For reasons I've yet to fathom, I was granted a sneak-peak at a book to be published by Baylor University Press as part of their Fall 2005 offerings. The book is by Bruce W. Longenecker: Rhetoric at the Boundaries: The Art and Theology of the New Testament Chain-Link Transitions. Here's the blurb from the Baylor University Press site:

In Rhetoric at the Boundaries, Bruce W. Longenecker explores the way in which New Testament authors used an ancient rhetorical device to effect smooth transitions, both large and small. His study demonstrates how recognition of this rhetorical technique proves decisive for New Testament interpretation. Longenecker accomplishes this by examining the evidence for chain-link interlocks in a variety of ancient sources, including the Hebrew scriptures, Jewish and Roman authors of the Graeco-Roman world, and the Graeco-Roman rhetoricians. He then applies the results of the survey to fifteen problematic passages of the New Testament. In each case, Longenecker establishes the presence of chain-link interlock and highlights the structural, literary, and theological significance of the rhetorical device for New Testament interpretation.

I'm not through the book yet (nearly, but not quite) but I couldn't hold off writing about it anymore. I've learned a lot I hadn't considered in the past, specifically dealing with transitions between major and minor sections of text. I've only had one year of formal instruction in classical (Attic) Greek, the rest has sort of come along through reading references and trying to read Greek, so I've a lot to learn. Longenecker's book has helped me greatly in thinking about how sections transition from one to another.

I should also say: If you've only had a little bit of Greek and find running Greek text in books a daunting prospect, then the good news is that Longenecker has both Greek text and translation for most of his examples (both NT and other examples).

In the first section of his book, Longenecker actually takes the time to explain some different sorts of transitions that one comes across in Greek text of the New Testament period. He examines excerpts of Quintillian and of Lucian of Samosata, showing that the "chain-link" transition is something that was accepted rhetorical style of this period. He examines other non-canonical sources to establish that this transition style was used in different genres and by different writers.

He then applies his focus to the New Testament, and this is the most interesting part, at least to me. Longenecker identifies and elaborates upon several instances of the chain-link transition in various NT books and shows how they have been mis-identified and (in several instances) mishandled by most previous interpreters. These worked examples (for Romans, Gospel of John, the Apocalypse, and Acts) provide a good basis for understanding this type of structure.

Longenecker only examines a subset of potential links of this type, but he lays the proper foundation for identification and examination of these sorts of things. Looking back, I wish I'd read this before I started Ray Van Neste's Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles, because Van Neste spends a lot of time examining transitions (the "boundaries" in Longenecker's title) for cohesion between sections. And there are times where Van Neste identifies chain-link transitions without calling them by that label.

If you're into discourse analysis, rhetoric, studies of textual cohesion, studies having to do with redaction criticism, or just working your way through the Greek text of a particular NT book, then you should consider reading Longenecker's work.

Update (2005-08-24): First off, thanks for the link, Wayne! Secondly, in the comments, John Kendall mentions George Guthrie's The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis. I should say that Longenecker favorably mentions and interacts with this title from Guthrie. Ray Van Neste interacts with Guthrie's work as well. So I'd just recently put Guthrie on my to-buy list. The confirmation from John seals the deal.

Last week, Mark Goodacre posted a link to papers being presented at the British New Testament Conference.

I browsed around the site, and one paper in particular (being presented in the Social World of the NT Seminar) caught my eye:

Peter Head (Tyndale House, Cambridge) Letter Carriers in Personal Letters among the Papyri and Pauline epistolary communication strategy.

The paper is available on the web site (second paper in the second session), so I downloaded it and just finished reading it over my lunch hour. It almost makes me want to hop a plane, fake an accent, and see if I can bluff my way into the session.

Seriously, it'll be interesting to see how Head's research progresses. As Timothy and Titus both were likely carriers of Paul's letters, I'm interested in seeing what sorts of conclusions can be made about the role of trusted letter carriers.

[Note: I've blogged about First Corinthians 13.1-3 and 13.4-7. This post is the third (and final) in that series.]

I've spent the last week or so meditating on this particular portion of Scripture, 1Co 13.8-13. I'm still in awe when I read it or look at it.

I think there are a few different parts within the larger section of 1Co 13.8-13. I'll discuss each of these sections. Recall the end of the previous section, though: "Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." Most translations place a paragraph break here. And the following text is:

Ἡ ἀγάπη οὐδέποτε πίπτει·
εἴτε δὲ προφητεῖαι, καταργηθήσονται·
εἴτε γλῶσσαι, παύσονται·
εἴτε γνῶσις, καταργηθήσεται.

Paul sets up a contrast here between love, which never ends/fails, and things that "pass away" or are destroyed:

Love never ends
as for prophecies, they will pass away
as for tongues, they will cease
as for knowledge, it will pass away

Love endures, while the other things Paul has been discussing do not. Then Paul continues:

ἐκ μέρους γὰρ γινώσκομεν
καὶ ἐκ μέρους προφητεύομεν·
ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ τὸ τέλειον,
     τὸ ἐκ μέρους καταργηθήσεται.

I love the alliteration in the ESV's translation here:

For we know in part
and we prophesy in part;
but when the perfect comes,
     the partial will pass away.

A few things to notice. First, the reiteration of "know in part" (knowledge will pass away) and "prophesy in part" (prophecies will pass away) and the repetition of this "partial" stuff passing away. Also interesting to me is the "perfect" (completion, fulfilment) replacing the "partial". The natural contrast would be "whole" to "partial", I'd think. But that's not the case here.

Now, I haven't read any commentaries on this passage, I'm just considering the words, phrases and larger connections and working through the text, making conclusions that seem appropriate to me based on the current context. I need to make sure you know this before I get to the next section. I don't think I'm "off the reservation" but I don't know how others approach this passage. So I don't know how novel this next bit will be.

I think the next two "sections" (as I call them) are attempts at examples of how the stuff of the now — the partial — will be superceded by the perfect. I also think that the perfect refers to when Christ returns and sets all things right in the world. Until that blessed and glorious day arrives, love (as described in 1Co 13.4-7) is to be the primary motive for our actions as Christians. Now, before you decide that I'm wacky (or that I'm onto something) consider the next section:

ὅτε ἤμην νήπιος,
     ἐλάλουν ὡς νήπιος,
     ἐφρόνουν ὡς νήπιος,
     ἐλογιζόμην ὡς νήπιος·
ὅτε γέγονα ἀνήρ,
     κατήργηκα τὰ τοῦ νηπίου.

And, in the ESV:

When I was a child
     I spoke like a child,
     I thought like a child,
     I reasoned like a child;
When I became a man
     I gave up childish ways.

Consider that in light of the partial/perfect theme from before. The child (partial) has his own ways. Ways of speaking, thinking and reasoning. When the child becomes an adult, those former ways of speaking, thinking and reasoning are outmoded. The adult is the completion/fulfilment of the child, thus the adult — while the childish ways served him well as a child — has moved on to the ways of the adult.

I think a similar contrast occurs in the first part of the next section; and a restatement of the partial/perfect theme occurs in the second part of the section. Paul is really doing his best to drive this point home.

βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾽ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι,
     τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους,
     τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι
          καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

And again, the ESV:

For now we see in a mirror dimly,
     but then face to face.
Now I know in part;
     but then I shall know fully
          even as I have been fully known.

What we see in a mirror, when we look into it, is only a two-dimensional reflection of what is three-dimensional reality. That's the difference between what we can see now, and what we will see then. We have foreshadowing, to be sure, but it is at best a smudged mirror compared to the clarity with which we will witness whatever it is that is in store for us on that great and blessed day.

Then Paul sums it up, restating vv. 9-10. What he knows now is only partial, what he will know then (when the partial has been made perfect, or completed) will be full — in much the same way that the perfect God now knows us fully.

Finally, Paul ends the section with:

Νυνὶ δὲ μένει πίστις, ἐλπίς, ἀγάπη, 
     τὰ τρία ταῦτα·
μείζων δὲ τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη.

Again, in the ESV:

So now faith, hope and love abide,
     these three;
but the greatest of these is love.

How is love greater than faith and hope? I think faith and hope are necessary to us today because our knowledge and understanding are only partial. If our knowledge was made complete, if our understanding was such that we knew the very mind of God; faith and hope wouldn't be necessary. We need faith and hope now until we see the fulfilment/completion/perfection of those last days, of Christ's return. We need them strongly, and thanks be to God for giving them to us through the Holy Spirit.

We have, however, been shown the fulfilment of love. Christ died for us. He underwent the ultimate penalty of death and seperation from the Father so that we might be forgiven and saved. He did this of his own will, of his own accord, because he loved (and loves) us.

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Ro 5.6-8)

This is love. This is the greatest thing. And it is the more excellent way—by far. (cf. 1Co 12.27-31)

Update (2005-08-22): Stephen C. Carlson (Hypotyposeis) writes in the comments responding to my 3D vs 2D mirror analogy:

That's definitely true, but not, I think, Paul's reason for the analogy. Think of mirror technology in antiquity, especially how most mirrors were made of highly polished disks of bronze amd how dim your reflection looks in those...

I read something similar in the NIGTC volume on First Corinthians (read the commentary after I wrote the post). Apparently Corinth was also somewhat reknowned for their bronze mirrors (Thiselton, NIGTC 1Cor p. 1068). And that does account for the use of 'dimly', and more probably reflects (pun intended) what Paul was thinking when he wrote the lines. I was thinking more on how to make sense of the mirror image looking at the same words from the 20th century. And the underlying contrast is still the same — the mirror in some manner reflects what is real, but it is most certainly not real. Some aspects of the real (or complete, or 'perfect') are revealed, but other aspects are concealed and even obscured. When the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. We'll have no need of mirrors or reflections or reconstructions based on partially known things.

Folks —

I've updated the blogging software I use (dasBlog) to version 1.8.

I think things are stable. I don't know that y'all will see much on the outside apart from PermaLinks that are based on post date and title instead of mondo-long GUID strings.

Please let me know if you happen across problems or strange things; email (as always) is in the sidebar.

 — The Management

[I blogged on 1Co 13.1-3 awhile back, this post can be seen as a continuation of that one. I'm sure I'll have at least one more post on the chapter. And this post is going to be tough for me because I really want to blog on 1Co 13.8-13, but I need to do this section on 1Co 13.4-7 first.]

I've been meditating on 1Co 13 for awhile now. No, not "meditating" as you think some mountain-top-sitting guru from some eastern religion would meditate. What I mean is that it has been at the forefront of my thoughts for awhile. I've been working on memorizing the chapter and I think I have it down. As I review the chapter to memorize, I stop and think about the chapter or the portion I'm reviewing. I run over the text aloud while I'm driving to or from work, or to or from Amy's house.

Anyway, recall that the thrust of 1Co 13.1-3 is that without love as motive for actions, the actions are worthless. They are nothing. We can exercise the gifts we have been given, but if we aren't acting out of love, the effort is wasted. We can stand as martyrs, we can give everything to charity or the poor, but the action is empty and vain if it isn't grounded in love.

That's a provocative thought, but it really does make one ask: "So, then, what is love?"

And that's the question Paul now attempts to answer. The problem is that the answer isn't quantitative. All Paul can do to define love is to describe how one who acts with love as a motive actually acts. So this is what he does. Again, the ESV formats this as plain paragraph text, it doesn't format it as poetry. And that's a shame, because when it is presented as poetry, one stops to read and looks for connections. And those connections are what we need to properly understand the text. If we read this chapter (and this section) as prose, we're missing something we need to understand.

Here is 1Co 13.4-7 in a rather wooden/literal translation because I want to point towards the Greek, which I'll discuss later. The parens indicate implicit words/context that I'm simply making explicit.

Love is patient,
love is kind,
love does not envy,
(love does) not boast,
(love is) not proud,
(love is) not disgraceful,
(love does) not desire its own (way),
(love is) not provoked,
(love does) not reckon the wrong,
(love does) not rejoice at unrighteousness
but (love) rejoices with the truth:

(love) bears all things,
(love) believes all things,
(love) hopes all things,
(love) endures all things.

Now isn't that much more clear? Paul shows us the sorts of things one does (or doesn't do) when one acts in love. This list makes me feel rather guilty. I can, without too much effort, think of times where I've been impatient with others, or unkind. Or when I've acted with envy as a motive. Or where I've combined boasting and pride into a single conversation to make myself feel better and make the person I was conversing with feel small.

Paul says that when I do such things, I'm not acting in love. When I'm acting like that, based on what Paul is teaching here (cf. v. 2 earlier) I'm nothing. And, of course, he's right.

The one on the list that really gets me, though, is that "love does not desire its own way". The ESV translates that as "it does not insist on its own way". If someone else's needs are to be more important to me than my own, how can I elevate my desires above their needs? I can't if I am acting in love. I've screwed that up countless times.

Imagine if you were in the Corinthian fellowship when this letter was received, and when it was being read to the community for the very first time. This poetic list goes on and on. Even if you weren't paying full attention (as a friend of mine used to put it, you were in church but in your mind you were "scoring touchdowns", daydreaming) you would most likely hear this bit about love and what it is not. And you'd hear something in that list (at least one thing, I'd gather) that would jolt you out of complacency and make you think.

This is what you'd hear. And I'd like to recommend that if you know a little Greek and can pronounce the words to some degree, that you work through it and read it aloud, paying attention to the syllables per line, even the bracketed text that NA/UBS list as disputed (thanks to my new friend Ulrik for this suggestion):

Ἡ ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ,
χρηστεύεται ἡ ἀγάπη,
οὐ ζηλοῖ, [ἡ ἀγάπη]
οὐ περπερεύεται,
οὐ φυσιοῦται,
οὐκ ἀσχημονεῖ,
οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς,
οὐ παροξύνεται,
οὐ λογίζεται τὸ κακόν,
οὐ χαίρει ἐπὶ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ,
συγχαίρει δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ·

πάντα στέγει,
πάντα πιστεύει,
πάντα ἐλπίζει,
πάντα ὑπομένει.

I don't even need to make any of that text bold for you to see the repeated elements. In addition to the syllables, though, did you notice the ending sound of almost all of those lines (again, including the bracketed text)? It's beautiful, isn't it?

In addition to working through what love is not, Paul makes four statements at the end of this section regarding what love does. These are complete and leave no exceptions. Sure, you might say that the point is rhetorical and Paul can't actually mean "all" here. But if he didn't why would he repeat it? (Hint: if you say "emphasis", that's a cop-out. Why would Paul want to 'emphasize' it if he didn't really mean it?).

I've run too long, and it's getting late. I'm going to leave it here. Hey, it's my blog, I can do that!

I'll start in again on 1Co 13.8-13, though that section may go long. It's such a cool piece of writing. Hopefully I can get to it in the next week.

So, I was poking around Flickr last night, and for fun typed in the word "polycarp" to see what was what.

And there it was for the world to see. I stumbled onto AKMA's secret passion: Early Church History in Legos.

OK, so it isn't really secret (he blogged about it a few times in June, search his blog for 'lego' to find more) but still — pretty cool!

• Here are his pics for Polycarp (6 pics)
• Here are his pics for Ignatius (2 pics)

I think this one is my favorite. A lego pope! Who knew? And check out the relics in the treasure chest behind him!

I was all set to be done blogging for the weekend, and then I heard that we (Logos Bible Software) went and made another announcement about work we're doing with Greek stuff.

Blass-Debrunner-Funk as a Logos Prepublication

The sooner you order, the sooner we can commence work and get another high-quality reference grammar into Logos Bible Software!

[Oh, and while I've got your attention -- a little bird told me that the Logos Bible Software version of the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC) is very close to shipping ... like, the disk is at or on its way to the replicators ... which means the pre-pub price will soon be a thing of the past, if you get my drift (nudge, nudge; wink, wink).]

[as I have a very busy weekend ahead of me (and most likely blog-free, at least until Sunday night), I thought it best to post this today, one day early]

It's true. One year ago (Friday, August 13, 2004) ricoblog went live on the internet to the world. Here's the very first post (I think!).

This past year has gone better than I expected. Last time I checked the ol' Site Meter, there had been over 22,000 visitors (and who knows how many pages actually served!) to my humble internet backwater. Then again, maybe that means I'm not really such a backwater anymore.

Anyway, thanks to all who visit. And thanks in particular to a few bibliobloggers who put up with my questions and even on occasion find something I post worth linking to. I'm thinking specifically of:

• Stephen C. Carlson of Hypotyposeis, who linked to ricoblog early and has encouraged me often.
• Mark Goodacre of the NT Gateway Weblog, who links frequently and is always complimentary and encouraging.
• Jim Davila of PaleoJudaica.com. I had the pleasure of meeting Jim in San Antonio and look forward to seeing him again in Philadelphia. I'm particularly jazzed to be presenting a paper in the same session with him, the CARG Biblioblogging session.

There are many I haven't mentioned; it would be tough to come up with a comprehensive list. But thanks for your encouragement nonetheless. I've learned a lot over the past year in my own areas of interest (NT Greek, Pastoral Epistles, Apostolic Fathers, Textual Criticism) and I think it can be directly correlated to the feedback and encouragement I get from the folks who read and interact with me through ricoblog. I can't say "thank you" enough.

Now, as seems typical for these sorts of posts, time for the retrospective!

[insert fanfare here]

Notable Posts of the Past Year

Favorite Post: Complutensian Polyglot Coolness. I had an entire series of posts on typography of early printings of the Greek New Testament. Click the "textual criticism" category, I think they're all listed in there.

Biggest News: New Project: PastoralEpistles.com. This soon morphed into a paper on biblioblogging that I'll present in November 2005 at the annual SBL meeting. I blogged about the latest title/abstract of the paper here: SBL Paper on Biblioblogging.

Most Popular Post: Balsamic Vinaigrette. Based on the frequency with which I see the search terms "balsamic" and "vinaigrette" show up in my referrals, this has got to be one of the most frequent search terms that brings folks to ricoblog. Come for the vinaigrette, stay for the musing! BTW, I still get compliments on this recipe from folks when they come over for dinner, so if you need a quick & easy salad dressing, this could be it.

Sentimental: The Scholarly Omnivore: Knowledge in the 21st Century. I've liked this one ever since I wrote it, so I just have to bring attention to it again.

If you have nominations, please feel free to leave them in the comments!

Epistle to Diognetus Posts

Finally, some of the longer-term ricoblog readers know that I've blogged off and on about the Epistle to Diognetus. I have two more chapters to blog about still, but now does seem like a good time to bring attention to the entire group of posts that I've written while superficially working my way through this work.

Maybe someday I'll write a book on it, and I'll look back here for inspiration ... and I'll conclude "what in the world was I thinking when I wrote that tripe?!!"

• Introduction
• Section 1
• Section 2
• Section 3
• Section 4
• Section 5
• Section 6
• Section 7a
• Section 7b
• Section 8
• Section 9
• Section 10

Update (2005-08-15): Thanks to all who have sent thier blog-iversary greetings to me, left a comment, or posted on their blog (Biblical Theology, NT Gateway Weblog, Hypotyposeis, and James Tauber's Weblog, at least that I've seen). It's been a fun year, and hopefully the upcoming year will be as fun if not more fun.