The Nov/Dec issue of Bible Study Magazine has the following:

Brannan, Rick with John D. Barry, “The New Testament Didn’t Drop Out of Heaven” Bible Study Magazine 2, no. 1 (November/December 2009): 30-31.

It’s in the “What They Don’t Teach You In Church” column and is a very short article (heavy on graphics) that introduces the concept of NT manuscripts and their numbers, particularly in comparison to available MSS of other corpora.

If you already have Logos 4, you can already see the primary graphic in the Logos Bible Software Infographics resource. [NB: Link is to a video on YouTube displaying the infographics resource]

Internally, as Logos Bible Software 4 neared time to ship, a group of us in the Design & Editorial department were commissioned to make some videos for Logos 4. These aren’t meant to be completely instructional how-to videos, just walk-thru and demonstration of some features. You know, to get you comfy with the feature.

Now you can hear the smooth, dulcet tone of my voice, coaxing you gently through the peculiarities of each feature. [yeah right]. Anyway, here are the ones I did:

• Sympathetic Highlighting
• Stereoscopic Images
• Bible Word Study Guide
• Command Bar
• Bible Explorer
• Cited By
• Timelines
• New Tab
• Ratings

The links are to YouTube; they were functional as of the time of writing this post.

You may think “Huh?! Finally?!! I just heard about Logos4!” but Logos4 has been my life for at least the past 18 months. But now I can talk about it to whomever I please. Logos4 is public. Released. Not a beta. You can buy it now. You can cross-grade, upgrade, or flat-out buy it today. Download the whole thing if you want. That’s pretty awesome.

If you haven’t heard, please check out the Logos4 web site. Oh, and don’t forget about the iPhone app, either. Yes, there is a Logos iPhone app. I’m not making this up.

Logos4 is a complete change. It is new from the bottom up. It does things differently. I’ve fallen in love with the windowing system, rule-driven collections mean my collections can finally keep up with my library, floating windows are a dream on multi-monitor setups, and there are a ton of new resources too.

Instead of all that stuff (which others will cover, I’m sure), I just wanted to point to a few things dear to my heart in Logos4.

• The Apostolic Fathers Reverse Interlinear
• Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the New Testament
• Templates for Syntax Searching
• Grammatical Relationships in Bible Word Study
• Facilitate Serendipitous Discovery

1: The Apostolic Fathers Reverse Interlinear. Logos4 has a great selection of reverse interlinears (OT and NT for ESV, NRSV, NKJV, KJV, NASB95; an alignment of the LXX and BHS; and the in-progress Lexham English Bible (LEB) is also reverse-interlinearized for the available content [Rom-Rev]). But reverse interlinears aren’t just for Bible text anymore, they can be implemented on non-Bible text as well. Really all that is needed is a text and its underlying source. So a few years back I pitched the idea of having a reverse interlinear of the Apostolic Fathers text (English with underlying Greek; sorry, no Latin). Our first editor was unable to take on the project due to personal circumstances. I wanted this one so much I ended up doing the reverse interlinear alignment myself as a side project! It was fun, and now you can use a reverse interlinear with Greek text outside of the NT.

This brings up another feature that works with all texts that share a common alignment text (or are the alignment text): Something called “Sympathetic Highlighting”. For you Logos old-timers, this is “Navigate to Associated Word” on steroids. Basically, you highlight something in one text, and the other text highlights it too. You can see this above; I’ve highlighted text in the English, the underlying Greek gets highlighted too. This works in the OT and NT. Highlight something in the ESV and see how the NASB95 treats it. Even better: Highlight something in the LXX and see it highlight in the BHS (!)

2: Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the New Testament. If you’ve followed Logos at all over the past five years, you know that we’ve been very innovative in applying syntactic analyses (analysis above the word level) to the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament. Logos4 continues this innovation with the Cascadia Syntax Graphs of the New Testament. These are based on work done by the Asia Bible Society in their Greek Syntactic Treebank Project. They use simple, approachable terms (like “Subject”, “Indirect Object”, “Clause”, “nominal phrase”, “prepositional phrase”, etc.) for their structures.

The Syntax Search dialog has been completely revamped as well. For example, below is a query for the Cascadia Syntax Graphs that locates where a prepositional phrase has φοβος as its object:

In comparison with LDLS3 (and OpenText.org), Cascadia needs fewer properties, uses more approachable terminology, and is conceptually easier in structure.

3: Templates for Syntax Searching. As much as I love syntax searching, I’m enough of a realist to know that it is a great feature with a very limited audience. Most folks just want to know when something is the subject, or the object, or where it occurs as the main verb. Or even perhaps what sorts of adjectives modify the word. Templates provide this. From the syntax search, hit the query drop-down. Templates are on the left. Select one, and go. Let’s say I want to find where the verb φοβεω is negated (so, “do not fear” instead of “fear”):

Click “Go” when the word is there (select from the list or hit enter), and you’re doing a syntax search.

Alternately, you could open the desired template for the desired database from the syntax search editor. This would open the actual structure to search. From here, just fill in as necessary.

4: Grammatical Relationships in Bible Word Study. The primary difference between v3 and v4 in Grammatical Relationships is speed. In Logos4, it’s faster. Much faster. Like, real fast. But there’s this new section that shows up (where applicable) called Preposition Use. This is where the study word is the object of the preposition. There’s this cool graphic used to help show how the preposition is used. Here is an example with φοβος (fear) as the study word:

Fret not, there’s a Preposition Use chart for Hebrew too.

5: Facilitate Serendipitous Discovery. Go to the command bar. Start to type in “Facilitate”. You should see:

What does it do? Try it. Let me know what you find. Need some background? Try this three-and-a-half year old blog post.

What am I not mentioning?

There’s all sorts of stuff I’m not mentioning, including:

• Scads of new resources available in the new “LE” collections.
• Maps. Awesome maps. Zoomable maps. Linked to dictionaries maps. Linked to the text maps. Linked to Google maps maps.
• Infographics. Images of all sorts. Images in Dictionaries are integrated. Stereoscopic images.
• Customizable Guides. Ever wanted to create your own Passage Guide from a template of options? Now you can. Same for Exegetical Guide and Bible Word Study Guide.
• Passage Analysis. This is cool. OK, I’ll give you a picture of this one:

There is so much other stuff, I’ve just gotta stop now. There is not enough time to mention it all in a blog post. Check it out for yourself.

I’d been meaning to talk with my friend at Hendrickson about Bernard Taylor’s Analytical Lexicon of the Septuagint (amazon.com) (ALS), but as fate would have it a different friend passed a copy along to me on Friday. So I figured I’d take a peek at it and blog a bit about it as well.

First, a disclaimer: I’m the one that put together the Lexham Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, so I’ve mucked about the waters of analytical lexicons. Conceptually, analytical lexica like these are easy. Just dump the database and sort it, right? Realistically, they are much more difficult because they involve a tremendous amount of checking, sorting, reviewing, laying out, and other things. I understand completely how much work Bernard Taylor has done here, and he should be commended for the work.

Second, a story: When one of the editors of a text that Logos puts out (who will remain anonymous) came to the office to walk us through his work, we heaped adoration upon him for the years of work that was represented in what he’d done. He took this as an opportunity to tell us that all long-term database driven work really needs is “sitzfleisch” (dunno if I spelled that correctly), meaning someone’s gotta sit down and do it. For the LXX, Taylor sat down and did it. The world needs more Bernard Taylors.

Now, with all of that said, there’s really not that much to an analytical lexicon, presentation-wise. You should be able to look up your word (any word in the text) and get to a decent definition or gloss. Parsing is extra, and Taylor gives that too.

Taylor’s definitions are actually the translation equivalents from Lust, Eynikel and Hauspie’s Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (LEH), so they are recently published and have some history behind them.

The problem? The definitions are too brief. But more than that, there are no example citations listed at all. A lexicon of a corpus that has no references whatever to that corpus. No sample citations for senses. This is a problem.

Further, I have problems imagining anyone in this day and age of analyzed texts available electronically through numerous Bible software providers would actually use this lexicon in the way it seems intended to be used, by physically looking up the word in print. I could be wrong (or myopic, my gainful employment is in making these things available and accessible electronically) but I just don’t see it happening with any frequency. About the only reason to buy this book is to make sure you have an LXX lexicon on your shelf that you can look at when you can’t find the information anywhere else. And it is well-priced for that market (and could possibly steal the graduate student sales from LEH).

The problem is that I see another better presentation of the data. Instead of an analytical lexicon, this sort of data needs to be presented Sakae-Kubo style as a Reader’s Lexicon. Order it by the text, filter out words based on NT frequencies (since NT readers would be most likely to use such a work) and perhaps overall frequencies. Have volumes for Pentateuch, Prophets, etc. since they’re likely to be bigger than the present 600pp.

Of course, one further problem is that software providers are doing things similar to that. Logos has an “Exegetical Guide” which does pretty much that same thing.

So while overall I’m impressed with the amount of work and detail of the work that has gone into this volume, I have a hard time seeing how it could be used by anyone, outside of the use-case of simply needing an LXX lexicon on the shelf for reference. For that, the price is good — although one might be better off saving that money for an electronic version of an LXX Lexicon (LEH is available from several, including Logos).

Yes, there has been a relative absence of posting on this blog. As is the case with many things, life intervenes.

In my reading or studying I note things almost every day and think “I should blog that!” but have not been able to get around to it. The latest? The use of πλην in Mt 26.63-64 and how it is very similar to my understanding of the use of αλλα. And then there was that thought about the usage of parenthetical comments in John’s gospel (but I’m sure that’s been done over in the commentaries).

But, no time to write up such things. I’m working on several projects, both at the office and at home, and ETS/SBL is approaching (Will you be there? I’ll be at SBL. If you want to meet and chat, send me an email, text geek at g mail dot com, and we’ll try to get together).

But most importantly, Ella has really been into tea parties lately, and a three-person tea party (Ella, Bear and Bunny) is lopsided, so I like to join them when I can to make it an even four.

For the past year I’ve been spurty (is that a word?) in my blogging. That will continue for the foreseeable future. I’m not going away, and I appreciate those of you who continue to peek over in my little corner of biblioblogdom to see how I’m doing.

I mentioned “several projects” above. One such project I hope to publish here on the blog soon. Another will be published in an upcoming issue of Bible Study Magazine, I’ll link here when that is available as well. So keep comin’ back. Really, there will be substantive posts coming.

I’ve wanted to look into this for awhile, and found the following from the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary quite helpful:

Alternatively [abba] has been explained as a rare vocative (in which case it could just as well be Hebrew as Aramaic) or as derived from children’s baby talk (cf. "Papa," "Daddy"). If the last explanation were right, then the use of abba as an address to God in Mark 14:36 might be thought to imply a special, indeed a unique, intimacy. This view was held at one time by J. Jeremias, but he later came to regard it as "a piece of inadmissible naivety" (1967: 63). Wrong as it is, it deserves mention not only because of its extensive dissemination beyond the walls of academia but also because its influence can be detected even in the work of respected scholars such as J. G. D. Dunn (1975: 21–26; 1980: 22–23) and is explicit in the most recent writing of M. J. Borg (1987: 45). Apart from the intrinsic unlikelihood of the idea that Jesus ever addressed God as "Daddy," the suggestion is ruled out of court by one important fact: wherever abba is found with the meaning "father" or "my father" (in Mishnaic Hebrew or Targumic Aramaic), it is equally employed of the fathers of grown-up sons. One instance cited by G. Vermes (1983: 42) is Judah’s threat to his unrecognized brother, Joseph, in the Tg. Neof. version of Gen 44:18: "I swear by the life of the head of abba, as you swear by the life of the head of Pharaoh your master. . . ." And as J. Barr (1988) emphasizes, inferences concerning the meaning of words must be based upon function, not upon origin or derivation. (AYBD v1 p7, article on “Abba” by John Ashton)

Conversely, see J.D.G. Dunn in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, in his article on Prayer:

A great deal has been made during the past forty years of Jesus’ style of address to God and its significance. Jeremias made the case for Jesus having regularly addressed God by the Aramaic word ‘abbā>’ (see Languages of Palestine); and he also noted that ‘abbā’ was "a child’s word"; and this led too quickly to the conclusion that abbā meant "Daddy"—an early conclusion which Jeremias soon qualified, but which has come back to haunt the study of the Gospel traditions ever since.

The basic evidence is clear and Jeremias’s initial conclusion probably sound. The key evidence is the appearance of abba itself in Mark 14:36. Added to that is the clear attestation that the same form was used by the early Christians (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). Two points of significance are to be noted in the last two passages. (1) The Aramaic word was retained in the worship of the Greek-speaking churches. This must mean both that this particular prayer address had become so established among the earliest Palestinian believers and so precious for them that it was carried over into Greek-speaking worship. That is to say, its continuing value lay not in its meaningfulness to Greek speakers but in the meaningfulness of the living tradition of prayer which it expressed. (2) It is remembered as a word particularly associated with Jesus: to say abba is to share in a common sonship and a common inheritance with Jesus (Rom 8:16–17; Gal 4:6–7; cf. 8:29). This must mean that the word was recalled as a word particularly and peculiarly associated with Jesus’ own sonship to God (see Son of God). Were it a common prayer idiom of (some) Jews at the time of Jesus (as some have suggested, without supporting evidence), it would not have had this significance of linking the one who said abba so distinctively and directly with the sonship of Jesus. (DJG, p. 618-619).

Also in DJG, see D.R. Bauer’s article on “Son of God”:

Jesus experienced this intimate fellowship especially through prayer, and consequently addressed God in prayer almost exclusively as "Father" (Aramaic Abba Mk 14:36; cf. Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6). Jeremias has argued that Jesus was apparently the first Jew to address God in prayer as Abba (Jewish prayers typically used the obsolete and formalized Hebrew term Abi), and that Abba was a term of familiarity and intimacy, having originally developed from the speech of children ("daddy"). Subsequent scholarship has been unable to contradict the claim that this prayer language of Abba was original with Jesus. Although Jeremias’ employment of etymological considerations is questionable (Barr), his distinction between formal prayer speech, which suggests distance, and the more colloquial expression used to address earthly fathers bears the weight of critical scrutiny.

This article references the following, which I am unable to access but would love to. 

Text-critical wisdom from Gunther Zuntz, Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum (amazon.com):

Readings are either right or wrong. Their theoretical implications largely depend upon this elementary fact. Agreement in genuine readings is normal; possibly significant only where it is confined to few witnesses or where it recurs frequently in well-defined groups; agreement in error suggests some relationship. These theoretical implications apart, we want to know which readings are true. No statistics can tell that: we have got to use our critical faculties and methods. (Zuntz 59)

This is after some paragraphs on the dubious usefulness of “statistical methods” in evaluating and comparing texts/manuscripts where Zuntz has another memorable line:

Variant readings can fruitfully be compared and grouped on more than one principle, but they cannot reasonably be added up or reduced to percentages like the factors of an arithmetical sum. What is the sum total of, say, an egg plus a grape plus a unicorn? (Zuntz 58)

This isn’t a passive, read-before-you-go-to-bed book. Zuntz is a tough slog; you’ve gotta work your mind while reading him in order to get the most from him; consulting the text is necessary too. To grok him more fully I’ll have to read it a few more times (still working on my first slog). But there is a ton of useful stuff in here about the practical application of textual criticism to the real problems one runs into when evaluating variants. I don’t think Zuntz is right about everything, but I do think that if you’ve got any desire to do textual criticism, then Zuntz should be near the top of your list after intros like the Alands Text of the NT and Metzger’s Text of the NT and after you read (really read) the NA27 intro and do some scanning of the consistently-cited witnesses. Zuntz could come before or after Westcott & Hort’s intro (amazon.com) as well. <speaker voice=”yoda”>But read them all you must if textual criticism you desire to practice</speaker>.

Read this (Lk 3.15-18) and ask yourself the question, “what is the good news?”:

As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” So with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people. (Lk 3.15-18, ESV)

The good news* is that Jesus comes after John. But the rest of it? Burning the chaff with unquenchable fire? Being baptized by fire? And this is the “good news”?

Further, look what preaching the “good news” got John (Lk 3.19-20):

But Herod the tetrarch, who had been reproved by [John] for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for all the evil things that Herod had done, added this to them all, that he locked up John in prison. (Lk 3.19-20, ESV)

I wonder if John thought the “good news” was good—I mean, look where it got him. In prison and then not too much later … his head was on a platter. I’m sure he did think the “good news” was good. But do we? And are we thinking of the “good news” or something else?

* Yes, I know that the ESV's “preaching the good news” is a translation of the verb εὐαγγελίζω, which could also be translated “preaching the gospel”. The translation “good news” makes my point easier to make, but the modern conception of “gospel” has problems too. Either way, John’s description of Jesus gathering his own “wheat” and exterminating the “chaff”, followed by the consequences John experienced because of his preaching, well … I don’t know how much that squares with our conception of the impact of the gospel in our lives today.