors. Two more months to get another 5,000.

I'm continually amazed that people besides my Mom and Dad read this blog (no offense Mom & Dad ... but you know what I mean). I don't say it enough, but thanks to everyone who keeps on comin' back and to those who stumble upon my humble little outpost of biblioblogdom via Google searches and other sources. And thanks especially to those who link to ricoblog articles from their own blog, or keep me on their blogroll -- y'all are awesome.

Speaking of Google searches, visitor #15,000 arrived as a result of searching for "preposition" from google.co.jp. That's a search hit to be proud of! He (that's the generic 'he') was in China Coast Time / Russian Federation Zone 7 and hit this article at around 11:50 PM his time (7:50 AM ricoblog standard time) on June 17, 2005.

Thanks again, everybody. On to 20,000!

Perhaps others have heard, but Leon Askin -- the actor who played "General Burkhalter" on the 1960's TV show Hogan's Heroes -- passed away a few weeks back.

Here's an obit.

Askin's web page has the MP3 files you're looking for ("I send you to the Russian front!").

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.