It's true, Logos Bible Software (my employer) has placed three new titles into its "pre-publication" system. These are things that we'll work on given enough interest to cover costs. These titles are:

• Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology (very nearly over the top ... rush and reserve it at what will likely be its lowest price — $69.95 as I type this, it will change!)
• G.C. Berkhouwer's 14 volume Studies in Dogmatics. Hoo-baby that's awesome! And, I mean, Berkhouwer is Dutch, so you know it's gotta be good!
• The Lectionary Commentary: Theological Exegesis for Sunday's Texts (3 vols). I know little about this because I don't come from a tradition that uses the lectionary. But it is still worth checking out, particularly if you use the lectionary in your worship and teaching.

If you're unfamiliar with the Logos Prepublication System, there is more info on the Logos web site.

Others have posted, but to make sure Google indexes this baby high, I figure it's my duty to post a link to Michael Bird's email interview/chat with Stanley Porter. Be sure to read the comments, and also to read Michael Turton's reaction.

If I'm reading Porter's comments correctly, I'd guess he thinks Reuben Swanson, with his New Testament Greek Manuscripts (more on that here), is on to something. Michael Bird dabbled a post (actually, two posts) on the topic of commentaries based on NT Manuscripts; I interacted a bit with the idea as well.

Lastly, to Michael Bird, congrats on the book!

I've happened across a PDF facsimile (one file per NT book) of Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott, published originally in 1864. It is an interlinear Greek New Testament.

Normally I wouldn't note this, but — if I understand the title correctly — this is the only online source I know of representing Griesbach's edition of the Greek New Testament.

Here's the full title:

The Emphatic Diaglott: Containing the Original Greek Text of what is commonly styled the New Testament, (According to the Recension of Dr. J.J. Griesbach,) with an Interlineary Word for Word English Translation; A New Emphatic Version, Based on the Interlineary Translation, on the Renderings of Eminent Critics, and on the Various Readings of The Vatican Manuscript, No. 1209 in the Vatican Library. Together with Illustrative and Explanatory Foot Notes, and a Copious Selection of References, to the whole of which is added, A Valuable Alphabetical Appendix.

Phew. That's a title. So the Greek text on the page is Griesbach's, but the Greek text of the running translation in the outside margin is based on Wilson's own textual work? Seems weird to not have the two aligned to the same vorlage. Anyway, here's a capture of a portion representing 1Ti 2.3-6:

If you're interested in downloading it, you can do that from here.

Q: What do the Aerobie Flying Disc and coffee have in common?

A: Why, the AeroPress Coffee Machine, of course.

Coffee lovers, this looks very cool. Check the bottom of the article for links to reviews, discussions, etc. A better article/explanation is here.

Too bad my birthday is in October.

(thanks to Jacob for the pointer)

Loren has posted a summation of his "dangerous ideas" meme applied to Biblical Studies. Check it out.

Some more links:

• Loren's original post. There are several updates and links to other folks' submissions of "dangerous ideas"
• A fairly weak effort of mine in response.

Though I still am convinced that the two things I listed are true and could be seen as relatively "dangerous", I understand they're not top-of-the-crop sorts of ideas and would've been surprised to see them on Loren's final list. But still, the idea that many NT authorship and style studies that rely only on similar word usage are overreaching is important to me and one I hope to be looking into in the future.

And the second idea I posted (here restated) that it is wrong to only pursue naturalistic or text-critical explanations for hard-to-reconcile events recorded in the Bible (particularly in the Gospels and Acts) is, I think, still something that requires dialogue and discussion.

If I read the Hebrew Bible and don't see YHWH acting powerfully to preserve his people, the ones he covenanted with, then I'm missing the whole story. I'm not saying everything has a supernatural explanation — I am saying, however, that we can't rule out, for example, that God really could have parted the Red Sea, or the Jordan, for the Israelites to cross.

And if I read the New Testament, and don't see that Jesus is God (read the first three or four chapters of Mark, and then dig into some of Hebrews — Jesus was making implicit and explicit claims to be God incarnate) then I'm really missing what is going on.

To examine the text of the Bible with the assumption that recorded supernatural events, prophecies and miracles need some sort of naturalistic explanation and perhaps even scientific-method-style reproducible proof of hypothesis in order to be satisfied — well, if that's the case, why bother? Then it's all an academic exercise.

I'll probably catch flack for this radical idea (that's sarcasm), but if one does not approach exegesis and interpretation of the Bible with the understanding that God is God, and He can and does act within history, outside of history, and through history in all sorts of ways; then we've missed the boat.

That's the gist of my point, really: Our default position can't be to say "well, no, [some event] seems impossible as recorded, there must be some other explanation". Maybe God really did stop the sun from moving in the sky while Moses' hands were raised, allowing the Israelites victory. Maybe Jesus really did feed 5000 people with a few loaves and some fish, and maybe he really did have 12 baskets of goodies left over for later. I'm saying we can't automatically rule these sorts of things out as the first step of evaluating a passage. Can we pursue the alternatives? Sure. We'd be foolish not to do so. But we'd be equally foolish to think that science and the wisdom of our own brains and intellect can figure it all out.* As I read some critical commentaries and other surveys and studies produced by academics and scholars, the underlying message seems to be: "Well, no, the text can't really be saying [some event] happened because that's unreasonable; something else must've been going on". Skepticism is healthy. But when the practice of the skeptics is the norm, it ceases to be skepticism and it is time for the pendulum to swing back the other way.

My "dangerous idea" in this area, then, is that we should catch the pendulum and start the swing in the other direction.

Update (2006-01-18): Loren Rosson offers a comment and some encouragement, which I greatly appreciate. And I greatly appreciate this whole "dangerous idea" meme; it does provoke some thought.

Don't mind me, I'll just keep beating the supernatural straw man into submission with scads of red herring. (heh ... sarcasm). I'll admit that there is plenty of work that accepts supernatural acts of God as possible and even as occurring within history. I guess I've been reading some stuff lately that, between the lines, seems to scoff at such things as preposterous. (no titles, no authors, I'll just leave this thread here and move on).

* cf. Ge 11.1-9.

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.

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). 

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?