Sometime this weekend or perhaps very early Monday morning, ricoblog will log its 50,000th visitor.

Whoa. That's humbling.

Thanks to all who visit, whether it be from a simple Google search that led you here, but especially if you aggregate the RSS and read whatever I write. Y'all are awesome. I'm having a blast doing it, so I plan to keep it up for awhile.

Next stop: 100,000!

Also, it seems appropriate to mention Tyler Williams and his one year blogiversary and 40,000 visitor contest. I won't be doing any contest giveaways, so take all the effort you'd spend doing such a thing here and apply it to Tyler's contest!

Update (2006-03-20): 50,000 was hit on March 19 at 12:55 PM. A visitor from Port Moody in British Columbia searching for "balsamic vinaigrette" was the culprit. You'd be surprised how many google hits I get for that.

I'd like to invite readers of ricoblog to check out my other blog that specifically deals with the Pastoral Epistles, PastoralEpistles.com. I post there less frequently, but it does remain focused on the Pastoral Epistles.

I'm planning on a series of five posts (plus introductory post) on 1Ti 5. The five posts will each simply reference a PDF file that covers a portion of chapter 5. I'm specifically looking for feedback on what I've written.

I hope to post one PDF file every other week, so the five posts will take 10 weeks to get through. The introductory post and first sample post are up.

• Introductory Post
• First Sample: 1 Timothy 5.1-2

Thanks in advance to those who read and offer feedback!

Oh yeah. I can't not blog this. Even though this is my third post today, I need to mention it. It is too good not to pass along.

Logos Bible Software have placed Barth's Church Dogmatics (yes, 14 volumes of Barth-tastic goodness!) in its pre-publication system. Given enough interest it will be produced and made available electronically in Logos Bible Software.

Read more here. Now, tell your friends. Go.

A short series of lectures from the early 1900's by George Hodges, this book is online at something called "The Baldwin Project".

The Early Church, from Ignatius to Augustine

THESE chapters began as Lowell Lectures in 1908. The lectures were given without manuscript, and have been repeated in that form in Cambridge, in Salem, in Springfield, in Providence, Rhode Island, and in Brooklyn, New York. The first, second, third, and fourth were then written out and read at the Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Connecticut, as the Mary H. Page Lectures for 1914. In like manner the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth were given at Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, as the Bedell Lectures for 1913. The tenth was given in 1913, at Ann Arbor, Michigan, on the Baldwin Foundation. Finally, the lectures, as they now appear, were repeated in 1914 at West Newport, California, at the Summer School conducted by the Commission on Christian Education of the Diocese of Los Angeles.

A few things I've wanted to note but haven't done so yet. It makes sense to put them all in one post instead of string them out. So ... here goes.

• Biblical Studies Carnival IV Call for Submissions: Loren Rosson III (The Busybody) has put out the call for BSC:IV. Gather your links and send them off to him. Be sure to send links both from your own blog and from other blogs you read that you think would be good to post. See Loren's post for submission how-to info.
• Power Law in Biblical Citations: Stephen C. Carlson (Hypotyposeis) has another typically thought-provoking post. Cool stuff. The Logos Bible Software Blog followed up on Stephen's post with some discussion of a prototype report we were working on awhile back that searches Logos Bible Software for similar information.
• Biblioblogs.com Interviews Chris Heard: The biblioblogger du jour ... er, du month (sorry, I don't know French) is Chris Heard (Higgaion). Check out the interview and give his blog a look-see if you don't already read his stuff daily.

Enjoy! And make sure to send some submissions for BSC:IV Loren's way, too.

Wayne Leman of the Better Bibles Blog has a recent post titled Paragraphing Ephesians 5 where he discusses some of the peculiarities of paragraph breaks.

Yep. Paragraph breaks. And paragraph breaks (and sentence breaks, and punctuation) are all important and sometimes overlooked elements of the original language editions of the New Testament. For example, the NA27 Greek text and the UBS4 Greek text differ in their paragraphs in Ephesians 5. They both have paragraph breaks between vv. 20 and 21. But UBS4 has vv. 21-33 as a single paragraph while NA27 has vv. 21-24 as a paragraph and 25-33 as a pargraph (... with a sub-paragraph break before v. 29!). Different folks think different things are going on here.

Another helpful source to consult is the OpenText.org clausal analysis. OpenText.org have analyzed the Greek New Testament for its syntactic structure. (Small plug: Logos Bible Software have developed and will release a version of the OpenText.org analysis; see the Logos Bible Software blog for some more details). The text they analyzed, as I understand it, had no punctuation -- so their clause breaks (and secondary clauses, and embedded clauses) reflect their own judgment as to the underlying syntactic structure of the text. They plan to use their clausal analysis as a basis for a higher-level analysis of paragraph structure, so their clausal analysis could be helpful for us to consult in this case as well.

OpenText.org have Eph 5.18b-21 as a single primary clause with a series of embedded clauses. Like below, where each paragraph represents a clause. The first clause (v. 18a) has what OpenText.org calls a secondary clause, it is indented. The second clause (vv. 18b-21) has a series of five embedded clauses (these would traditionally be labeled "participial clauses", likely), they are indented as well. I've forced wrapping on some of the embedded clauses; there are only five.

καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ,
    ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία,

ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι,
    λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ἐν ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις
        καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς
    ᾄδοντες
    καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ
    εὐχαριστοῦντες πάντοτε ὑπὲρ πάντων
        ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
        τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί
    ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ

You can see the OpenText.org representation online (click New Testament in the Texts sidebar menu, then click Ephesians, then check out the clause view of chapter 5).

This analysis is helpful for me because I can start to piece things together and think about what the text is really communicating. The second clause is talking about "being filled in the spirit". It then lists five ways that we can focus on to do this. The participle clauses "attach" to the primary verb (which, thanks to the OpenText.org analysis, we know is the predicator/verb πληροῦσθε). So we know that it is through speaking psalms, hymns and spiritual songs; through singing; through making music in our heart to the Lord; through always offering thanks for all things; and through submitting to one another out of reverence/fear of Christ.

OpenText.org list their next clause as vv. 22-23:

αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν
    ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ
    ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς
        ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας
        αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος

As Wayne notes in his blog post, v. 22 (in NA27 and UBS4) has an implied verb, likely ὑποτάσσω as some form of the word is in several MSS (Sinaiticus and several minuscules; Byz texts too). This would likely function as the predicator (primary verb). There are two immediately secondary clauses; an adverbial clause and a subordinate clause. The subordinate clause has some other stuff going on. The adverbial clause is a contrast, it helps explain the primary portion of the clause ("Wives, to your own husbands; as to the Lord ... ") with the subordinate clause providing more information ("... because the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church; he [Christ] is Savior of the body").

As to Wayne's original post about whether there is a paragraph break between v. 21 and v. 22; I'm not too sure. He is, of course, correct that there is cohesion between the two clauses especially shown with the use of the assumed verb in v. 22 (NA/UBS editions). Either way, there is a consistent vibe working through the last half of Ephesians 5.

All of this (Wayne's post particularly, and my few thoughts above) underscores the importance of thinking about higher-level discourse issues.

Too often (and I'm one very guilty of this) we get stuck in the words, doing searches and looking at concordances to see how particular words are used; we forget that the primary thing that affects word meaning is immediate context. Words dissociated from context are difficult to deal with. But in context, we can work to quantify meaning. One method of evaluating context is to step up from the word level to the clause level and the paragraph level. Trace the flow of the larger section (paragraph, pericope, whatever). Evaluate where different editions have sentence breaks and paragraph breaks. Look at syntax; see where the phrase or clause appears in the larger discourse. What is the primary verb, and where does the currently evaluated text lie in relation to that verb? What is the subject (who is doing the acting)? What is being acted upon (or, what is/are the objects)? What other sorts of things modify the verb?

Starting with words is fine; but we also need to be diligent to examine how words relate to each other to form larger units (OpenText.org would call these "word groups"); and then how those units form into clauses; and how those units form into paragraphs. Then we've worked the text from a variety of angles and we can know the big picture (for vv 18b-21, it could mean being filled with the spirit and evidencing that in particular ways) and the smaller picture (practically, what "making music to the Lord" could mean). But all sorts of stuff — not just word meaning — affects how a verse or section is interpreted and then applied in the life of a Christian.

Update (2006-03-18): Note that the break between Eph 5.21 and 22 has been a subject of discussion on the OpenText.org forum.

At Bible study earlier tonight (we're going through 2 Peter) we came across 2Pe 2.15-16:

Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness. (2Pe 2:15-16)

And here's the Greek. Note the words in bold between the two:

καταλείποντες εὐθεῖαν ὁδὸν ἐπλανήθησαν, ἐξακολουθήσαντες τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ τοῦ Βοσόρ, ὃς μισθὸν ἀδικίας ἠγάπησεν ἔλεγξιν δὲ ἔσχεν ἰδίας παρανομίας· ὑποζύγιον ἄφωνον ἐν ἀνθρώπου φωνῇ φθεγξάμενον ἐκώλυσεν τὴν τοῦ προφήτου παραφρονίαν. (2Pe 2:15-16)

This is in the context of a rather severe denunciation of false teachers. Rather than go the right way (the way modelled by angels in v. 11) these false teachers instead think lightly of judgement and embrace blasphemy. Like Balaam (a prophet for hire saying whatever he wanted [or whatever his benefactor desired] who was set straight by a dumb donkey), they have chosen the wrong way.

When I read this, I couldn't help but think of the Didache:

There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between the two ways. (Did 1.1)

And here's the Greek:

Ὁδοί δύο εἰσί, μία τῆς ζωῆς καὶ μία τοῦ θανάθου, διαφορὰ δὲ πολλὴ μεταξὺ τῶν δύο ὁδῶν.  (Did 1.1)

This, of course, is similar to the Epistle of Barnabas:

But let us pass on to another lesson and teaching. There are two ways of teaching and of power, the one of light and the other of darkness; and there is a great difference between the two ways. For on the one are stationed the light giving angels of God, on the other the angels of Satan. And the one is the Lord from all eternity and unto all eternity, whereas the other is Lord of the season of iniquity that now is. (EpBarn 18.1-2)

And, again, the Greek:

Ταῦτα μὲν οὕτως· μεταβῶμεν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ ἑτέραν γνῶσιν καὶ διδαχήν. Ὁδοὶ δύο εἰσὶν διδαχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, ἥ τε τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ἡ τοῦ σκότους· διαφορὰ δὲ πολλὴ τῶν δύο ὁδῶν. Ἐφ ̓ ἧς μὲν γάρ εἰσιν τεταγμένοι φωταγωγοὶ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐφ ̓ ἧς δὲ ἄγγελοι τοῦ σατανᾶ. Καὶ ὁ μέν ἐστιν κύριος ἀπ ̓ αἰώνων καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ὁ δὲ ἄρχων καιροῦ τοῦ νῦν τῆς ἀνομίας. (EpBarn 18.1-2)

To be clear: I think Second Peter is earlier than both the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas. And it seems plain enough that the idea of opposites (here in the form of two "ways") is used frequently in all sorts of literature. For example, we know the gospel and first epistle of John both use the opposition of light and dark in a similar way to contrast alternates. Even the quote from Epistle of Barnabas above uses the light/dark metaphor to reiterate the difference between the two ways.

Is this a not-so-direct mention of the "two ways" in 2 Peter? The one way is right/straight/proper (εὐθεῖαν) and the other way is associated with Balaam and is astray (ἐπλανήθησαν) from the right way.

Whether or not 2Pe 2.15-16 is a reference to "two ways" imagery similar to that of the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas, the idea that there are two ways, and that one way is right and proper and the other way is not seems fairly clear, at least to me as I read this (admittedly late).

Many moons ago, I had a series of posts on the Epistle to Diognetus. At the end of that series, there was a poll on which text I should blog about next.

Not too many people responded, but those who did specified that the Didache would be a good one to look into. So I will.

But first, some thoughts.

Should examination of non-canonical text (text that isn't Scripture) be different from examination of Scripture? I think it should be as the non-canonical text does not have the same underlying authority that Scripture has. But I'm not sure what that means. [Note: I'm thinking more about application of the text in the life of a Christian here than general examination/exegetical practices. Apologies for the confusion.]

Most editions of non-canonical text I've seen are just that: editions. They have the text and translation. They identify parallels in canonical and non-canonical documents. They discuss language, grammar, syntax, authorship, etc. They have brief notes, usually relating to the definition of a word or two.

That is much different than most commentary on Biblical texts, which seem to center on application or perhaps more homiletical purposes. I have not yet examined the Hermeneia volume on the Didache; a friend has that volume and I hope to borrow it from him shortly. Perhaps that will help me out.

Until then, my basic question is: What should commentary on non-canonical text consist of? What should it look like? What methods should it use?

Currently, my thought is to go very slowly through the text and comment on the Greek as it relates to similar words or grammatical/syntactic structures as they are found in the New Testament. That is, major on the language and minor on the exegesis. But if one was to do exegesis, what would that end up looking like? And would it be valuable? And would it be useful?

Just runnin' at the fingers here. If you have any thoughts, please email, leave some comments, or write away with your own thoughts on your own blog and I'll link to you from here (assuming I find it or you tell me, of course).

Thanks!