In a recent blog entry where I asked questions about scribal habits, Wieland Willker pointed me to an article by Peter Head. The article is short (10 pages) and easy to read -- I should know, I read it tonight, and it got me thinking. That's why I have to blog this now, otherwise my mind will be racing and I won't get much sleep tonight.

One of the papyri that Head discusses is P.Oxy XV.1781,* which has some content from Jn 16.14-30. One of his conclusions (sorry to ruin it for those of you who haven't read the article) is that in papyri of this era (2nd-3rd centuries) omission is a more common scribal blunder (intentional or not) than addition.** So I thought P.Oxy XV.1781 would be good to discuss because it has a notable omission in Jn 16.23-24. It was also good for me to look into further because I have access to a copy of Oxyrhynchus Papyri XV and could look further into what was going on. Note I'm using a pseudo-uncial (that is, all-caps) style here; Greenfell & Hunt are all lower-case. Brackets are from Greenfell & Hunt:

[P.Oxy XV.1781 lines 34-36, Jn 16.23-24]
...
ΑΝ ΤΙ ΑΙΤΗ[Σ]ΗΤΕ [ΤΟΝ ΠΡΑ ΔΩΣΕΙ ΥΜΕΙΝ
ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝ[Ο]ΜΑΤ[Ι ΜΟΥ ΑΙΤΕΙΤΕ ΚΑΙ
ΛΗΜΨΕΣΘΕ Ι[ΝΑ Η ΧΑΡΑ ΥΜΩΝ Η
...

Now, P.Oxy XV.1781 is corrected at the foot of the page. So someone recognized the issue and offered a correction on the bottom of the page. Here's that, which is slightly different (word-order wise) from NA27. Note that I can't assume the actual lines of the papyrus here, the line breaks are my own.

[P.Oxy XV.1781 Jn 16.23-24 (correction inline, bold text is added)]
...
ΑΝ ΤΙ ΑΙΤΗΣΗΤΕ ΤΟΝ ΠΡΑ ΔΩΣΕΙ ΥΜΕΙΝ
ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ ΕΩΣ ΑΡΤΙ ΟΥΚ
ΗΤΗΣΑΤΕ ΟΥΔΕΝ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ
ΑΙΤΕΙΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΛΗΜΨΕΣΘΕ ΙΝΑ Η ΧΑΡΑ ΥΜΩΝ Η
...

For comparison, the NA27 has the following. Note that text omitted from P.Oxy XV.1781 is bold in the below text.

[NA27, Jn 16.23-24]
... ΑΝ ΤΙ ΑΙΤΗΣΗΤΕ ΤΟΝ ΠΑTΕΡΑ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ ΔΩΣΕΙ ΥΜΙΝ ΕΩΣ ΑΡΤΙ ΟΥΚ ΗΤΗΣΑΤΕ ΟΥΔΕΝ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ ΑΙΤΕΙΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΛΗΜΨΕΣΘΕ ΙΝΑ Η ΧΑΡΑ ΥΜΩΝ Η ...

I should offer a disclaimer: I'm not a text critic, but I play on on the internet.*** I have zero training apart from reading the basics (Metzger, Aland & Aland, and some other stuff). But I understand the basic lingo.

Of this particular situation in P.Oxy XV.1781, Head writes:

This is most plausibly attributed to confusion caused by the repetition of ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ at either the beginning of successive lines in his exemplar (homoioarcton) or at the end of successive lines (homoeoteleuton). (Head, 404).

Head is a little more cautious than Greenfell & Hunt, who describe the error as:

The first sentence of verse 24, εως αρτι ... ονοματι μου, was originally omitted owing to homoeoteleuton. This mistake has been corrected at the foot of the page, where l. 35 has been rewritten in a smaller and probably different hand with the missing words incorporated. A symbol calling attention to the correction was presumably entered in the right-hand margin. (Greenfell and Hunt, 12)

So, the question I asked myself: Assuming the corrected version of P.Oxy XV.1781 reflects the exemplar, how could the scribe have made this mistake? Should be easy to find out. Let's make the second assumption that the error is due to homoeoteleuton (same ending of line), as Greenfell & Hunt suggest.

[P.Oxy XV.1781 Jn 16.23-24 (assumed exemplar w/homoeoteleuton)]
...
ΑΝ ΤΙ ΑΙΤΗΣΗΤΕ ΤΟΝ ΠΡΑ ΔΩΣΕΙ ΥΜΕΙΝ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ
ΕΩΣ ΑΡΤΙ ΟΥΚ ΗΤΗΣΑΤΕ ΟΥΔΕΝ ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ
ΑΙΤΕΙΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΛΗΜΨΕΣΘΕ ΙΝΑ Η ΧΑΡΑ ΥΜΩΝ Η
...

Here, the thought is that while the scribe was copying the end of the first line, his attention wandered to the identical text beneath it (which would line up better in the MS), and continued from there. Here is the same text, this time assuming homoioarcton (same beginning of line):

[P.Oxy XV.1781 Jn 16.23-24 (assumed exemplar w/homoioarcton)]
...
ΑΝ ΤΙ ΑΙΤΗΣΗΤΕ ΤΟΝ ΠΡΑ ΔΩΣΕΙ ΥΜΕΙΝ
ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ ΕΩΣ ΑΡΤΙ ΟΥΚ ΗΤΗΣΑΤΕ ΟΥΔΕΝ
ΕΝ ΤΩ ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ ΜΟΥ ΑΙΤΕΙΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΛΗΜΨΕΣΘΕ ΙΝΑ
Η ΧΑΡΑ ΥΜΩΝ Η ...

And here, the thought is that as the scribe began the new line, his attention wandered down to the identical text below and he continued from there.

But isn't it also possible the scribe skipped the line on purpose? Here's the text in the ESV with the omitted part in bold:

²³ In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. ²⁴ Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. (Jn 16.23-24)

To answer that question, I'd guess one would have to examine the rest of the omissions and see what their character was. As this is a fragment, that's hard to do. The other omissions and differences mentioned are nothing of that sort; this is the only significant textual issue. The most logical explanation for the missing text is the obvious one: the scribe accidentally skipped a line.

Well? Which one was it? Homoeoteleuton or Homoioarcton? Both are possible. I don't know which one it was; but that doesn't really matter now, does it? The cool thing is seeing how an inadvertent error such as this one happened. It also appears to represent the problem(s) of homoioarcton and homoeoteleuton fairly clearly, so if you didn't know those words before, now you can use them in conversation sometime today. (really, try it!) And it was fun to think through to boot.

Update (2005-07-13): In the comments, Dr. Carl Conrad points out that in talking about scribal errors, I've unwittingly committed one. A common blunder for those who type in Greek Beta Code, I had 'ΞΑΡΑ' instead of 'ΧΑΡΑ'. The above has been corrected. Thanks to Dr. Conrad for bringing it to my attention. That particular error is common enough that we really need to come up with a fancy Latin name for it.

Update II (2005-07-13): Eli Evans leaves a comment with a good point. I was imprecise in my language when questioning whether the omission was intentional. So, I've changed "the scribe skipped a line" to "the scribe accidentally skipped a line" to remove ambiguity.

* P.Oxy XV.1781. Let me demystify the abbreviations. 'P.Oxy' is the standard abbreviation denoting "Oxyrhynchus Papyri". The roman numerals represent a volume number. In this case, it's vol. XV, which was published in 1922. The '1781' is the papyrus number. This citation informs one to look up papyrus 1781 in volume 15 of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri volumes. Please be aware that, unfortunately, this one isn't on the Oxyrhynchus site. To confuse matters, this particular papyrus is also known as P⁵ in the context of New Testament textual criticism. So, in textual apparatuses like the NA27 or UBS4 editions, you'll see P⁵, not P.Oxy XV.1781.

** Significant because one of the basic rules of textual critics is, as I understand it, to "prefer the shorter reading". That is, many think scribes were more apt to add text to smooth things over, so the shorter reading (when a variant occurs) may therefore make more sense to consider. Head is saying that in papyri of this era, one cannot make that jump to the shorter reading; or at least not that easily. A preference for a shorter reading, if appropriate, must be justified on other grounds.

*** Flashbacks to American TV commercials in the 1980s (?). Scene: Guy staring into bathroom mirror, we see him waist-up from the back. Voiceover: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV ... " He then goes on to give medical advice, schlepping some pharmaceutical. That's how it went, as I recall. My recollection in such things has proven wrong in the past, however.

Now, I know Paul has some lengthy lists of vices (cf. Gal 5.19-21). But I just came across the following in Philo, Sacr. 32:

Know, then, my good friend, that if you become a votary of pleasure you will be all these things: a bold, cunning, audacious, unsociable, uncourteous, inhuman, lawless, savage, illtempered, unrestrainable, worthless man; deaf to advice, foolish, full of evil acts, unteachable, unjust, unfair, one who has no participation with others, one who cannot be trusted in his agreements, one with whom there is no peace, covetous, most lawless, unfriendly, homeless, cityless, seditious, faithless, disorderly, impious, unholy, unsettled, unstable, uninitiated, profane, polluted, indecent, destructive, murderous, illiberal, abrupt, brutal, slavish, cowardly, intemperate, irregular, disgraceful, shameful, doing and suffering all infamy, colourless, immoderate, unsatiable, insolent, conceited, self-willed, mean, envious, calumnious, quarrelsome, slanderous, greedy, deceitful, cheating, rash, ignorant, stupid, inharmonious, dishonest, disobedient, obstinate, tricky, swindling, insincere, suspicious, hated, absurd, difficult to detect, difficult to avoid, destructive, evil-minded, disproportionate, an unreasonable chatterer, a proser, a gossip, a vain babbler, a flatterer, a fool, full of heavy sorrow, weak in bearing grief, trembling at every sound, inclined to delay, inconsiderate, improvident, impudent, neglectful of good, unprepared, ignorant of virtue, always in the wrong, erring, stumbling, ill-managed, ill-governed, a glutton, a captive, a spendthrift, easily yielding, most crafty, double-minded, double-tongued, perfidious, treacherous, unscrupulous, always unsuccessful, always in want, infirm of purpose, fickle, a wanderer, a follower of others, yielding to impulses, open to the attacks of enemies, mad, easily satisfied, fond of life, fond of vain glory, passionate, ill-tempered, lazy, a procrastinator, suspected, incurable, full of evil jealousies, despairing, full of tears, rejoicing in evil, frantic, beside yourself, without any steady character, contriving evil, eager for disgraceful gain, selfish, a willing slave, an eager enemy, a demagogue, a bad steward, stiffnecked, effeminate, outcast, confused, discarded, mocking, injurious, vain, full of unmitigated unalloyed misery.*

Whoa. There are some gems in there. I think I sense fodder for a "Philo Insult Generator" much along the same lines of the famous Shakespearean Insult Generator. Implementations of the Shakespeare generator abound; the linked version is the least junky-looking based on the few I poked at.

* Philo, Sacr. 32. From Yonge, C. D. (1996, c1993). The works of Philo complete and unabridged. Peabody: Hendrickson. p. 98.

I've just read Michael Wade Martin's Summer 2005 JBL article Defending the "Western Non-Interpolations": The Case for an Anti-Separationist Tendenz in the Longer Alexandrian Readings. Don't worry, I'm not going to comment on the article.

But reading the article did bring up a question in my mind: What were copyists/scribes thinking? We've got manuscripts that are mostly the same, but have differences. Some differences can be ascribed to error (e.g. dittography). Other differences have to be intentional. And here, I'm thinking of the intentional differences.

I'm curious of the mechanics of interpolation or omission. Let's say there is a scribe in the middle of the second century. He's copying a gospel manuscript. What sorts of things cause him to make the decision to add or omit content? And then how does he go about actually adding or removing such content?

If he's adding content, does he just make it up as he goes along, adding bits here and there as he sees fit? Does he mark up his exemplar and then copy from the marked-up version? (and could such marking-up be one of the sources of marginal or inter-linear scribal 'correction' we see on extant manuscripts?) Could he simply be integrating 'corrections' made by a previous scribe or scribes into the text flow?

I'm sure the answer to all of the above questions something like, "yes, sometimes". If anyone has any references (online or print) to share on how scribes/copyists of NT manuscripts did their thing* -- the mechanics of the process -- please feel free to post a comment with a pointer or send me an email. Thanks!

Another question, perhaps more difficult to answer: If scribes made changes to early manuscripts to address particular controversies (as some claim) this sort of action seems to implicitly acknowledge that the NT documents were appealed to as authoritative in such circumstances/contexts. Yet scribes/copyists still (apparently) felt some freedom to enhance the authority to which both sides of the argument appealed. Why is that? How could the documents that would become the New Testament be at the same time authoritative yet in need of enhancement?

OK, I'm done for now. Move along, nothing to see here.

Update (2005-07-12): Wieland Willker responds with some citations from a Maurice Robinson article:

• James R. Royse, "The Treatment of Scribal Leaps in Metzger's Textual Commentary," NTSt 29 (1983) 539-551.
• ———, "Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament," in Ehrman and Holmes, Text of the NT, 239-252.
• ———, "Scribal Habits in the Transmission of New Testament Texts," in Wendy D. O'Flaherty, ed., The Critical Study of Sacred Texts (Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union, 1979) 139-161.
• Peter M. Head, "Observations on Early Papyri of the Synoptic Gospels, especially on the 'Scribal Habits,'" Biblica 71 (1990) 240-243.
• ———, "Re-Inking the Pen: Evidence from P. Oxy. 657 (P13) concerning Unintentional Scribal Errors," NTSt 43 (1997) 466-73.
• Maurice A. Robinson, "Scribal Habits among Manuscripts of the Apocalypse" (PhD Diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1982).

Next I'll have to locate some of them. The Royse essays sound most interesting (based solely on title). If anyone else has read these and can make recommendations, please feel free to do so.

Wieland also pointed me to an article in Biblica (which I didn't know was online, but that's my fault) by Peter M. Head: The Habits of New Testament Copyists: Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John. This is available as HTML and PDF.

Thanks for the info, Wieland!

* I'm already on the hunt for Ernest Cadman Colwell's essay "Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text" (from Bible in Modern Scholarship: Papers read at the 100th meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, 1965). Abebooks (how could I live without them!) has several copies priced at $15 and under.

While we're on the topic of morphological editions of non-canonical Greek texts (see below post), check this out:

• The Apostolic Fathers in Greek and English (3 Editions, with Morphology)

I'm so excited about this one! I've been lobbying internally for a morph edition of the Apostolic Fathers in Greek for awhile, and I just couldn't keep quiet any longer. We'll do it if we get the interest, so tell your friends & neighbors!

Update (2005-07-09): The illustrious James Tauber posts a comment asking about the source of the morphological analysis for both Philo and the Apostolic Fathers -- wondering if we're using existing analyses or doing our own. The short answer is "yes". The long answer is below.

For the Philo project, we contacted the Norwegian Philo Concordance Project.* We've entered into an agreement to use their database (thanks, guys!) as a basis for this resource. Their database is morphologically analyzed and lemmatized. It also has casing information, punctuation, citation milestones and some text-critical markers (similar to brackets/double-brackets in NA27/UBS4), among other things. We're converting the database into a running text (that's my job, you can see some advance pics  in the screen shots on the bottom of Logos' Philo Page) so that it will be readable, searchable and usable within the LDLS.

The primary contributors to the Philo Concordance Project -- Peder Borgen, Roald Skartsen and Kåre Fuglseth (and perhaps others of whom I am unaware; no slight is intended) -- have done a tremendous amount of work on this project for several years, and should be thanked for their effort and contribution. We're happy to be working with them.

The Apostolic Fathers project is a bit different. We are starting fresh. The Greek text(s) will be mechanically analyzed. This analysis will then be revised/corrected by scholars with whom Logos has established working relationships** to do this sort of work.

That's about all the detail I can give, but it should be sufficient to answer the question.

Update II (2005-07-10): Stephen C. Carlson (Hypotyposeis) blogs about the Apostolic Fathers and mentions this post as well as a previous blog entry of his that I commented on. For the record: My copy of Loeb Apostolic Fathers vol I by Ehrman bit the dust as well. That is, about 9 months ago, it slipped off of my book-laden kitchen table, and when it hit the floor (less than a 3 foot drop) the binding promptly split from the book cover. I've been handling vol II with kid gloves ever since, like it's incunabula or something, to ensure it stays intact. Hopefully the quality control folk at Harvard University Press have already addressed this issue -- I'm leery of purchasing any more Loeb vols (and there are a few I have my eyes on; I'll likely blog about that later) because I don't want them to fall apart on me.

Update III (2005-07-12): Hoo-yah! The Logos pre-publication page says that the Apostolic Fathers project is "Under Development". That means we've received enough initial interest to begin the project! Thanks, folks. This one's gonna be fun to do. And make sure to spread the word to folks that you think might be interested.

* If you've been working on morphologically analyzed original language corpora in the area of Biblical studies; or early versions; or church fathers; or inscriptions; or material in cognate languages; or heretofore unavailable manuscript transcriptions; or other stuff dealing with languages important to Biblical studies such as Syriac, Aramaic, Akkadian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Greek, Hebrew, Latin or whatever and have thought, "Gee, this stuff would be way cool if it was available in Logos Bible Software" ... well, we want to talk with you. I can't promise anything, but it's always good to dialog about this stuff and then see what happens. If you want some further information, send me an email (address is in the sidebar) with details about your project (or database, or whatever) and I'll direct it to the folks you need to deal with.

** If you're a well-qualified scholar, have never met a verb you couldn't parse and are interested in this sort of work -- we also want to talk with you. Again, I can't promise anything at all. But if you have interest, send me an email (again, the address is on the sidebar) with your qualifications and language education/skills, and I'll forward it along to the folks at Logos who need to be made aware of your interest.

Over the past few days I spent some time looking at 2Co 10.1-6. The ESV is below; note the bold portions:

I, Paul, myself entreat you, by the meekness and gentleness of Christ—I who am humble when face to face with you, but bold toward you when I am away!—I beg of you that when I am present I may not have to show boldness with such confidence as I count on showing against some who suspect us of walking according to the flesh. For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2Co 10.1-6, ESV)

There's a lot going on here, and I won't mention everything I looked into when I reviewed the passage. But one interesting aspect was Paul's use of the phrase “to destroy strongholds”. The “strongholds” Paul is speaking of are in the realm of ideas — arguments and philosophies that war against the “knowledge of God”. Any of these sorts of arguments or opinions that are contrary to the “knowledge of God” will, Paul says, be destroyed.

Anyway, the Greek phrase translated “to destroy strongholds” is πρὸς καθαίρεσιν ὀχυρωμάτων. Apart from the preposition, these are uncommon words in the NT. ὀχύρωμα (“stronghold”) only occurs here in the NT. καθαίρεσις (“destroy/destruction”) occurs three times in the NT, and all three of these are in 2 Corinthians (here, 2Co 10.8 and 2Co 13.10). The translation “to destroy” is the similar verb καθαιρέω (occurs 9x in NT, only here in 2Cor)

Got it?

Now, check out Philo,* Conf. Ling. §§129-130:

¹²⁹ And the name is, as the Hebrews say, Phanuel, which translated into our language means, “turning away from God.” For any strong building which is erected by means of plausible arguments is not built for the sake of any other object except that of averting and alienating the mind from the honour due to God, than which object what can be more iniquitous? ¹³⁰ But for the destruction of this strong fortification a ravager and an enemy of iniquity is prepared who is always full of hostility towards it; whom the Hebrews call Gideon: which name being interpreted means, “a retreat for robbers.” “For,” says Moses, “Gideon swore to the men of Phanuel, saying, On the day when I return victorious in peace, I will overthrow this tower.”

Paul and Philo are using the same language. The “strong building/fortification” are both ὀχύρωμα. The word translated “destruction” is καθαίρεσις. In both passages, the “strong building/fortification/stronghold” refers not to a physical building, but instead to ideas that war against God. These strongholds will be destroyed.

Now, for the question: How did I find this? Simple. Conf. Ling. §§129-130 is listed as a citation in the BDAG article for ὀχύρωμα. I just hovered over the reference in the LDLS edition and the English of Yonge's edition popped up (you may need to adjust your keylink preferences for Philo). I guessed on the English based on what BDAG implied the Greek would be. Then, when I got to the office, I looked it up in the Greek edition that we're working on and confirmed the presence of the words in question and their translations in Yonge.

* Remember, The Works of Philo: Greek Text with Morphology is under production as a Logos Bible Software resource ... don't be the last one on your block to get a copy!

While surfing the web last night looking for information on the "Bulletin of the Bezan Club" (from a citation in a footnote in Vööbus' Early Versions), I stumbled across Cambridge's web site for the SNTS.

Cambridge have long published the Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series (SNTS). This page has a complete list of the series along with information on each of the titles. Several of the books have extended excerpts as well.

I was unaware that there was a complete listing, sortable by title, author or volume number. Additionally, several of the book have extended sample excerpts. For example, Maurice Casey's book, Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (a subject of discussion on Ralph the Sacred River as of late) has an 82 page PDF (the front matter plus the first 72 pages). Not all excerpts are as extensive, but the feature is a good one. Check it all out. 

I still don't know anything about the Bulletin of the Bezan Club; maybe I'll find out about that later.

Update (2005-07-09): Thanks to Pete for his comment with further info on the Bulletin. He informs us that Bulletin of the Bezan Club was 12 volumes, published in Leiden from 1926-37. Now I know.

So, one of the newer features in the Libronix Digital Library System (the platform that runs Logos Bible Software) is the "Find" feature. It works pretty much like CTRL+F in either IE or FireFox. You hit CTRL+F, you type in your word or substring, you hit enter. Then you find it.

This is different than doing a concordance-style search. The "find" just starts at the current point in the resource and searches forward, looking for the next string match.

Just used it for the first time ever. Found exactly what I was looking for. Very cool.

Update (2005-07-07): Checked the beta release notes, this feature was added in March with the release of 2.2 Alpha 19. The release note says:

• Added Incremental Find feature (Find-As-You-Type) to the Edit > Find dialog. This feature works in LLS Resources, OEB Resources, and Reports.

Mark Goodacre (NT Gateway Weblog) responds to a question on deinde from Danny Zacharias regarding Scripture indexing of books.

Danny, if you're using Word (or some other word processor) to edit the sorted data exported from Excel, you can try your hand at MSWord's "wildcard" matching to turn "Ge{tab}1{tab}1-3" into "Ge 1.1-3". You can use metacharacters like '^t' to match invisible stuff like tabs, and replace everything at once instead of the tedious hand-hacking of the lines. I just played around with this and forgot how much I dislike Word's "Wildcard" or "Pattern Matching" capability. Anyway, if you search the help for "wildcard" you'll find some scant documentation, but assuming input like:

Ge{tab}1{tab}1-3
Ge{tab}2{tab}3

Where {tab} is an actual tab character. Assuming that, you can get text like:

Ge 1:1-3
Ge 2:3

With "wildcards" like this and the "Use Wildcards" box checked:

Find What: (<[a-zA-Z0-9 ]@>)^t([0-9]@)^t([0-9-]@)^13
Replace With: \1 \2:\3^p

This assumes that the second field only ever contains numbers, and the third field is only ever numbers and the '-' character. You may need to modify if your data has other requirements.

With all of that said time for the tangent/self-promotion:

Over on my single-topic blog PastoralEpistles.com, I just wrote some code that evaluates posts for cited references (hyperlink text to an online edition of the ESV at ESV.org) and generated a sorted reference index. Reference indexes are handy things, to be able to jump into blog posts (and other things like bibliography entries) based on a Scripture reference can, at times, be even handier.

On the post entry side of things, I've made it very easy to "tag" these sorts of references (i.e. {esv|1Ti 3.1-7} does this: 1Ti 3.1-7). The indexing code searches through posts, looks for particular sorts of tags that indicate a tagged reference of some sort, and compiles a list. There's more to it — one has to account for alternate forms of canonical book names in some manner. Once the list is generated, it is sorted according to a sort key (numeric string generated for sorting purposes based on the reference itself) and saved as an XML file on the server. When the index is displayed, the XML is converted into HTML and dumped to the screen in the site template. 

You can see it on the Bible Index page at PastoralEpistles.com. I see I have a small problem with the entry for 1Ti 3.1-7 duplicated; I'll have to look into that. Not quite sure what would cause that ...