Saturday, January 14, 2006

I think reading Pauline literature is having an effect on me. I just wrote the following sentence in a rough draft of stuff working through 1Ti 5.17:

The elders who exert themselves in speaking and teaching, working hard to properly proclaim the gospel and to teach and edify believers under their care, are deserving of honor.

Look at how many times "and" occurs in that sentence, and then track the function of each "and":

  • Speaking and teaching:
  • properly proclaim the gospel and to teach ...
  • to teach and to edify believers

The last two are the ones that caught my attention. Look at that part of the sentence again:

working hard to properly proclaim the gospel and to teach and edify believers under their care

The same exact word -- and -- occurs, here within a few words of each other, but they're functioning just a little differently. The first functions to join the two dependent clauses.** The first "and" joins clauses at a different level than the second "and" even though their functions are incredibly similar. The first one joins larger clausal units, both of which happen to have infinitive verbs. Like this:

working hard
     to properly proclaim the gospel
     and
     to teach and edify believers under their care.

The second "and", instead of joining clauses, joins two infinitive verbs, "to teach" and "(to) edify"; with "believers" as object of the verb and the prepositional phrase "under their care" providing further specificity:

working hard
     to properly proclaim the gospel
     and
     [to teach {and} (to) edify] believers under their care.

The two clauses joined by the first "and" each describe different aspects of the justification for honoring elders -- they work hard in preaching/speaking and also in teaching (as 1Ti 5.17 states). The second "and", however, is a little different even though it joins two infinitive verbs; the verbs are apposition and the function is essentially epexegetical with "edify" further explaining the teaching, at least as I saw it when I wrote the sentence.

I thought, upon noticing how I'd used "and" differently in such short space, that the same thing happens frequently in NT Greek with the word καὶ and its various usages. I don't have an instance of this sort of occurrence close to hand and need to take off (Amy's birthday is coming up; we're going browsing/shopping so I can at least have a clue as to what to get her). If you have a passage that, in the Greek, would function as a good example (NT or Apostolic Fathers or Josephus or Philo or Pseudepigraphal or whatever) send an email or leave a comment; I'll update the article at some future point. Or I'll dig around and find something.


** Don't assume too much linguistic preciseness in my use of terms like 'clause' and 'phrase' and even my categorisation of things like 'infinitive clauses'. Think of them as generally descriptive instead of technically precise, and you'll sleep easier.

Post Author: rico
Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:18:33 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
 Thursday, January 12, 2006

The good folks at the CCEL have provided an edition of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite in English. I know little about Dionysius, and even less about the available editions. The edition at CCEL is the 1897 edition of John Parker. As usual, several formats are available.

Searching for images of Dionysius led me to the new-to-me Orthodox Wiki. You can read the Orthodox take on Dionysius, complete with an image of him (the check pattern on his garment is interesting to me) in teaching position (note right hand). 

Post Author: rico
Thursday, January 12, 2006 4:31:18 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
 Wednesday, January 11, 2006

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:

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?

Post Author: rico
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 4:47:01 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
 Sunday, January 08, 2006

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.

Post Author: rico
Monday, January 09, 2006 7:33:26 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
 Friday, January 06, 2006

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.

Post Author: rico
Saturday, January 07, 2006 6:10:27 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
 Thursday, January 05, 2006

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 ...

 

Post Author: rico
Friday, January 06, 2006 6:38:42 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
 Tuesday, January 03, 2006

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!"?

Post Author: rico
Wednesday, January 04, 2006 7:07:43 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]