Two items. First, Jim West has already referred to his favorite of Martin Luther's 95 Theses. If you'd like, I've placed a PDF online of all of the theses for you to download. Read them all and see what was going on in Luther's head and heart on that day almost 500 years ago.

Second, check out this post that I wrote last year on what to read on All Hallow's Eve. I'll probably do the same this year.

It's been almost a week since I've blogged. I can sense busy-ness between now and the ETS and AAR/SBL meetings, so blogging will be sporadic.

That said, I do have a question.

I was looking at Mk 1.14-15 this morning. The pastor at the church I attend has commenced a series on Mark, and this was the text for this morning. So it made sense to look at it prior to going to church.

Here's the text in the ESV:

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mk 1:14-15)

Here's the text in the NA27:

Μετὰ δὲ τὸ παραδοθῆναι τὸν Ἰωάννην ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν * κηρύσσων τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ λέγων ὅτι πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ· μετανοεῖτε καὶ πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ. (Mk 1:14-15)

I read the text, understood it, and even diagrammed it! Cool stuff is going on here. So I thought I'd check variants. Byzantine editions of v. 14 have a variant that makes "preaching the gospel of God" read as "preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God". This is also represented in Codex Bezae (D).

However, Codex Bezae (D) has another (potential) variant that isn't listed in either the NA27 apparatus or in Tischendorf. Here's the Greek of Codex Bezae (from Scrivener's transcription, which I picked up rather reasonably priced from Amazon):

                         και μετα το παραδοθηναι
τον ιωαννην· ηλθεν ο ΙΗΣ εις την γαλαλαιαν
κηρυσσων το ευαγγελιον της βασιλιεας του ΘΥ
λεγων οτι πεπληρωνται οι καιροι
και ηγγικεν η βαβασιλεια του ΘΥ
μετανοειτε και πιστευεται εν τω ευαγγελιω

Upper-case letters mark nomina sacra; Scrivener's transcription uses overlines for these.

If you compare this to NA27 above, you'll see several variants. But the one that isn't attested anywhere is βαβασιλεια (D) vs. βασιλεία (NA27). Curious, and knowing that a photographic facsimile of Bezae (D) was on the web, I looked it up. Here are the verses (line breaking is the same as above, starting in the middle of line two, if you're interested in tracking):

The sixth line is the line in question. This is really blurry, but there is something down there, illegible though it may be. But βαβασιλεια makes no sense to me. Please enlighten me if it is some attic reduplication or something else going on that I'm just not catching.

Would the actual Bezae be more legible than this photo? I'm guessing so, but how much more, really? The second blurry letter does appear to be consistent with the other alphas in proximity. The first blurry letter may really be a beta, but that only makes sense to me after considering Scrivener, not before. Are there any other possibilities here? Or is βαβασιλεια it? And if so, what does the prepended βα indicate? Or is it just a mistake in transcription (homoioarcton)?

Update (2005-10-31): Jim West responds with a note that he sees the area in question as (from what I can tell) as simply a smudge that shouldn't be read, and that Scrivener's transcription is therefore mistaken. I'm not so sure it's that easy; Scrivener is reconciling the smudge the best he can.

This also would bring up a question regarding transcription: Shouldn't the transcriber try to transcribe the document as best reflects the document, not what may or may not make sense? That is, if you look at the graphic again, you'll see lots of stuff of uneven quality (in the photo, anyway) that could be written off as difficult to read but that obviously represents real content. Shouldn't the transcriber try to encode that in the transcription instead of writing it off as a smudge, even if the smudge doesn't make sense?

For now I'm writing the variant off as homoioarcton of the first two letters of the word. If there are other options (in addition to smudge/error and homoioarcton) please comment, drop an email, or post on your own blog and let me know.

Update II (2005-11-01): Pete responds in the comments with more helpful info. You need to read the comment, but Pete's tentative conclusion is:

OK. Definitely BABASILEIA. Whole page does exhibit damage, so not quite confident that it is a correction by erasure, although that would be my hunch

I'll take Pete's word for it. So, I'm guessing error by homoioarcton (errant duplication of the first two letters of the word) with potential correction by erasure, thus resulting in smudgieness. The bottom line seems to be that this is an error and not witness to the underlying Bezan source; thus βασιλεία should be read here.

Thanks for the help, Pete!

I haven't read this, and I don't want to. I consider it my bloggerly duty to at least post concerning it.

God's Blogs by Lanny Donoho. Published by Multnomah Press.

I did check out the sample chapter. Let me just say, if you look at it ... you were warned. Keep a bucket nearby in case you can't stand the nausea.

I've written a rather lengthy post over on PastoralEpistles.com about 1Ti 4.10:

For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. (1Ti 4.10, ESV)

I'm still thinking through it, but if you have ideas, thoughts or if you just want to tell me I'm wrong (please do the favor of explaining why you think I'm wrong) then hop over there and let me know what you think.

Also, a question: Does anyone else out there ever notice your writing takes on the dialect of the stuff you're reading? I just re-read the post I refer to above, and I can tell I've been reading books published in the UK. Stuff like "Saviour" and "criticises" sticks out. Anyone else notice such things?

I was looking into the word τιμάω (because I am working on 1Ti 5.3) and came across 2Cl 3.5:

For he also says in Isaiah, "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far removed from me."

This, of course, is a quote of Is 23.19. I thought to myself, "Gee, it would be cool to compare that to the LXX of Is 23.19". So let's do it.

Note: It's late, and I'm doing this on the fly. Mistakes are very possible, if you catch something please leave a comment or drop me an email.

So, not a whole lot of difference. The LXX's plural demonstrative pronoun plus plural verb make sense and Second Clement's singular subject and verb each make sense in their particular context. The difference in verb in the fourth section, however, isn't easy to explain. No variants are listed in Ehrman. So, I checked Lightfoot's massive edition of Clement. He writes,

From Is 29.13, modified by the form in which it is quoted in the Gospels; see the note on the genuine Epistle of Clement section 15 [1Cl 15], where again it is quoted in almost exactly the same form as here.

The reference is 1Cl 15.2, which is as follows:

[{Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς} τοῖς χείλεσίν] [με τιμᾷ,] [ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν] [πόρρω ἄπεστιν] [ἀπ ̓ ἐμοῦ]

Almost the same, except for the italic portion in curved braces has a different word order in 2Cl 3.5. Of this citation, Lightfoot writes:

From Is 29.13, which is quoted also in Mt 15.8, Mk 7.6. Clement follows the Evangelists rather than the original text. ... Both Evangelists have ἀπέχει with the LXX, where Clement has ἄπεστιν. Clem. Alex. follows our Clement, modifying the form however to suit his context. (Lightfoot, Clement, vol. II p. 55)

Again, not much difference at all. Realizing that the MSS that 1 & 2 Clement is primarily based on dates to 1056 AD, and that we've got Gospel MSS that are far earlier than that whatever your perspective on MSS dating is. I'd guess the form of those MSS is better attestation of the LXX than a 10th century Clement MSS. I'd check the LXX but don't have the edition with the apparatus handy.

NA27 has a very short note on Mt 15.8 that seems somewhat misleading, noting that Bezae, 1424 all the Latin and Cl (Clement of Alexandria) have εστιν instead of ἀπέχει. That changes the saying, but I'm guessing that's why they're minority readings. So I checked Bezae, and that's what it has. Sounds like that's what Clement of Alexandria has to (cf. Lightfoot's note that Clem. Alex. modifies the form). I say "somewhat misleading" because the NA27 apparatus traditionally lists the MSS that support the text's reading; though I guess in this instance the support is so overwhelming it wasn't necessary.

On the whole, looking from Second Clement back to the LXX, the transmission of at least this verse didn't seem to get too messed up.

The NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) provisional translation page has been updated. Everything is listed so one now knows where the holes are. Several new translations. Joshua, 1 Samuel ("Old Greek"), Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs ... the list goes on.

Unfortunately, no Sirach, which is what I was looking for tonight. Oh well. Thanks to the updates I now know that as of 10/10/2005, Sirach is "in review".

Check it out.

(Yes, I've read the "To the Reader" introduction ... )

I'd venture to say that many readers of ricoblog have decent libraries, and that those libraries have reference volumes, many of which are likely geared toward Biblical studies or language study. Stuff like dictionaries, encyclopedias and lexicons.

But have you ever stopped to read the front matter? So often with reference volumes, we expect to use them simply for that: reference. We'll pick 'em up off of the shelf if/when we need 'em.

That's a shame. Really.

Even if it is a reference book that you will only sporadically use, you need to familiarize yourself with it. You need to open it up and look at the title page. Who wrote it? Where was it printed?

You need to look at the table of contents. Many times these books have introductory essays or articles in an appendix. These sorts of articles are necessary to read to understand how to best use the reference work. Or they may have information you'll never come across anywhere else.

You also need to look at the abbreviations. Are they familiar to you, or not?

And the indexes. Are there indexes? What about appendixes? You'd be surprised where appendixes show up. Contrary to popular opinion, the appendix is not a needless piece of flesh stuck in the body because there was space left. In books, they mean something, and they should at least be evaluated before they are discounted.

Here's an example: TDNT. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. It is 10 volumes of hefty print. Did you know that in addition to the index in volume 10, there is a lengthy article called "Pre-History of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament"? The article is nearly 50 pages, written by Gerhard Friedrich, and it sets the scene for the development of the text it is appended to. It gives you all sorts of insight on the development of the text. And that will help you know when (and when not) to consult TDNT. Has it been years since you've read it? Read it again.

Here's another example: BDAG. Have you ever stopped to read the foreword? You should. It explains the typography of the book. It talks about stuff that has been expanded. It as well gives a short history of development of the work, from Preuschen (and before) to Bauer to Danker. Fun stuff.

Last example: If you use a Greek New Testament such as the NA27 or UBS4, and you haven't read the introductions or front matter -- your study is deprived. Especially with the NA27. You need to read these, and not just to understand the apparatus. The marginal reference systems (for the NA27 this includes cross-references, Eusebian Canons, and other cool stuff) are explained there as well.

Anyway, if you're one who has never worried about reading prefaces, forewords or introductions to such things, you should stop right now and do it. Get familiar with these parts of the books you use so often. Your proficiency with these tools (yes, they're tools) will be better for it.

Note: This is true for electronic editions of these resources too.

Hi folks.

Just a quick note to let everyone know that I've finally installed comments and trackbacks over at PastoralEpistles.com. You can read this post for more info.

If you haven't checked out the site in awhile, head on over. Particularly fun are the subject indexes and the reference indexes.

If you're new to PastoralEpistles.com, you may want to check out some of the Site Documents, particularly Introducing PastoralEpistles.com.