Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Luke Timothy Johnson's Anchor Bible volume on 1 & 2 Timothy. Why another commentary? The patristic citations alone make this one very interesting. Update: Also have added Jerome Quinn's Anchor Bible volume on Titus. The citations to patristic quotations are impressive in Quinn's volume as well. 

 
Post Author: rico
Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:30:31 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
 Monday, April 02, 2007

Awhile back, I posted some quotations from J.B. Lightfoot. The book is J.B. Lightfoot's The Apostolic Fathers Part I: S. Clement of Rome. A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations and Translations (Volume I). Macmillan: London 1890. I'm still reading the book, and there is a lot of quotable stuff in here. I stop almost nightly to tell Amy, "oh, you gotta hear this!" I'm sure she's sick of me doing that, but she always manages a laugh and a smile. So it's worth trying. :)

Anyway, here are some more quotations.

On responding to a Volkmar's (whoever he is) theory that the book of Judith is an allegory:

I shall not attempt to dissect this theory in detail, for it would be mere waste of time to do so. Those who wish to see it torn into shreds have only to consult the criticisms of Hilgenfeld and Lipsius, who have shown that neither the dates nor the localities nor the incidents will admit it. (p. 356)

On the genuineness of First Clement:

There is lastly the circumstance that its genuiness was never questioned by any individual critic of repute or by any Church for more than seventeen centuries, from the reign of Domitian or Nerva to the reign of Victoria. I pass by one or two writers of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th, whose method deprives them of any weight as authorities, and whose opinions it would be a waste of time to discuss or even record. [NB: he then gives a footnote with two citations, to Lipsius and Harnack, so one could follow up and find the worthless opinions]. (p. 362).

... As a matter of fact, [the passage concerning the phoenix] is one of the best authenticated passages in Clement; and indeeed we may well excuse a simple Christian for a credulity of which not a few among his higly educated heathen contemporaries were guilty (see the note on sect. 25). Again soon after, an Englishman, E. Bernard, suggested that some later impostor had foisted into the text of the Roman Clement some fragments of the Alexandrian who quoted him. This was hardly worth refutation, but it was refuted by Wotton. (p. 363).

That's it for now. More later if/when I come across it.

Update (2007-04-04): ricoblog reader Mike Aubrey (who has his own blog εν εφέσω, check it out) comments:

Rick, I'm trying to make a decision here...Is it worth it to pick up Lightfoot's five volume work on Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp? I know that most of his writings are still quite valuable, but I'm a little nervous about dropping that cash for these volumes.

So, yes its worth it or do you think there are other more recent works that should be invested instead?

Yeesh, I dunno. First off, it's not worth it if you're going into debt. If you're floating a book purchase on a credit card, you're spending money you shouldn't be. If you pay off your card at the end of each month, then go ahead. But don't borrow money to buy books.

Mike, if you're near a decent seminary library or university library with a seminary, then head to the library and check out the volumes and see if they're something you really want to drop the cash on. Alternately, you could try searching Google Books to find 'em. I just did that; here's Ignatius & Polycarp Part II Vol I ; Part II Vol II. I think; I can't guarantee the links will work. But I searched http://books.google.com for "Joseph Barber Lightfoot" clement volume

I'd say if you're deep into the Apostolic Fathers, or Clement/Ignatius/Polycarp in particular, then sure. Lightfoot discusses relevant sources and at times even provides them in the original language and translation. The only place I've really learned about the three primary sources of Clement (Alexandrinus, Constinopolitanus, and the Syriac) is via Lightfoot. Sure, other editions (e.g. Ehrman, Holmes, Lake) talk about them in introductions; but Lightfoot actually gives MSS history and does comparison of MS trends in his discussion of textual history of the Clementine epistles. But Lightfoot goes both ways -- I've skipped a massive essay (a book in itself) on Roman succession; in one of the Polycarp volumes there is a massive tome on calendars and dating that is beyond me. Stuff like that I skip over; maybe it'll come in handy some day. But in the five vols. Lightfoot does do a ton of work with citations of the writings in later literature and also with canonical citations in the writings that might be hard to find elsewhere. And he's got commentary on the Greek editions of each writing and then some.

Post Author: rico
Monday, April 02, 2007 7:51:06 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [2]

Brandon Wason at Novum Testamentum has posted BSC:XVI. Do check it out. Excellent job, Brandon!

Post Author: rico
Monday, April 02, 2007 5:44:53 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
 Thursday, March 29, 2007

I just received a reminder about the SBL / Logos Technology Paper Awards. I'm anxious to see what folks are working on!

The dealine for papers is May 1, 2007 with winners announced at International SBL in Vienna. Here's a blurb for the uninformed:

Logos Bible Software and the Society of Biblical Literature announce two sets of awards for papers that creatively use technology in exploring questions of grammar and syntax in biblical studies: one focusing on the Hebrew Bible, the other on the Greek New Testament. The contests are open to all those engaged in the study of those disciplines, and prizes will be awarded in both areas for student and faculty/professional categories. A total of twelve awards will be given.

There's some decent winnings ($1000 cash, $1000 Logos software credit, and $200 SBL book credit for first place entries (4 available) for winning papers, and lots of chance to win with both student and professional entries for the areas of Hebrew Bible and also Greek New Testament. I'd enter, but Logos employees are not eligible.

Get thee to thine syntax annotations!

Update (2007-03-31): ricoblog reader Tom notes that syntax searching can be difficult to get a grasp on. I agree; the multi-dimensionality of the data alone is a new sort of concept to master in thinking about the Greek New Testament. For me, I've found a deductive method to work. If you are somewhat familiar with NT Greek, begin with a passage you know cold. Compare the syntax graph to what you know of and see mentally when  you examine the text itself. See how the syntax maps the structures you're thinking of. Then, using the graph as a guide, try to reproduce some structures. Start small and general, like a clause component that has the same wordgroup->head term->word (insert the proper lemma) as what you're looking at. Search and tweak until you get your template passage as a hit. Then add new components and tweak to get an idea of how to map the basic structure you already know. "Lather, rinse, repeat" is how I end up describing it. Also, beginning with a passage you know, you could do a Bible Word Study on a word and examine the sorts of things the Grammatical Relationships section returns. Under the hood, that's doing a lot of template-based syntax searching. So that's another way to start to play with syntax data without having to master the search dialog.

Post Author: rico
Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:47:50 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]

As most regular ricoblog readers know, I have recently completed a series on the Didache. The series included a phrasal breakdown of the text with interlinear translation.

I've compiled all of those individual sections of interlinear translation into one PDF file with an introduction. I have not edited the translation at all, so all errors and oversights still remain. But if you're interested, you can download it for your own use and perusal.

If for some reason you want to use it in a larger context (group context or distribution of some sort), please do check with me first. Thanks!

Update (2007-03-30): I noticed a slight indentation problem in Did 10.6, so I adjusted it and reuploaded the PDF.

Post Author: rico
Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:33:29 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]
 Wednesday, March 28, 2007

I've been wanting to post this one for awhile. Amy is at a ladies' meeting at church, so I have a little time to do it now. This was taken at the Royal London Wax Museum in Victoria, BC. We went to Victoria for an overnight stay as part of our honeymoon trip.

Montgomery is over my right shoulder; Eisenhower is far too far in the background for my liking. If you like to read about WWII, I can highly recommend Rick Atkinson's Pulitzer-prize-winning book, An Army At Dawn (amazon.com). It is the first volume in a planned trilogy and focuses on the allied effort in northern Africa.

Also: Had some site difficulties this morning and ended up losing a comment to this post. Apologies for that. Feel free to re-comment if you'd like (because I agree with you!)

Post Author: rico
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:35:48 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [0]

In the "best sentences I've read tonight" department, from J.B. Lightfoot's The Apostolic Fathers Part I: S. Clement of Rome. A Revised Text with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations and Translations (Volume I). Macmillan: London 1890.

On the whole this MS appears to give a good text. The shortcomings of the scribe are generally such that they can be easily corrected; for they arise from petty carelessness and ignorance, and not from perverse ingenuity. (p. 120)

Follow-up (2007-03-29): After discussing Alexandrinus' version of First Clement, Lightfoot moves on to the version recorded in the Constantinopolitan MS. On p. 123-124, he writes:

[Constantinopolitanus] is written with a fair amount of care throughout, so far as regards errors of transcription. In this respect it compares favourably with A, which constantly betrays evidence of great negligence on the part of the scribe. But, though far more free from mere clerical errors, yet in all points which vitally affect the trustworthiness of a MS, it must certainly yield the palm to the Alexandrian. The scribe of A may be careless, but he is guileless also. On the other hand the text of C shows manifest traces of critical revision, as will appear in the sequel.

Post Author: rico
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:27:56 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]
 Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Some of you have no doubt noticed the Amazon.com links on the sidebar and the occasional links to books on Amazon.com in my blog posts over the past few months.

Thanks to those of y'all who have clicked and eventually purchased things from those links, I was able to do a little shopping on Amazon.com today.

What did I get? Well, commissions from those sales helped me out in purchasing:

Thanks again! Amy and I appreciate your support of my bibliophilia!

Post Author: rico
Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:17:15 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) 

#     |  Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]