While spending a few days in Victoria, BC last week with my lovely wife, I was able to convince her to let me browse a used book shop.

OK, there was no convincing needed -- she knows me and enthusiastically suggested it when she saw the store! I love this woman!

While browsing the religion section, I happened across an edition of Alexander Souter's Greek New Testament. I already have access to the first edition of his GNT, published in 1910. Souter issued a revision in 1947. That's the edition I found.

As noted in The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism, the cool part of Souter's edition is the apparatus and the attention paid to patristic citations in Souter's second edition. From the Encyclopedia:

A noteworthy feature of Souter's apparatus is the degree of detail it gives about the Fathers. These are cited in careful and specific detail. This is one of the best features of Souter's edition.
The revised edition of Souter cites papyri through P⁴⁸, uncials through 0170, minuscules through 2322, a full list of versions (including Armenian, Gothic, Georgian, and Ethiopic), and nearly two hundred fathers of all eras. The Byzantine text is cited under the symbol w.

So this is a fun find. Throw in that it was $10 (Canadian!) and Rico is thrilled with this purchase.

So I just remembered -- it was a two years ago (on Aug. 13) that ricoblog commenced. Here's the momentous first post.

67000 visitors later (110000 pages served), and here we are.

Since my mind has been out of this for a few weeks, I don't really have anything else to say. Maybe you'd like to read the post I wrote a year ago for ricoblog's first blog-iversary. 

Yes, it's true. After a 3+ week blogging hiatus (which included 12 blissful days that were computer-free and 3 weeks that were email-free and blog-free!) I'm back.

The honeymoon was awesome. Thanks to all who have wished Amy and me well; we do appreciate it.

I hope to return to some Didache blogging in the next few days. I think rather than try to catch up on all blog readin', I'll just mark everything as read and wait for the August carnival to fill me in on what I missed.

Note that blogging will be sporadic at best. I've returned to work but I also am responsible to uphold my civic responsibility of the dreaded "Jury Duty". I reported to Whatcom County Superior Court jury pool today. The case that was to be heard was settled (the defendant reached a plea agreement with the prosecution) but I could (and likely will, given the state of man) be called back for duty any time in the next two weeks.

Cheers!

If you've listened to any James Brown (like the classic "Get on the Good Foot!"), you've heard the godfather of soul yell "Shamanah!".

I've long had the theory that this was either James speaking in tongues, or he was showing his lost Jewish heritage by yelling James-Brownified Hebrew of some sort.

Imagine my disappointment when tonight I happened to think of an alternate (and much more plausible) theory: This is simply James-Brown-speak for "Show me now!" He usually utters the groovalicious incantation before some member of the band goes into some funk-tastic breakdown of chunky funkosity.

Oh well.

Went to lunch with a few colleagues. We went to a place that served Pho (Vietnamese noodle soup). The restaurant also provides chopsticks, so we of course used them.

On the chopstick wrapper was this text:

Welcome to Chinese Restaurant.
Please try your Nice Chinese Food with Chopsticks.
the traditional and typical of Chinese glorious history
and cultual.

Makes me wonder how close we really get when we translate the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek of the Bible.

Update (2006-07-19): Eagle-eyed ricoblog reader David comments that "cultural" should really be "cultual". I was so enamored with the grammatical peculiarities I missed the typo! It's been corrected above.

 ... because I read it in the newspaper and on the internet.

I can verify the rumors: it is true, I'm marrying the most wonderful woman on July 22! Here's a recent picture:

I was just poking around in Second Clement. Here is §3, in Lake's translation:

1. Seeing, then, that he has shewn such mercy towards us, first that we who are living do not sacrifice to the dead gods, and do not worship them, but through him know the father of truth, what is the true knowledge concerning him except that we should not deny him through whom we knew him?
2. And he himself also says, “Whosoever confessed me before men, I will confess him before my Father”;
3. this then is our reward, if we confess him through whom we were saved.
4. But how do we confess him? By doing what he says, and not disregarding his commandments, and honouring him not only with our lips, but “with all our heart and all our mind.”
5. And he says also in Isaiah, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” (2Cl 3)

This is interesting to me because of the progression through references; the homilist here uses both OT and NT references to convey to his reader (hearer) the benefit of confessing Christ, who has saved us from certain death  (recall §1 of Second Clement), before men. If Christians confess Christ before others, then Christ will confess us before his Father.

And how do we confess him? The homilist tells us we confess him in our words and in our actions:  "By doing what he says, and not disregarding his commandments, and honouring him not only with our lips, but 'with all our heart and all our mind.' "

Then comes the quote from Isaiah (actually introduced as a quote from Isaiah ... that's nice). And then we go into §4, where the homilist urges Christians to not be like the people Isaiah was describing:

1. Let us, then, not merely call him Lord, for this will not save us.
2. For he says, “Not everyone that saith to me Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that doeth righteousness.”
3. So then, brethren, let us confess him in our deeds, by loving one another, by not committing adultery, nor speaking one against another, nor being jealous, but by being self-controlled, merciful, good; and we ought to sympathise with each other, and not to be lovers of money. By these deeds we confess him, and not by the opposite kind.
4. And we must not fear men rather than God.
5. For this reason, if you do these things, the Lord said, “If ye be gathered together with me in my bosom, and do not my commandments, I will cast you out, and will say to you, Depart from me, I know not whence ye are, ye workers of iniquity.” (2Cl 4)

Again, the application is simple: If the people that confessed with lips but not heart are far from the Lord, then we be must people that confess with lips and with heart. Thus we confess with our deeds, by adhering to the commands set before us (note the homilist's list sounds like Pauline lists of vice/virtue).

In this way we show that we do not fear men over God; for our actions reflect God's leading and commands. In this way, the homilist bases his teaching on both OT and NT passages and makes his teaching practical to those who will hear him.

The quotations in §4 are, according to Lake, likely from the Gospel of the Egyptians, though no real evidence for that is available.

Here's a gem from Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians. The translation is that of Michael Holmes.

For everyone "who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist"; and whoever does not acknowledge the testimony of the cross "is of the devil"; and whoever twists the sayings of the Lord to suit his own sinful desires and claims that there is neither resurrection nor judgment—well, that person is the first-born of Satan. Therefore let us leave behind the worthless speculation of the crowd and their false teachings, and let us return to the word delivered to us from the beginning; let us be self-controlled with respect to prayer and persevere in fasting, earnestly asking the all-seeing God "to lead us not into temptation," because, as the Lord said, "the spirit is indeed willing, but the flesh is weak". (Poly 7.1-2)

What's interesting to me in this section is how Polycarp uses references from First John, First Peter and Matthew to provide basis of his condemnation of those who teach and subscribe to improper doctrine. This is interesting in light of Hill's thesis that Polycarp might be Irenaeus' anonymous presbyter, doing the work of heresiologist and perhaps even providing Irenaeus with the foundation to do the work he later did against heresy.