Ben Harper and the Blind Boys of Alabama, There Will Be A Light (amazon.com).

I subscribe to Rhapsody; this one has been off-limits for the past few years (after its initial release). On a whim I checked today, and it's available. Yee-Haw!

Track List:

1. Take My Hand
2. Wicked Man
3. Where Could I Go
4. Church House Steps
5. 11th Commandment
6. Well Well Well
7. Picture of Jesus
8. Satisfied Mind
9. Mother Pray
10. There Will Be A Light
11. Church On Time

Of the album, one Amazon reviewer says, "Is this gospel music? If it is, then I love gospel music."

An honorary doctorate was recently bestowed on me.

No, not for real, and not from an accredited institution of higher learning — but in some email spam from a company that will go unnamed so as to not promote them. I'm guessing they bought the SBL email list and assumed everyone on the list had attained doctorates of some sort.

Here's the proof at least someone considers me title-worthy. Er, that is worthy of a title of academic achievement (I'm sure many could think of all sorts of titles to give me ... )

While we're on the subject, I've thought for awhile I should just start putting the letters "N.D." after my name, like "Richard W. Brannan, N.D.", for "no doctorate". But I guess if I do that too much, Jim West will start calling me an empty-headed dilettante.

Of course, if there is a reputable, accredited institution of higher learning out there that would like to bestow a real, achievement-based 'honorary' doctorate, please feel free to contact me.

BDAG glosses as "quite empty", but its usage in Hermas Mandates 5.2.1 is what got me:

"Now hear", he said, "how an angry temper works, how evil it is, and how it subverts God's servants by its working, and how it leads them astray from righteousness. But it does not lead astray those who are filled with faith, nor can it work on them, because the Lord's power is with them. But it can lead astray those who are empty-headed and double-minded.

Ἄκουε <νῦν>, φησί, τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς ὀξυχολίας, πῶς πονηρά ἐστι, καὶ πῶς τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ καταστρέφει τῇ ἑαυτῆς ἐνεργείᾳ, καὶ πῶς ἀποπλανᾷ αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς δικαιοσύνης. οὐκ ἀποπλανᾷ δὲ τοὺς πλήρεις ὄντας ἐν τῇ πίστει, οὐδὲ ἐνεργῆσαι δύναται εἰς αὐτούς, ὅτι ἡ δύναμις τοῦ κυρίου41 μετʼ  αὐτῶν ἐστιν· ἀποπλανᾷ δὲ τοὺς ἀποκένους καὶ διψύχους ὄντας.

Note the "empty-headed" (translation from Holmes' 3rd edition) is tweaked for the context; the other usage in Hermas (Mandates 12.5.2) is translated "those who are empty".

This is a great word. I can see Jim West giddily using it in the proper context.

From Eugene E. Loos' Logical Relations in Discourse (amazon.com). This is from Ernst-August Gutt's essay on "Logical Relations, Relationships and Relevance":

Just dealing with these two uses, the tempting solution would be to say either that there are two homophonous suffixes -m, or that the suffix -m has two distinct senses, one marking a conjunctive relationship and the other something like an alternative relationship. However, Ivan Lowe pointed out in his introductory lectures that it is not the most helpful way to begin one's analysis: by assuming a complex solution from the start one may miss a possible simpler solution. (Loos 11).

Gutt is specifically referring to a connective in Silt'i, an Ethio-Semitic language spoken in Ethiopia. But the general principle is a good one for both lexical analysis and specifically the analysis of connectives ... like αλλα.

Don't worry, I'm not getting all gushy about relevance theory on y'all. But the principle seems like a good thing to keep in mind.

From Michael Holmes' excellent and highly-recommended diglot edition (amazon.com):

(3) After these words of hers ceased, she said to me, “Do you wish to hear me read?” And I said, “Yes I do, madam.” She said to me, “Pay attention, and hear about the glories of God.” I listened with care and amazement to things which I did not have the strength to remember, for all the words were terrifying, words which a human being cannot endure. The last words, however, I remembered, for they were beneficial to us and reassuring:

(4) “Behold, the God of hosts, who by his invisible and mighty power and by his great wisdom created the world, and by his glorious purpose clothed his creation with beauty, and by his mighty word fixed the heaven and set the earth’s foundations upon the waters, and by his own wisdom and providence created his holy church, which he also blessed—behold, he is removing the heavens and the mountains and the hills and the seas, and all things are becoming level for his elect, that he might keep the promise which he promised to them with great glory and joy, if they keep God’s commandments, which they received with great faith.”

Holmes, M. W. (1999). The Apostolic Fathers : Greek texts and English translations (amazon.com) (Updated ed.) (339). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.

Now I'm not arguing for canonicity of the Shepherd (even though Sinaiticus has both Shepherd and Barnabas after Revelation); there's some wacky stuff in the book(s) later on. But can you see why so many early Christians revered the writing? (you can see this more in the Mandates & Parables sections) The testimony attributed to "the Lady" regarding creation is simple in its attribution of such to God, but not specific regarding method — apart from ascribing creation to God's "invisible and mighty power" and "his great wisdom". I think Christians of all strides could testify to that.

The curious part (to me) in the above is the idiom "...and all things are becoming level for his elect". Osiek's Hermeneia commentary (amazon.com) is (at least to me) hard to follow on this; it doesn't really shed any light. I understand a bit from the context, but I'm left wondering if there is something in the larger milieu that I'm missing.

Update (2008-08-25): Thanks to reader BZephyr (check out his blog while you're at it) for some enlightening comments. Do make sure to read them.

A friend who happened upon Neil Elliott's new book The Arrogance of Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire (amazon.com) passed it along to me. There are some intriguing parts, it appears, but there is also a lot of current events/politics that has creeped into the book, from what I can tell. On the intriguing parts, check this excerpt from the introduction:

Unfortunately, rhetorical-critical interpretations of Romans have often done little more than glean from the classical Greek and Roman rhetorical handbooks a novel technical nomenclature for an outline of the letter that has already been established, without the benefit of rhetorical categories, in dogmatic readings. ... Similarly, some interpreters tend to describe the letter in terms resembling the genre of the philosophical treatise or letter essay, though it bears none of the hallmarks of the ancient letter essay. Others seek to identify the rhetorical genre of the letter according to the categories of the ancient rhetorical handbooks, but falter on prior assumptions regarding the letter's purpose.

In contrast, I expect the ancient handbooks to be of only limited usefulness in determining the genre of Romans. The handbooks were designed, after all, for the fairly formal expectations of public oratory in the Greco-Roman world. (Elliott pp. 17-18)

All that said, I figured I'd mention it since I normally mention new books I receive or purchase. I've not read this book (outside of the introduction) and it isn't on my to-read list, but if/when I next hit Romans, I'll probably check it out.

Here's the blurb from Amazon.com:

Product Description
Elliott offers a fresh and surprising reinterpretation of Paul's letter to the Romans in the context of Roman imperial ideology, bringing to the text the latest insights from classical studies, rhetorical criticism, postcolonial criticism, and people's history.

By setting the letter alongside Roman texts (Cicero, Virgil, the Res Gestae of Augustus, Seneca, poets from the age of Nero, as well as later historians and satirists), Elliott provides a dramatic new reading of the letter as Paul's confrontation with the arrogance of empire - and with an emerging Christianity already tempted by the seductive ideology of imperial power.

The Arrogance of Nations (amazon.com) explores such topics as: Empire and the 'obedience of faith'; Justice and the arrogance of nations; Mercy and the prerogatives of power; Piety and the scandal of an irreligious race; Virtue and the fortunes of peoples; and Paul and the horizon of the possible.

About the Author
Neil Elliott, an Episcopal priest, teaches biblical studies at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities and Metropolitan State University in Minneapolis. He is the author of Liberating Paul and The Rhetoric of Romans.

If Romans is your interest, you should probably check it out (amazon.com).

I've been slowly but surely working my way through Reinhard Feldmeier's The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text (amazon.com), published by Baylor University Press. Sean Winter (of the blog Primal Subversion), who blogs a lot about all things First Peter, mentioned Feldmeier in a post awhile back:

My semi-embarrassing moment [at the International SBL meeting] came when I began to chat to a guy about Reinhard Feldmeier’s newly translated commentary on 1 Peter (which I’m hoping to review soon). This guy was quite persistent that this was one of the best commentaries on 1 Peter. I was a bit hesitant, and I’m quite happy that Achtemeier and Green are the best commentaries on 1 Peter, with Elliott a close second. The banter when back and forth for a while and then we parted ways. Later on, I was told that the person I was talking to was Carey C. Newman, who is down to write a commentary on 1 Peter for the Smyth & Helwys series! Next time I’ll be more careful before I just start blabbing… PS: I still think I’m right about Achtemeier and Green. Feldmeier is helpful, but nowhere near as helpful or insightful as the former two.

Feldmeier's commentary (amazon.com) has a lot going for it, in my opinion. I actually enjoyed reading the introduction and particularly appreciated the focus on recipients/addressees. Feldmeier beat it into my head that the author (we'll call him Peter since that's what the text claims) considers himself and those he's writing to as foreigners. Here's an excerpt:

... one must carefully observe that in 1 Peter, the alienation from the world around them does not in the first place take its character from a negation of the world but is interpreted as the flip side of the belonging to God that is stressed in the whole letter, in 1.1f.; 2.4, 9f., by means of the concept of election as integration into the people of God, in 1.3f., 23; 2.2f., by means of the idea of rebirth as an eschatological renewal of existence. This shows that even though the address as "foreigners" is determined by the societal conflict situation, the foreignness of the Christians is not in its essence derived from protests against society, but from correspondence to God and belonging to his new society. (Feldmeier 14, emphasis his)

In other words, the foreignness of Christians in this world is because Christians belong to God; it isn't some counter-cultural difference. I knew this, but Feldmeier (better, Peter Davids' translation of Feldmeier) put words to this idea in ways I hadn't before read, and that I've profited from.

What about the commentary itself? While there is an extensive bibliography in the back, each commentary section has a section-specific bibliography as well. Layout-wise, the book has real, bona-fide footnotes (yay!) instead of chapter endnotes or that insipid abomination, notes at the end of the book. All in all, a good reading experience.

However, I have at least one thing I'm not pleased with: Latin phrases. Sure I can figure out most of them, but c'mon -- genitivus auctoris? (p. 58); scientia eminens practica? praxis pietatis? (both on p. 43); paralelismus mebrorum? (p. 65). This sort of thing is just unnecessary and useless. Here's an in-context example of useless use of Latin: "The having or not having of such hope thus forms virtually the differentia specifica between Christians and non- Christians..." (p. 68).

I'm still working through the commentary itself; perhaps I'll post more in the future as I continue to work through it.

Ran across some references to the Glagolitic script, so I have to post them, plus some others I knew of to round out the collection.

For those unaware, Glagolitic is the script developed by Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century so that they could translate stuff (i.e. the Bible) into Slavic languages. And it is a very cool script. If you're deep into textual criticism, it could pay off to have some familiarity with it.

If you're really interested, perhaps Horace Lunt's Old Church Slavonic grammar (amazon.com) might be a place to start. Note I've not seen this, it is just the most accessible/affordable English language OCS grammar I've seen to date.

So here are some links.

• Cyrillic and Glagolitic Alphabet Day (too bad I missed it)
• The Living Glagolitic
• Ministry of Type: Glagolitic
• Typonine: Glagolitic
• Wikipedia: Glagolitic alphabet
• Wikipedia: Old Church Slavonic
• AncientScripts.com: Glagolitic

Enjoy!