About a month ago, I blogged about LibraryThing. Several other bibliobloggers have mentioned the service as well.

For the unaware, LibraryThing is this cool service you can use to catalog your books fairly easily. For example, here's my profile.

The service has grown by leaps and bounds, and the guy who runs (Timothy Spalding) it has added some nifty stuff in the past month. I'd highly recommend it.

One of my early hesitations with LibraryThing was that I couldn't add my own stuff en masse. See, I have wanted (and wanted) to write my own book database thingie that would catalog both print and electronic resources (i.e., books for Logos Bible Software / Libronix Digital Library System). I've bugged Bob Pritchett about it for around three years now.

Then LibraryThing went and did it. Tim added a "universal import" that simply takes a list of ISBN numbers and then does the rest.

"Whoa ... I can make that work!" was my first thought.

I've hacked together a small HTA ("Hyper-Text Application") that (slowly) accesses the LDLS via the LDLS Object Model, builds a list of books, and allows you to export a list of ISBN numbers. Then ... if you sign up for LibraryThing (first 200 books are free!) you can import the list and use LibraryThing to start to catalog your print and electronic resources.

Realize that not all LDLS resources have ISBN data, but several do. So this is one way to get a large chunk-o-resources from LDLS into LibraryThing.

Before I provide a link, a few warnings:

1. It requires you to have IE on your machine (if you have Logos, you have IE).
2. It runs locally on your own box.
3. Your virus software will pitch a fit when it runs. It's OK. If you don't trust me, just disconnect from the internet when you run it.
4. Oh, you may have to adjust your IE security settings. I dunno. It worked on my box, though.
5. It is S-L-O-W.
6. The interface is horrid. Interruptive dialogs with no ability to cancel out? Oh yeah! Now you know why I munge text & data, and why I don't write interface stuff for Logos.
7. On reflection, "horrid" is being too kind. The interface absolutely stinks.
8. Have I mentioned that it is slow?
9. It works on my laptop at home. It may not work on any other machine in the known world at this time. As they say, your mileage may vary.
10. I wrote the guts of this years ago when I was cutting my javascript teeth. I've learned much in the intervening years. It could be oh-so-much better. I mean, it's pretty bad. Keep a bucket handy if you happen to look at the code.
11. I specifically disclaim any responsibility for anything that happens to your machine as a result of running this thingie. That means success or failure. If you run it, you're responsible.

Now, instructions.

1. Download the zip archive.
2. Unzip it all into its own folder.
3. Double-click MetadataExplorer.hta.
4. Chide me for stupid interruptive dialogs and bad interface design.
5. Wait awhile. Hey, I said it was slow!
6. Click the button that says Export ISBNs
7. Chide me again for dumb interruptive dialogs.
8. Find your ISBNs in LDLS-ISBNs.txt in the same folder as the HTA file.

Next, you probably want to de-dupe the list. Most text editors will have some sort of sort/de-dupe functionality. Yes, the script should do this. But it doesn't. Have I mentioned I'm a cheesebag and should be held in contempt for writing this little thing? If you don't de-dupe, LibraryThing may import multiple instances of a given book, and then you'll have to flip through your scads of books and remove dupes in LibraryThing. That's really not that bad since Timothy Spalding is a big-time stud and has made this pretty easy to do. But if you can do it before you submit ... well, you should.

Note that the HTA was actually written for a different purpose -- to browse the raw "dublin core" metadata in LDLS books. Click on a book in the list, hit the "Display Metadata" button. I added the ISBN export because it was easier to add it here than whip something new up.

What's that? You still want to run this blasted nausea-inducing thing on your box? Well ... you've been warned.

Here's the link to the zip file: MetadataExplorer.zip (4.05 KB)

At least, that's what I thought. Didn't that whole thing get settled in the fourth century?

Apparently I'm wrong. World Magazine has an article by Gene Veith that mentions a Bible version called The Inclusive Bible. Veith (who seems rightly horrified by the Inclusive Bible) writes:

The Inclusive Bible follows the higher critics in leaving out the Pastoral Epistles and Revelation, and it follows The Da Vinci Code in including instead the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas. This translation is endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the evangelical leader Tony Campolo.

I guess the editors still view the canon debate as open. So why not drop out Hebrews too? I mean, we don't really know who wrote it. And while we're at it, let's drop Jude out too. I mean, c'mon, it quotes Enoch and it is really kind of weird to boot. Can't we just get rid of 'em?

Yes, folks, that is sarcasm. I guess it was just too hard to make the Pastoral Epistles "inclusive" so they figured they'd drop the whole lot. You can argue all you want about Pauline authorship; I'd contend that matter is certainly not at the point where removal from the canon should be considered. In the area of canon, with established books, doubt on the part of some should not lead to outright dismissal of the book. (This is inclusivity?)

Makes me wonder what they did with the shorter & longer endings of Mark. Or John 7.58-8.11. Or 1Jn 5.7-8. I mean, you know, stuff that is really uncertain from a bona-fide text-critical point of view. Did they drop those passages too? Or are they OK because they don't have any "inclusivity" issues?

How is it "inclusive" for this edition to remove books from the canon like this?

Update (2005-11-03): Thanks to prodding from a ricoblog reader and some curiosity of my own, I did a little searching for more information on this. I can't find any listing for something called The Inclusive Bible that fits Veith's description. The closest I can find (thanks for the pointer, John) is a listing at AltaMira Press. This seems to be equivalent with a translation by "Priests for Equality" mentioned earlier (and uncited by me) in Veith's article.

Is there such a translation as the one Veith describes? If so, and if you know the publisher and can point me to a page that describes the contents and philosophy of the translation, I'd be appreciative. Until then, I apologize for the noise. Thanks!

If you're curious about the busy-ness at the office that's kept me from blogging much, you should check out today's post on the Logos Bible Software Blog. Especially if your eyes light up when you think of things Greek, things having to do with syntax, or with exegesis.

This is the sort of thing I'll be talking about in my paper for the ETS meeting (I'll probably even use the example from the Logos blog) so if you're going to be at ETS make sure to hit the Bible Software presentation on Thursday November 17. The whole session runs from 2:10 to 4:30, all the presentations should be worth catching.

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.