A few days ago, I wrote a post called Context is Everything.

I was thinking further along those lines, that part of "everything" is perspective.

I have no idea why, but earlier today I was recalling what was perhaps one of the most embarrassing moments in my life (to date). It happened right before I was graduated from high school. It was before the commencement ceremony, and our principal was giving his by now standard speech to the assembled graduates before the big ceremony began.

He asked us if anyone knew what it meant "to commence". Eager and somewhat proud, I fell into his trap. Hey, I was smart and I knew it. But I honestly didn't know the formal definition of the word. I deduced it from context.

"Mr. Parker, it means 'to end', right?"

I was so embarrased when I found out it meant the exact opposite. But from my own perspective, the commencement ceremony was all about ending. I'd given twelve good years of service to the Oak Harbor School District, my time was up. I was getting out. It was over. Time to move on.

And I dare say anyone attempting to derive the meaning of the word "commencement" or "commence" based on studies of these assemblies across the country — otherwise uniformed about the meaning of the word — might end up making the same mistake I did. They could have all of the data in the world. Fragments of programs saved from time capsules at high schools across the country. Oral histories from five generations removed telling the story of how school ended with "commencement" day.

But none of this changes the fact that "to commence" means to begin or to start.

I wonder how many times I make the same mistake in exegesis, deducing an obvious-but-wrong meaning of a word, or similarly erroneous intent of a phrase. It makes me realize that I need to be a bit more diligent about understanding the background and setting of the specific books of the Bible. That I need to know more about theories of authorship and circumstances of writing. And, most importantly, I need to be better about tracking who is saying what to whom in epistles, narrative and dialogue. And the relationships between those people. This sort of knowledge helps keep perspective in mind, and this will assist in proper exegesis of the Bible.

And that's the goal, isn't it?

Update (2005-09-01): Cheers to Mike Sangrey at Exegetitor for picking up this thread and working it out in more detail. Regarding what Mike says about what I called theories of authorship above, in my defense I confess to myopia. I'm stuck in the Pastoral Epistles where one's theory of authorship, I'd argue, has at least some effect on how the text is understood.

As a result of my last post, I received an email from Paul Nikkel who posts at deinde.org. He pointed me to a recent post of his that I wanted to highlight here. Specifically:

Earlier this spring there was discussion about an open access repository for self-archiving scholarly work as well as placing available online articles. I noted at the time that we were working towards just this idea here and the implementation was imminent. Unfortunately the events of summer got in the way and only recently have we moved things forward again. At this point everything is in place and Danny has been poking around a bit behind scenes to make sure things are working. What we need now are some "beta" testers to not only play around with the system but also to give us suggestions on the way the submission process works, category framework, group organization etc. (and of course any bugs). If you are interested in helping us out please send an email to admin deinde org (fill in the blanks with @ and . ) and we'll set up a user account for you. We really need some help on this and would really appreciate anyone who can spare a little time and bother.

This resonates with me because it actually involves applying some of these thoughts that have been flitting about the biblioblogosphere. Whether it is a success or not, something will be learned in the venture.

I'm reminded of an episode of The Simpsons. You know, the one where Homer has laser surgery done on his eyes? Here's the script:

Optometrist: Maybe you're a candidate for laser eye surgery.
Homer: Will it get me out of having to choose glasses?
Optometrist: Well, yes, but I must warn you it's an experimental procedure and we still don't know the long-term effe—
Homer:  [finds the laser and aims it at his eyes] Less yappin', more zappin'!

Let the zapping commence.

The meme-o'-the-week seems to be something going by the name of "Open Scholarship" or, alternately, "Open Biblical Studies"; and it is somehow (I'm not sure how yet; they seem to be completely different to me) tied to the open source movement.

Some recent posts are:

• Ed Cook, Open Source Studies: A Question (Ralph the Sacred River)
• Tim Bulkeley, What Is Open Biblical Studies? (Sansblogue, responding to Ed Cook)
• Jim West, Washed in the Blood of Peer Review (Biblical Theology)
• Tim Bulkeley, Peer Review, Another Look: Or, On The Salvific Effects of Peer Review (Sansblogue, responding to Jim West)

I'm sure there's more (like this one from Peter Kirby) but that's the thrust of the past day or so.

Before I go too much further: even though I do have a specific disclaimer link noted at the bottom of each post, and even though this blog is my own and is not that of my employer, I need to state that these thoughts are my own and should not be construed as a statement by or policy of my employer.

And I apologize in advance for the randomnity below; but writing will help me understand what I think about all of this. And that's really my goal.

Now, with that said, I'm confused by this whole "Open Scholarship" thing. As near as I can tell, it means that people do work and write stuff, and then they upload it somewhere that purports to be a central repository. And somehow, that's "open" and therefore cool. So everyone is excited.

But I'm really confused. I don't see how "scholarship" isn't "open" already. Anyone with an interest can look into pretty much any topic they please. Right now. Let me offer a few scenarios on how folks get started.

Situation 1: Grad Student. This is something I'm unfamiliar with as I have not pursued formal graduate studies. But people interested in scholarship do it. I dare say a fair number of readers of this blog are currently pursuing graduate studies or directly make their living from people pursuing graduate studies. When folks pursue such studies, they get access to faculty, access to facilities, and they get direction and training in their chosen area. At least, that's how it is supposed to work. Right? Yes, it involves the ability and financial means to pursue, but people do it. Anecdotally, I'd guess more folks are pursuing graduate studies today than in times past.

Situation 2: Motivated Amateur. Ahhh, home. This is me. I've looked into graduate studies in the past. I'm sure I'll flirt with the thought in the future. But for now: No way. There's nothing stopping me from pursuing the fields I'm interested in. Resources are available from a number of sources. AbeBooks.com and other online aggregated used book sellers (BookFinder.com, Amazon.com's used books) are awesome sources. My own thought (and practice) is to take a portion of the money that I'm not spending on graduate studies and call it my book budget, and spend that on titles in areas of Biblical Studies that I'm interested in. I'm in a decent sized city, so that means that interlibrary loan is a viable option as well, if I really want to peek at a book I can't justify purchasing (Crum's Coptic Lexicon is in dire need of a reprint, and I wish Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon was just a bit cheaper.) I stumble along, write some things, thoughtful folks out in the biblioblogosphere offer comments, direction and most importantly, encouragement. But my point is: the motivated amateur doesn't need some existing framework in order to jump in and explore the areas he's interested in. He can jump in. Really. The water's fine. C'mon in.

These are only two paths -- I'm sure there are more -- that can be one's start along the road of "Biblical Scholarship". But I don't see how "open" applies here, so I'm still confused about what "Open Scholarship" is.

Is it a philosophy?

Is it a grand, glorious wiki site where anyone can opine on whatever theological whatnot they so desire?

Is it open because it's on the internet?

I mean, I read what Tim Bulkeley wrote on Sansblogue, but I must be dense because I'm not "pickin' up what he's puttin' down". Are there really scads of people around the world thinking, "Oh, I'd be a Biblical Scholar in no time if I only had access to more resources on the internet!" It all sounds remarkably generic and therefore thoroughly unobjectionable, which is why I guess I object. I need specifics. I need to know why folks who would scarcely pick up a Bible Dictionary or commentary (available freely from just about any church library and rather cheaply from Christian Bookstores, used book stores, CBD, or even stores like Barnes and Noble) would flock to an "Open Scholarship" web site, or how they'd even know it existed, and what they'd be expected to do with it.

Is it some community-driven commentary thingie? The web has plenty of half-started and never-finished projects of this nature. What makes "Open Scholarship" different?

Is it like the Joint Association of Classics Teachers' Greek and Latin programs? If so, how is "open" different or better than what they've done?

Is it scholarship by committee? (please say 'no')

Is it a Biblical Studies version of arxiv.org?

Is it CCEL?

Is it different from Crosswalk.com? Gospelcom.net? How?

Is scholarship like N.T. Wright, but "Open Scholarship" like Tom Wright? Less cryptically, is one goal attempting to convey scholarly material in a more palatable mass-market form?

Is it one thing (one web site)? Or is it a number of different things? If different things ... why do we need to have a discussion? Why not just do it, and let it stand or fall?

Is it doing an end-run on academic publishers? I mean, I cringe at Brill prices like everyone else, but they put out some very good stuff with very limited marketability that, frankly, wouldn't ever get published anywhere else. This sort of work isn't easy, and it isn't cheap, and folks don't just happen to know about it if it gets posted on a web site somewhere. Even then, its status is questionable. And even then -- shouldn't the guys who did the work receive some remuneration in addition to the accolades of their peers? You know, like bread on their table? Relying on a "sugar daddy" somewhere to write a blank check to cover it probably isn't a realistic expectation and should therefore be discouraged.

With all of that said, I'm still confused. But the "open" meme starts to make sense to me with one assumption: In the context of "open scholarship", the terms "scholarship" and "publishing" are equivalent. That is, if publishing and disseminating one's work is the goal, then "open scholarship" makes things easier because the difficulty of publication is removed -- anyone can hop in the pool. The bar is lowered.

But I don't buy that, and I don't think that's what anyone I've linked to means by the term.

To my uninformed and naive thinking, "scholarship" has absolutely nothing to do with publication. I won't knock publication -- it would be cool to be published, and I have a basic understanding of the requirement that those in more academic settings have in this area. I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to be published some day. But if I do work or write things simply (or primarily) to be published, then I've got to wonder about my motives. In my view, for scholarship to really be scholarship (as opposed to name-building or department-building) one must be motivated by compulsion. That is, the problem or subject area is looked into, studied and examined because it is interesting or because one has an insight on a particular problem or issue. That insight may lead well down the road to other things, or it may amount to nothing. But I'd offer that the reason for examining it is to solve the problem -- not (primarily) so that everyone knows the person who solved the problem, or made the connection, or shed new light on an old issue. The scholarship is in the doing.

Additionally, scholarship isn't just adding to the work in a given area, it is also familiarizing one's self with the existing dialog, and the history of dialog in given subject areas. It is reading source editions and not relying upon abstracts, summaries or selected readings. It is reading journals that publish new research/scholarship in your field and familiarizing yourself with back issues of the same journal. It is evaluating and understanding the arguments you agree with and the arguments that make you queasy. It is attending conferences and interacting with others in one's field. It is interacting with and adding to the conversation in one's chosen area.

And I haven't even got into collaboration yet, which I thoroughly am confused by. I sort of understand it with software, but not with scholarship. So I write something and someone else comes along and edits it, without my approval or consideration, and now the thing I did is different? Huh? But, alas, I've gone too long, rambled too far, and probably offended some people along the way with some of my comments. Please accept my apologies if my tone or manner offended; no such offense was intended.

Update (2005-08-30): My time is pretty tight, and I don't quite have another post on this subject in me, so I'll offer a few trailing thoughts here.

First, there is a bit of "rhetorical slant" to what I wrote above, but that is semi-intentional. I probably did go overboard in a few places, though. Apologies if that muddied my questions.

Regarding Mike's example of Funk's Grammar: That whole thing actually confuses me too. I don't understand how Funk's Hellenistic Grammar isn't already accessible. I searched AbeBooks this afternoon and found used or print-on-demand copies listed ranging from $60 to $90. For a three volume Greek grammar, that price seems okay (cf. Moulton-Howard-Turner at four volumes for well over $100, which folks seem to think is a good deal). I'm also sure that Funk is available at several libraries and (though I haven't looked) it could probably be retrieved by interlibrary loan to evaluate, if someone wanted to see if it was worth shelling out $90 for. It isn't necessarily easy -- one would have to at least go to a library and fill out an interlibrary loan request. And it isn't cheap or free -- time to do the interlibrary request or $90 is required. So, I'd say it already is accessible. It surely isn't ubiquitous. But it can be had.

For those who don't know me personally, my nature is pragmatic. I want to know about the application of an idea; I don't necessarily want to completely define the idea before I can apply it. So I see major themes in this "open" meme -- essentially (please correct me if I'm wrong or rash):

• free
• on the 'net
• quality Biblical Scholarship

And that's great. One thing I appreciated about Peter Kirby's post on the topic was that he had real projects listed as suggestions. He said, "Ok, here's some stuff that I'm doing. How can these projects work within the proposed framework?" (e.g., free, on the 'net, and decent scholarship). I haven't seen any follow-up on that, and I haven't seen further mention of it outside of Kirby's blog. But I see the major trends, and I see Peter saying, "how 'bout these?", and then nothing else seems to happen.

So the pragmatist in me keeps wondering about the application, because once I see something in motion or have a clear idea of how scholarship would actually take place in such a system (e.g., "use cases", which someone suggested in a comment on Ed Cook's blog, as I recall), I'll be able to make more sense of it.

Either that, or someone can blog a psuedo-socratic dialogue between Socrates, Oigosoursicus, and Kataphronicus to explain. That sort of stuff usually works for me too.

Over on Biblaridion, Bryan Cox has a post about paleography and minuscule script. Since I asked a question about this just over a year ago (in my first week of posting!) you know I'm interested.

It's well worth the read, so hop on over and check it out. Particularly interesting are the tables of minuscule characters, ligatures and abbreviations that he links to.

Of course context is "everything". But sometimes there are parts of context that we don't necessarily consider in our interpretation/exegesis. Or, at least, there are parts that I don't necessarily notice or consider right off. But first, a short (and true!) story.

I was happily typing away an email to Amy earlier today. In the course of the email, I suggested that it might be fun to go to Port Townsend on a Saturday. Port Townsend is over on the Olympic Peninsula and, unless you want to drive a whole lot (see route map), it involves a ferry ride from from Keystone (by Fort Casey State Park) to Port Townsend. It's about a half hour ride. If you're interested, you can check the Port Townsend Ferry webcam to see what the traffic is like or if the ferry is at the dock.

There are other things that you just know if you've been to Port Townsend before. You know that the ferry can be crowded, so it is better to park your car at Keystone and pay the passenger rate for the ferry ride. This is known as the "walk on" fare. You know this is no big deal because the Port Townsend ferry dock is right downtown; easily walk-able. You know that if you decide to drive over, you need to get to the ferry landing early because you'll have to wait in line for at least one sailing (especially on a weekend). And you also know that it will be expensive.

So, you've got that? Good. Here's what I typed to Amy that conveyed most of this:

Park on the Whidbey side, walk across on the ferry.

That's it. Right after I wrote this, I realized that there was a lot packed into that little sentence, and that exegetes in later centuries would be mystified when they looked at it. But Amy understood exactly what I was communicating. Crazy, huh?

Here are some ambiguities you run into if you don't consider all of the relevant information listed above:

1. Is 'Park' a noun or a verb? There is a park on the Whidbey side. But there is also a parking lot (or, 'car park' for non-North-American readers).
2. How does one "walk across" on the ferry?

So you have some more context, here's the whole paragraph that the above sentence occurred in, complete with slang and everything!

Whaddya think about going to Port Townsend some Saturday (in September, of course)? Park on the Whidbey side, walk across on the ferry. Browse the shops, have some lunch. Browse some more, then come back? If the ferry schedule is conducive and we play our cards right, we could even invite ourselves over to my folks' house for dinner on the way back home ... **

So you have a little more help. You know now that "Park" is likely a verb, unless you'd deduced that already based on the structure of the sentence:

Park
    on the Whidbey side
Walk across
    on the ferry

But if you had no knowledge of the payment system of the Washington state ferry system or the language that locals use to describe it, would you be able to figure out what it means to "walk across on the ferry"?

One aspect of context is doing the background work and background reading so that you can, first of all, spot stuff like this when it occurs in text you are exegeting or interpreting. This doesn't get talked about much because it requires one to be pro-active. To have read up on these sorts of things before they approach the text, so that the reading can be somewhat informed.

Having some domain-specific knowledge, you also need to have resources — books, web sites, Bible software, or people you know — to determine what is really going on. Sometimes it is pretty simple. Other times, you have to do a lot of work.

I'm still curious as to whether folks generations removed would be able to determine what "walk across on the ferry" means.

** Note to Mom & Dad: Hey, how 'bout Amy and I come over for dinner some Saturday in late September? :)

If you're a programmer (doing web stuff or application-level stuff) and have dreamed about working at Logos ... well, dream no more.

Logos has a few new jobs listed, notably one for a Web Developer (C#/SQL/ASP.NET) and another in our primary Software Development (C++) department.

Check out the Employment Opportunities page.

Reading Marginal Revolution this morning, I ran across this: Integrating blogging and academic publishing.

It points back to this article at Crooked Timber, another econ blog. It discusses arXiv.org, an 'e-Print archive' covering areas of physics. Now, I'm not a physicist and I don't even play one on TV. But from what I can tell, arXiv.org is a pre-press archive of articles destined for physics journals. It has RSS feeds, so scholars/academics/interested amateurs can monitor feeds for papers. And they now have added trackbacks, so that blog posts that discuss a particular article can be listed with the article in question, showing further discussion relating to the article. In other words, arXiv.org is making it easier for bloggers and blog readers to both access content and interact with archived content.

If I understand correctly, arXiv.org receives articles before they are printed (perhaps before they are submitted for print) and disseminates them. A blog called Cosmic Variance (link via Crooked Timber) discusses the basics for us non-physicists. Here's an excerpt:

Over the last fifteen years, the way that physicists communicate research results has been revolutionized by arxiv.org, the preprint server devised by Paul Ginsparg. Any time you write a paper, you send it to the arxiv, where its existence is beamed to the world the next day, and it is stored there in perpetuity. Along with the SPIRES service at SLAC, which keeps track of which papers have cited which other papers, physicists have a free, flexible, and easy-to-use web of literature that is instantly accessible to anyone. Most people these days post to the arxiv before they even send their paper to a journal, and some have stopped submitting to journals altogether. (I wish they all would, it would cut down on that annoying refereeing we all have to do.) And nobody actually reads the journals — they serve exclusively as ways to verify that your work has passed peer review.

So, the questions to discuss:

1. Let's start small: Should RBL have RSS feeds and the ability to trackback from a blog post to a review? Note that human editors at RBL would need to approve these trackbacks to prevent spam.

2. Thinking larger: What are the possibilities for a similar pre-press archive for Biblical Studies? Is the model of the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism applicable (PDFs on the web until the journal is published)? What sorts of synergies would a service like that have with the academic journal publishers, and how could they peacefully co-exist?

Going through some old email, I ran into this gem I wrote back in February. I needed to provide driving directions to a friend so he could come to a study I was doing on a portion of First Timothy.

I had been reading a lot of writings of the Apostolic Fathers (particularly those of Ignatius) and, well, I think it affected me.

No disrespect is meant, and the letter is mostly sincere. But if you read some of these early fathers ... you'll pick up what I'm puttin' down here. Sometimes the degree to which they defend their own motives or attempt to spiritualize ordinary things can be comical. Some information has been changed/obscured to protect the innocent.

Father Rico, a humble servant of the Lord's, seeking to do His will:

To the blessed Monsignior, a giant in the faith, surely teaching and instructing the will of the Lord to those souls the Lord hath entrusted to him:

It is with pleasure in the Lord that I am able to provide you with instructions by which you may proceed to the most reverend Bishop's see.

I beg your forgiveness, however, as my own skill in this area is rather lacking. As we are all well aware, the Lord has blessed me in areas other than skill with geography.

The Bishop's see is quite close to my own small compound (I mention small for its descriptive value, not in any sense of ungratefulness of the generous provision of the Lord for my welfare). I will now attempt step-by-step instructions. I do beg your indulgence; these will be provided in the vernacular as this is truly the most effective way to provide such vital information in a manner that it can be comprehended and applied to one's own travel in this sinful, fallen world in which we live.

1. The street known as [...] proceeds to the traffic signal on the "hill" (allowing for God's provision in establishing a green light, indicating you may proceed according to the laws of the fallen government which we are subject to) go straight through the intersection, and climb the hill.

2. At the 'T' style intersection at the top of the hill, turn right. Beware, for though the turn to the left is the more narrow and windy road, which we as bretheren in Christ are to prefer, we must always remember that the physical, fallen state throws curves at us, attempting to beguile us with snares of the devil. Please do turn right at this intersection.

3. Follow this road — it proceeds for quite a ways — until you arrive at another T-style intersection. You must persevere and withstand all worldly urges to turn on a side road, for these surely run into vanity and destruction. Remain on this road.

4. At the T-style intersection, you are to turn left. The left turn proceedeth up the hill to glory, the right turn will surely lead you to the fleshly, earthly area known as [...].

5. The see of the blessed Bishop is at the top of the hill, on the left.

I trust these instructions will be edifying and will allow for your swift and sure navigation through the challenges and travails this world foists upon the true soul who desireth to proceed to the goal set before him.

Please send my greetings to those there that know me; offer them my blessings in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

I am your humble servant,

Father Rico

(If you find it necessary, blessed brother, you may contact me via the abomination known as a 'cell phone' [the communicants in my flock demand I have one that they may contact me with their questions in the Lord]; the number is [...])