Just read my morning dose of Marginal Revolution. They've got a link to a site called MyHeritage.com that has a 'beta' face recognition tool. Basically, after a "free" registration, they let you upload a photo. Then they analyze it and spit back folks that they say you resemble.

Kinda fun. I ran a hi-res copy of the picture I have posted on this blog (to the right, up top) and came up with the following results, in order of likeness:

• William McKinley
• Ilan Ramon
• Richard Avedon
• Donald Rumsfeld
• B.F. Skinner
• Franklin Delano Roosevelt
• Vidkun Quisling (this is not complementary)
• Peter Greenaway
• Donald Sutherland
• Richard Dedekind

Looks like I've got presidential potential ... from either party! Though both McKinley and Roosevelt died in office (McKinley assassinated; Roosevelt of natural causes). Maybe I should postpone my run for office?

Update (2006-01-12): Jim West plays along and informs us of those who resemble him. Anyone else?

Loren Rosson asks:

"The history of biblical studies is replete with scholars who were considered dangerous in their time; Reimarus, Strauss, and Schweitzer, etc. What is your dangerous idea? Any idea you think is dangerous, not because you think it's false, but because many others want it to be false and you think it's true?"

Here are a few suggestions from the brain of Rico. #1 has been percolating for awhile; #2 is a far more recent thought for me:

1. The New Testament isn't big enough and the corpus isn't secure enough* to support style theories for authorship determination when the theory is based on counting criteria like hapax legomenon, common words or conjunction use. This basically means that all stylometric studies, while useful and while providing some insight, can confirm or deny nothing regarding authorship of a particular NT document. Therefore, several of the classic studies used as basis for authorship determination (e.g. P.N. Harrison's Problem of the Pastoral Epistles), while perhaps offering some insight, are inconclusive and do not prove a thing. As my Psych prof used to say, "correlation does not prove causation". [N.B.: I'm indebted to Matthew Brook O'Donnell for the idea that corpus sizes are too small; the application I've made here is my own thought — likely unoriginal.]

2. God is supernatural. To approach Biblical Studies from a viewpoint that does not allow the supernatural to be possible is an invalid approach. I'm not quite sure how to word this thought/idea or how to really describe it. My basic thought is that when I read something dealing with Biblical Studies (particularly commentaries) and it rules out something the Biblical text directly testifies to on the basis that the testified action could not be physically possible ... well, that's a specious argument. The modernist approach of removing the supernatural to a separate sphere and empirically testing a hypothesis to determine physical possibility as the metric of truth is not the only approach. I can't rule out Jesus' raising of Lazarus because, well, raising someone dead for days isn't possible in my thinking. I can't rule out the changing of water into wine at the wedding in Cana because I've never seen water turn into wine. I can't explain away the massive feedings of people because, well, 5000 people just can't be fed from a few loaves of bread and a couple of fishes (let alone have 12 baskets left over). We are dealing with God; therefore supernatural action must be possible and even expected in some instances. It cannot be ruled out or explained away. He can raise one dead for days; He can make wine from water; and He can feed and satisfy the hunger of massive crowds with relative morsels of food. He is God. I realize many will say this is inappropriate and even inaccurate; that a more "scientific" approach must be taken in these instances. I say that's as biased as any approach and we're fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. [N.B.: The basic idea here is not my own, but one I've picked up through other reading and conversation with friends and colleagues.]

* by "secure enough" I mean that most scholars/academics wouldn't consider enough material by any author "genuine" to be of any value for such counting/stylometry sorts of arguments to matter.

A few random things, none of which seems worthy of a whole post.

First, fans and friends of Coptic -- Logos Bible Software want to publish Crum's Coptic Dictionary as well as Smith's Concise Coptic-English Lexicon (which serves as a supplement of sorts to Crum, accounting for Nag Hammadi material). Oh, these would be so cool! So get off yer duff, and get these wonderful references out of the pre-pub system and into production! I've only studied Coptic a little, but boy-howdy would these be cool to be able to utilize. For more Coptic goodness, see my Coptic books at LibraryThing.

Second, an update on MS copying -- I've had two brave souls offer to be guinea pigs ... er, uh, manuscript copyists. So I'm starting the project. Anyone else want to help?

Third, Joe and Jim -- you guys crack me up. Hey, maybe in 2006 y'all can post on a topic that you both can agree on? (Just a joke; couldn't help it.) On tea, I say loose may be better but bags are easier, so it depends on mood for me. On coffee ... well, I've posted on coffee before (a long time ago).

That's it. Enjoy the weekend, y'all.

I was thinking about this earlier this evening.

Since Stephen C. Carlson (in his recent book) has seriously called into question the authenticity of Secret Mark (see Carlson's Hypotyposeis blog both here and here) does this mean that we should begin to include Secret Mark in lists of falsely-attributed writings? It is surely a late example (from the mid-20th century) but Carlson's case is strong. That is, Clement of Alexandria likely didn't write it. Morton Smith likely did. It is therefore a "falsely attributed writing". Right?

If not, then what are the formal criteria for considering something "pseudepigraphal"? Is there a particular era in which it must have been produced? a particular religious perspective (Jewish and/or Christian)?

Just curious. Don't mind me. Move along, there's nothing to see here ...

Καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἡ νύμφη λέγουσιν· ἔρχου.
καὶ ὁ ἀκούων εἰπάτω· ἔρχου.
καὶ ὁ διψῶν ἐρχέσθω,
    ὁ θέλων λαβέτω ὕδωρ ζωῆς δωρεάν.

And the Spirit and the Bride say: "Come!"
and let the one who hears say: "Come!"
and let the one who is thirsty come; 
    let the one who wishes take the water of life that has no price. (Re 22.17)

Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα· ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ.
Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

The one testifying to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly".
So be it. Come, Lord Jesus! (Re 22.20)

Do you earnestly desire for Him to come? I'm not talking about eschatology here; I could care less about pre-/a-/post-mil type stuff at this point. When you read the Apocalypse, do you, along with John, desire Jesus to come? He says he is surely coming, and quickly at that. Can you testify with John, "Amen. So be it. Come, Lord Jesus!"?

Here's a post on the blog Campus Mawrtius offering hints and clues on remembering your Greek numerals.

[Apologies to those who follow ricoblog primarily for my semi-informed blathering on about Greek stuff; this post is of a more personal nature. And I've been on holiday this past week (It's been awesome; thanks for giving me the time off, Bob!) so it is only fitting that my normal blog posting should take a holiday as well. If you want Greek blather, check this out.]

The time away from the office has been good. Outside of the obvious fun times that Christmas festivities provide, Amy and I were able to (finally!) get to Port Townsend for a day. Port Townsend, for those who don't know, is a small little town on the Olympic peninsula of Washington state. It is at one end of a Washington state ferry run, which makes it easy to get to from Whidbey Island (where I grew up). I know Port Townsend for artsy-type stuff and also for antiques; I also know there are a few bookstores in town. Until now, I've only been interested in one of those three things, but Amy has seen fit to educate me and expand my horizons.

So we parked on the Whidbey Island side, and hopped on the ferry as walk-on passengers. On the way over to Port Townsend, we were able to see a massive US Navy submarine (Trident nuclear sub? I dunno. Maybe.) with two Coast Guard escorts plowing its way through the sound, likely to Bangor or Bremerton.

Once in Port Townsend, we headed right down the main street, ducking in just about every door we could find, whether we were interested in the store or not. We stayed away from clothiers and restaurants, but went in just about everywhere else. One place we stopped -- and where Amy let me linger for a goodly portion of time -- was William James Bookseller. I found an awesome commentary on First Peter: The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes and Essays by Edward Gordon Selwyn. And it was only $12.50!

After that we hopped in some more shops; most of them artist co-operatives with things far too funky or spendy for any sane normal person to want to put in their house. Then it was lunch at a Chinese food place. That was yummy.

Then we proceeded back down the main street, enjoying ducking into about any door we found. And then back up the next block, but it started to rain. So we went into a massive antique mall. I had no idea these things existed! There are a bunch of stalls; each likely rented out to an antique dealer, each stall full of all sorts of things. I mean there are tons of stalls. Here is where I received my education for the day. I learned all sorts of stuff; it was awesome. Have you ever noticed how when someone you care about is interested in something, you can take on that interest as well? I'd never really experienced that before, but now I see that it is true. Futzing about that antique store with Amy was some of the most enjoyable time of the day.

Then it was time to brave the rain (thankfully Amy had brought an umbrella so we both stayed relatively dry) and head back to the ferry. While at the terminal waiting, it was time to take a few pictures to prove we'd really been there.

And then we boarded the ferry. While on board, we learned that the dock in Keystone (Whidbey Island side of the ferry run) had been bashed by the ferry (the Quinalt) on previous landing. We rode an alternate ferry (the Klickitat) and by the time we arrived, the dock had been inspected and approved by the Coast Guard, so we had no problems. We hopped in the car (we'd lucked out with a primo parking spot) and went back to Oak Harbor to talk with a friend for a bit. Then we had some dinner; then we boogied on back to Bellingham.

All in all, a fun day. Who'd've (is that a word?) thought antiques could be so fun?

Sometime, perhaps even before the new year, ricoblog will log its 40,000th visitor.

That's about 39,995 more visitors than I'd anticipated.

Thanks to all who happen by this place, on accident or on purpose. And thanks even more to those who come back.

Cheers, and have a happy and blessed new year!

Update (2006-01-01): Visitor 40,000 arrived at 2:58:55 PM PST from a yale.edu IP address via Google searching for information on homoeoteleuton. Excellent. Hope you found what you were looking for!