Hi folks.

I've recently posted an article on the Logos Bible Software Blog about using the Graphical Query Editor. If you have ever wondered, "Now what in the world would I ever use that for?" then maybe you should check it out.

If that article butters your bread, you might also be interested in this post: Thinking through 1Ti 3.7.

Until I figure out exactly what the relationship is between the new Logos blog and ricoblog, I'll probably post notes like this here when I post longer articles over on the Logos blog.

Hi folks.

I woke up this morning to find 243 trackbacks magically appear, all linking to the same place. In other words, trackback spam.

One the one hand, it's nice to know that I've reached a threshold where I'm an attractive trackback spam target. On the other hand, it's spam.

So I've disabled trackbacks. Again. Trackbacks are such a cool idea, I hate to do it — but I also hate to schlep diet pills.

In other news: Ricoblog passed the mark of 20,000 visitors sometime on Tuesday. Woo Hoo!

Hi folks.

Most of you know that I work for Logos Bible Software. Internally we've thrown around the idea of having a corporate blog for a few months now. We finally decided to give it a shot.

So head on over to the Logos Bible Software Blog and check it out. Put it on your aggregators. Post links on your blogs — tell the world! Not much is there now (and there will likely be introductory posts for a bit to introduce the "Logos Bloggers") but we hope that it will be a place where we can let our users know what's going on in an informal way.

As a result, I'll probably start to post the more Logos-oriented items over there instead of here at ricoblog. And if you have any suggestions for stuff that we should explore on the Logos Bible Software Blog, send me an email (email link is on sidebar).

Update (2005-08-02): Finally, we're out of the default template. I'm sure more will be changing, but the Logos Bible Software Blog looks significantly better. Phew.

As everyone should do time to time, I've been thinking about 1Co 13. I'm in the process of reading through the Pauline epistles in larger chunks (a couple of chapters at a time, though I repeat sections frequently) and this past week I was in the middle of First Corinthians. On Thursday, I found myself in chapter 13, and I just had to camp out there for awhile.

The first thing I learned is that one really needs to read chapters 12 and 13 together. The end of chapter 12 leads right into chapter 13. And when you hit chapter 13, here's what you find in the first three verses in the ESV:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels
but have not love
I am a noisy gong or clanging cymbal

And if I have prophetic powers and understand all mysteries and knowledge
and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains
but have not love
I am nothing

If I give away all I have
and if I deliver my body up to be burned
but have not love
I gain nothing

Now that's poetry. Let's check it out in the Greek (UBS4), and work with that:

Ἐὰν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαλῶ καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων,
ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω,
γέγονα χαλκὸς ἠχῶν ἢ κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον.

καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω προφητείαν καὶ εἰδῶ τὰ μυστήρια πάντα καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γνῶσιν
καὶ ἐὰν ἔχω πᾶσαν τὴν πίστιν ὥστε ὄρη μεθιστάναι,
ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω,
οὐθέν εἰμι.

κἂν ψωμίσω πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντά μου
καὶ ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ἵνα καυχήσωμαι,
ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω,
οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι.

You can start to see the structure a bit better now. Each verse (or 'stanza', that they match the NT versification is a happy coincidence) has three elements: The "If ... ", the "but ... " and the result. I'm sure that English Lit majors and poetry buffs have the terminology for such things down, but I really don't. I can spot it when it is obvious (like here, at least to me), but my terminology is surely incorrect. That's why I use the simple labels of "If ... ", "but ... " and result -- because even I can understand them.

The first verse only has one "If", regarding the use of the gift of tongues. In the other verses, the pattern is more evident: Two "ifs", one "but" and the result. The effect of all three verses is to consider one's actions and motives to arrive at a result. The pattern is basically:

If I do stuff
but have not love
I am [negative result]

In Greek, the pattern could be:

Ἐὰν / καὶ ἐὰν / κἂν [do stuff]
ἀγάπην δὲ μὴ ἔχω,
[negative result]

[For a few text-critical questions on this structure, see below]

What is the overall theme of 1Co 13.1-3? If my actions aren't fueled by love, then I am doing nothing. My actions have no effect and are useless.

And "love" here isn't some soft, touchy-feely warmness or goodwill that we feel toward others. It isn't the quality that situation ethicists proclaim to have as a motive when they're really justifying sin. It isn't love like that old Coca-Cola commercial, you know, where the "whole world" is singing in perfect harmony, running around on a grassy hill on a perfectly sunny day, with everyone all smiles and happy.

This love is the love of Christ and it is defined in 1Co 13.4-7. We are to practice the love that Jesus practiced when he offered himself up for us -- Sovereign God for sinful man. Paul is saying that we are to do the same here. He's just finished talking about the Lord's Supper (1Co 11.17-34), how we have fellowship with the body of Christ. He's just finished talking about spiritual gifts and how the church is like a body, a single unit, that works together with each part exercising different gifts in obedience and to the glory of God. 

Paul's point? I think it has something to do with keeping our focus on God. When we exercise the gifts we have been given (and we all have gifts so we need to exercise them regularly and frequently, cf. Ro 12 and 1Co 12) we must do so with our focus off of ourselves. For me, that means when I teach, or when I write, I can't be thinking or focusing on the benefits I receive from the preparation or the teaching. I need to focus on acting with the love of Christ to glorify God. God will use it for his purposes, not mine. And I need to be about his purposes, not mine.

Now, a few observations that didn't fit up above. These are questions I don't really have answers to, if you have thoughts please feel free to email me,  or comment on your own blog (with a trackback or notify me so I can add a link) or simply comment on this thread. Note that NA27 has no variants listed in either instance mentioned below. Where Tischendorf has variants, I've listed them below.

1. Why does the text have κἂν (crasis for καὶ ἐὰν) in the first line of the third verse? I understand that these are equivalent in meaning, but what would be the reason for having the crasis only once and the expanded form elsewhere? Wouldn't καὶ ἐὰν make more sense? Tischendorf (if I'm reading it correctly) notes that uncials A B and C each support the crasis, but Sinaiticus along with D E F G K and L (and some citations from the Fathers) support καὶ ἐὰν. Tischendorf actually goes with Sinaiticus, so he is at variance with UBS/NA. I'll grant that agreement between A and B is meaningful, but the variant doesn't make sense to me. It may be insightful to see where the word occurs on the line in each of the MSS -- could the MSS that support the crasis have had a scribe who used the crasis because the line was running short? Any thoughts?

2. Why does the text have οὐθέν εἰμι at the end of v. 2, but οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι at the end of v. 3? Again, I understand that these are equivalent, but is there a good reason for the different orthography? Does it have to do with the verbs the word occurs with? The two letters in question (theta and delta) sound very much alike and I'd think they could be easily confused, either in a scribe's head as he was copying the exemplar, or mis-heard if a text was copied based on an oral reading. Any ideas? FWIW, Tischendorf cites D* F G and K^sem as supporting οὐδὲν in v. 2. Sinaticus, along with A B C D^c and L support the NA27 reading; I can see why on uncial evidence one would agree with the NA/UBS reading. But does it make sense that a (seemingly needless) orthography difference would take place in text like this?

Update (2005-08-01): Cheers to Stephen C. Carlson (Hypotyposeis) for yet another very insightful answer via blog comment. Stephen, I can't thank you enough for putting up with my questions and giving a concise and informative response. I hadn't thought to examine the consistency of MSS as reported by Tischendorf for the other instances of καὶ ἐὰν. Someday, when I get my junior text-critic merit badge, you'll be one among others that I'll have to thank.

Update II (2005-08-02): I completely forgot, but I have a copy of Reuben Swanson's New Testament Greek Manuscripts for First Corinthians on my desk. Talk about the perfect resource to fully examine the problem. It addresses the have κἂν / καὶ ἐὰν issue and the οὐθέν / οὐδὲν issue. Short answer: Manuscripts are all over the place here. Some consolidate, some split. I don't have time to post more now, but perhaps I'll get to that tomorrow. 

If you've ever used a textual apparatus in a critical edition of an ancient text (e.g. NA27, UBS4, Rahlf's LXX, Vulgate, etc.) then you need to read Ed Cook's post, Latin for the Judgin'.

Now go on. Read it. Don't hang out here (I'm not going anywhere, really).

I'm unfamiliar with the routine/text. But the apparatus (and various statements/conclusions) are destined to become a biblioblogosphere classic.

Thanks, Ed.

"Peter Cook Seminar". I'm still laughing from that one!

 ... this is not me either. I pretty sure it's not my doppelganger, but I won't rule out "long-lost evil twin brother". It may, however, explain that German spam I've been receiving lately.

And this still isn't me. You know, just in case you thought it was.

(For context, check out this previous post.)

In other news, thanks to Brandon Wason of Novum Testamentum for adding the real ricoblog to his blogroll! And cheers to David Ritsema for doing the same!

Update (2005-07-28): David Ritsema says some nice things about me. Thanks for the enouragement, David! I don't know if I'd take on the mantle of "computer guru", but I sure like to munge text. On a side note, apparently dasBlog (the blogging software I use) automatically pings WordPress (the blogging software David uses) with a trackback when an article is linked. The trackback gets stored as a comment. Now that's cool!

In this week's Religion Bookline from Publishers Weekly (scroll down, look for pink text) they've got a preview of an upcoming review of a new title by Bart D. Ehrman. The book is titled Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why. The title is scheduled for release in November.

The "sneak peek" is:

In the absence of any original manuscripts of the books of the New Testament, how can we be sure that we're getting the intended words and meaning? Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC-Chapel Hill, has devoted his life to the study of such questions and here offers an engaging and fascinating look at the way scholars try to answer them. Part memoir, part history, and part critical study, he traces the development of the academic discipline called textual criticism, which uses external and internal evidence to evaluate and compare ancient manuscripts in order to find the best readings. Ehrman points out that scribes altered almost all of the manuscripts we now have. His absorbing story, fresh and lively prose, and seasoned insights into the challenges of recreating the texts of the New Testament ensure that readers might never read the Gospels or Paul's letters the same way again. (Nov.)

Sounds like fun reading, no? I'm curious to know what is meant by " ... scribes altered almost all of the manuscripts we now have." Surely scribes didn't copy perfectly, they made numerous inadvertent (and mostly inconsequential) errors. But is the contention that scribes willfully and purposely altered just about anything they produced?

Update (2006-01-12): I've been meaning to get back to this for awhile. Thanks to Pat for the comment below. I've since read comments (sorry, don't recall from where) that Ehrman wanted a different title for the book. Apparently the title sensationalizes a bit, though Ehrman seems to be staking out for himself a position of more frequent and intentional MS changes. Other textual critics I've read don't seem to take a similar line on the frequency of intentional changes. Or is my (admittedly unresearched) conception of Ehrman's position a result of the ensationalism and marketing hype and not reflective of his actual position?

For those anxiously anticipating the SBL CARG session on biblioblogging, I've updated my paper title/abstract. Here are the details:

Biblioblog Problems and Solutions: PastoralEpistles.com as a Sandbox

Biblioblogs have come to serve a valuable role in the academic community: they disseminate information throughout the academy while serving to humanize their authors. But the information produced by bibliobloggers, while searchable via Google and able to be displayed upon request, is locked in an environment that stores content as a sort of lowest common denominator. Salient bits of information, ranging from discussions of particular Biblical passages to impromptu book reviews, are unable to be easily retrieved unless one happens to fortuitously stumble upon them. Most biblioblog content is first-rate, but the blogging software that typically generates and archives the content could be better.

This paper further defines these “lowest common denominator” problems and explores methodology used by PastoralEpistles.com to address them.

As usual, this may change somewhat but as the bulk of the paper has been written and (lightly) revised already, I don't see much change happening with the abstract.

For more information, see Jim Davila's abstract, a previous post from me and Mark Goodacre's roundup of session information.