It's Christmas Eve. I don't know about you, but here in Bellingham we have at least 2 feet of snow on the ground, which is very unusual for this time of year. And it's still snowing; we got 4-6" more overnight—with more on the way, according to the weather-dude. I get to shovel my driveway for the fourth time in a week! The Christmas Eve service at our church has been canceled. Mail delivery is off-and-on (so much for that "neither snow nor sleet nor hail" bit). We're hoping the garbage truck makes it to pick up our garbage today. And I've been working from home (thanks, Logos!) since last week Friday. This will be the first real white Christmas, with lots of snow, that I can ever recall experiencing.

I wanted to wish a Merry Christmas to all who read ricoblog, and express my gratitude as well. I know my posting has been sporadic this year; hopefully the posts that I've made have been interesting and thought-provoking in some way.

I've come across a few unique tools and charts that I wanted to make sure all you folks out there in TV-land knew about. I find them incredibly interesting and think that you might too.

So enjoy these goodies, and Merry Christmas!

Christmas Goodie #1: What's in Your Bible? An interactive Canon Comparison Chart.  This is from Bible Study Magazine (which is published by Logos), put together my my friend and colleague (in that order), Vincent Setterholm. You're likely aware that most protestant bodies accept 66 books in the Biblical canon, and that there are "apocryphal" or "deuterocanonical" books that are accepted into other traditions' canons. But did you know that the Ethiopian canon (the widest canon) has both a "broad" and "narrow" canon, and that the broad canon includes stuff like purported letters of Peter to Clement? Check the chart out to get a glimpse of the sorts of things going on in the canons of other traditions.

Christmas Goodie #2: Biblindex: Index of Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Early Christian Literature. This as well is very awesome, hat-tip to Kevin P. Edgecomb at Biblicalia. I've mentioned Biblia Patrisica on this blog before; it is a 7 volume (plus one supplement) set that somewhat exhaustively sets out references among the writings of the Fathers to the Bible. Biblindex makes this information available for query:

This site already allows simple interrogation in a corpus of about 400,000 biblical references, from the volumes of Biblia Patristica, CNRS Editions, 1975-2000, and unpublished archives of the Center for Patristics Analysis and Documentation (CADP).

As Kevin notes, the search function is somewhat byzantine. Read the instructions to figure out how things work, it doesn't work like you might think. But it makes a wealth of hard-to-find material available, with a little work. You should bookmark this site.

Christmas Goodie #3: Collation and Evaluation of OT Apocrypha Translations. The hat-tip goes to Mark Hoffman of Biblical Studies and Technological Tools for this one. This originated in a posting to the Biblicalist yahoo group. There is a cool chart, some XML, and a spreadsheet. Check it out, there is some cool and useful information here.

First, I won't pretend to have all of the answers (or any of the answers, for that matter), but I would like to weigh in on how syntax searching of the OpenText.org Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament might help one get a grasp of the problem and the options.

Disclaimer: I work for Logos, and have blogged extensively on the OpenText.org Syntactically Analyzed Greek New Testament on the Logos Blog. I'm not writing this post to say that "danielandtonya" are right or wrong (though their approach seems sound to me and I'm guessing their results will be too), or to say that their data sets are somehow in error. I just want to try to assemble their data sets using syntactic searching (and any advantage that relying on syntactic relationship gives) instead of relying on proximity + agreement relationships, with or without exclusion—and see what differences there are and how important or unimportant they might be.

For the uninitiated, this debate is concerning Gal 2.16 (go ahead, read it, and make sure to check the Greek too).

Specifically, I'd like to interact with Hebrew and Greek Reader's three data sets delineated in their "The Jesus Faith - Vol. 3" post (but also described in the Vol. 2 post).

Here are their descriptions of their three data sets, from their Vol. 3 post:

• Data Set 1 - How many times in the GNT is πιστις (in any case) followed by Χριστος (in any case) within four words of each other?
• Data Set 2 - How many times in the GNT is a genitive noun followed by another genitive noun within four words?
• Data Set 3 - How many times in the GNT is πιστις in the genitive case followed by another genitive noun within two words (and words in between are not conjunctions or non-genitive nouns)?

On the first data set, danielandtonya report that the following references are included: Ro 3.22; Gal. 2.16 (2x); 3.22, 26; Phil 3.9; Col. 1.4; 1Tim 3.13; and 2Tim 3.15. My syntax search located one additional hit, James 2.1. The syntax search looks like this:

I'm searching for where πιστις is the "head term" of the word group (loosely, the "phrase"), and where it is either directly or indirectly modified by χριστος. The James 2.1 instance has four words between πιστις and χριστος, so the intervening range is larger than danielandtonya accounted for. I'm not sure that it makes any difference to the argument, and they may have known about it but weeded it out. I just mention it because it was in my results.

On the second data set, danielandtonya report 1,431 hits (in their Vol. 3 post). That's a lot of hits. The syntax search I created narrows it down to 452 hits.* The difference is that the syntax search locates where the second genitive is in some sort of direct relationship with the first genitive, not just where two genitives happen to be within two words of each other. Again, it is relying on the relationship, not the proximity of words (which essentially serves as a loose approximation of syntactic relationship). Whether this makes any difference for danielandtonya's argument I have no idea. But here's the search:

I should note that I'm constraining to nouns because that is the wording that danielandtonya's specification uses; I might also want to consider adjectives in one or both slots, but that's left as an exercise for the reader to complete.

On the third data set, danielandtonya haven't yet reported (at the time of my initial posting), so I'll have to wing it. In OpenText-ese, what they appear to be looking for is when a genitive noun is in close relationship with πιστεως (genitive form of πιστις), hence the two-word proximity constraint, and the further specification that no conjunctions or pronouns intervene. With a syntactic analysis, there is no necessity to consider the exclusion of certain intervening types (such as conjunctions or pronouns) because one is really searching for the relationship between things no matter what may intervene. Here again, between two nouns, a simple "modification" relationship fits the bill (from what I understand of danielandtonya's intent). So my third search is relatively similar to the previous, I've just added that πιστις should be the lemma of the first word in the series:

What did I get for results? Five hits: Ro 3.22; Ga 2.16(2x); 3.22; Col 2.12. All but Col 2.12 were in danielandtonya's first dataset.

And this is where I leave you. I don't have a dog in the "objective or subjective genitive" argument. I don't like any of the labels because they (at least to me) seem to be geared toward answering the "how do I translate it?" question instead of the "how was it understood?" question. Yes; the two are somewhat related, but the primary difference is the end. One seems to think about and try to understand Greek in terms of English; the other at least tries to think about Greek in terms of Greek. Thus, I'm not a fan of labeling things like this. From my view, the obvious ones are, well, obvious; and the debatable ones are debated ad nauseum to little ultimate benefit.

* If you allow for variation in the order of the head term word and modifier, then the count is 458. But as danielandtonya's specifications rely on order, I figured these should too.

From Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (amazon.com):

We, belated rootless readers, can learn only through marginalia and concordances—like novice guitarists learning blues riffs from sheet music—what Paul knew by heart: to quote the confession that God will render to each one according to his works is to trigger overtones in which God's omniscience and mercy play in counterpoint and blend. (Hays, 43)

I came across the following buried in MSNBC.com. But at least it was there. Hopefully the Turkish government will follow at some point with a formal, official apology for the Armenian genocide of 1915.

Turks Apologize for Armenian Massacres

ANKARA, Turkey - A group of about 200 Turkish intellectuals on Monday issued an apology on the Internet for the World War I-era massacres of Armenians in Turkey.

The group of prominent academics, journalists, writers and artists avoided using the contentious term "genocide" in the apology, using the less explosive "Great Catastrophe" instead.

From Jeffrey Gitomer's "Little Red Book of Selling" (no relation to Chairman Mao's "Little Red Book", apparently):

“Most people are caught up in other people’s drama. Did Bill Clinton lie? Did O.J. Simpson kill her? Did Kobe Bryant rape her? Will Ben marry J.Lo? Answer: Who cares? Better answer: How do any of these events affect your life? Best Answer: They don’t. Yet you will spend tens maybe hundreds of hours focused on this crap at the expense of your own career and your own success. Let’s get closer to home.” (Gitomer, 186)

As to why I read Gitomer's book, I'll just say that at the end of every calendar year, Logos has a "read for cash" program whereby employees can read approved marketing/sales/management titles for cash stipend. The idea is for education, to get us all thinking about these sorts of things and where we can adjust our practices and approaches as we strive to excel yet still more.

Bottom Line: By reading some management/sales books, I can get some extra spending money that I use to fill my "date night" fund; particularly the "Valentine's Day" subcategory of said fund.

In other words, I love my wife SOOOO MUCH that I read Jeffrey Gitomer's inane, headache-inducing book.

And I shared the very best quote with you. Well, the best quote apart from Gitomer's story of bumming a cab ride from Hal Linden [you know, Barney Miller] while they were both doing their thing at the urinal in the men's room at LaGuardia airport. But as this blog hopes to be acceptable for readers of all ages, I don't think I should go there.

At least, that's the book I'd like to see someone write. Mike Aubrey wrote a post called "On the Use of Linguistics In New Testament Studies". It's worth reading, so hop on over and give it a read.

I wrote in the comments:

In my background reading for the paper on αλλα, I found time and again that the dead grammarians had more insight to offer than a lot of the new stuff. Blass-Thackeray was more helpful to me than BDF. Funk’s BIGHG gave the stuff and had no fluff getting in the way. Robertson, when you could find the twelve places he mentioned something, was good. But most newer (published in the last 20 years, let’s say) had survey-itis and classification-itis. It was like listening to a player piano. All the notes were right, but the tune had no soul. The dead grammarians, for all their warts, have soul.

My undergrad degree is in economics. One book I had to read for a senior seminar had the best title ever: “New Ideas from Dead Economists”. I’ve been hoping against hope that someone would write a similar book for Hellenistic Greek, something like “New Ideas from Dead Greek Grammarians” or something like that.

Additionally, though, I have to say that some of the best stuff as an overview on discourse function of conjunctions was in Porter & O'Donnell's 1996 2006 LIABG paper. If you haven't read that, you should.

For those keeping score at home, I've recently purchased the following:

Richard B. Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (amazon.com). Yes, I should've read this one a long time ago. I've done a lot of work, reading and thinking in the area of use of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers; specifically in the use of the Pastoral Epistles in the Apostolic Fathers. As such, it only makes sense that I should read Hays' classic to see what it can add to the mix. I'm well aware of the criticisms of his work, but it still is one of those books you've got to deal with if you're digging around in this area. So now I've got it, I hope to dig into it soon. Here's the blurb:

Paul's letters, the earliest writings in the New Testament, are filled with allusions, images and quotations from the Old Testament. This book investigates Paul's appropriation of Scripture from a perspective based on recent literary-critical studies of intertextuality.

Andrew E. Bernhard, Other Early Christian Gospels: A Critical Edition of the Surviving Greek Manuscripts (amazon.com). I've been wanting this for awhile and finally took the plunge. I can only say that it is very awesome; giving both transcriptions and reading editions of each early non-canonical gospel as well as translations. Incidentally, this book also ends up being a pretty good "reader"; it has text with familiar vocabulary but unfamiliar content, in Greek and English. The indexes look great too. I can recommend this one highly. Here's the Amazon.com blurb:

Other Early Christian Gospels (amazon.com) collects all the recently-recovered Greek manuscripts containing parts of long-lost early Christian gospels into a single volume. It includes new critical editions, English translations, and exhaustive indexes of the Greek fragments of the "Gospel of Thomas", the "Gospel of Peter", the "Egerton Gospel", and six other unidentified gospels. In addition, "Other Early Christian Gospels" features "student's Greek texts" that present the restored Greek texts without any potentially confusing apparatus, editorial signs, or unidentifiable word fragments. This special student's version makes the fragmentary ancient texts dramatically more accessible to those still in the process of learning Greek.

Finally, I installed the Flavius Josephus Collection (5 Volumes) on my home computer. This package from Logos Bible Software is the perfect complement to the recently-released Josephus in Greek: Niese Critical Edition with Apparatus. The Flavius Josephus Collection includes:

• Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus: Life of Josephus
• Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study
• Louis H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 3: Judean Antiquities Books 1-4
• Christopher T. Begg, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 4: Judean Antiquities Books 5-7
• Christopher T. Begg and Paul Spilsbury, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 5: Judean Antiquities Books 8-10

These are from William Zinsser's On Writing Well (amazon.com). Lots of good advice throughout, though overall Zinsser is a bit too Strunk-and-White-ish (is that a word?) for me.

That said, everyone (particularly if you are writing or considering a dissertation—masters, doctorate, whatever) should consider the below.

What you think is definitive today will turn undefinitive by tonight, and writers who doggedly pursue every last fact will find themselves pursuing the rainbow and never settling down to write. (p. 52)

...

Therefore think small. Decide what corner of your subject you're going to bite off, and be content to cover it well and stop. This is also a matter of energy and morale. An unwieldy writing task is a drain on your enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is the force that keeps you going and keeps the reader in your grip. When your zest begins to ebb, the reader is the first person to know it.

As for what point you want to make, every successful piece of nonfiction should leave the reader with one provocative thought that he or she didn't have before. Not two thoughts, or five—just one. So decide what single point you want to leave in the reader's mind. It will not only give you a better idea of what route you should follow and what destination you hope to reach; it will affect your decision about tone and attitude. (p. 52)