The New Testament Stumblr

Ehrman / Evans debate now online

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:57:09 -0500

The debate I posted about last time is now available for the world to see on YouTube. Many thanks to myself for editing and posting the videos ;-)

http://ow.ly/8LCA4 http://ow.ly/8LCD5

The Ehrman / Evans Debate(s): some musings

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:24:00 -0500

I had the privilege of being at both nights of the first annual Religion Soup debate that took place at St Mary’s University and Acadia University. I’ve heard (read) at least two people say that Ehrman won the first night. I must admit it is hard for me to judge debates. I work hard on focusing on the arguments but that is clearly not the only factor in a debate. It is also difficult because I am in the field and immediately hear the thin or outright incorrect points Ehrman makes. Also, Evans is my mentor and I share his convictions so I admit my bias. So with all of this in mind, let me offer a few thoughts.

If you were only at one or the other, you will really appreciate the full scope of the conversation by watching the one you missed. They will, within a few weeks, both be online.
Evans was great both nights but he really shone on the second night. Ehrman seemed a little tired on the second night - this is understandable as the 1.5 hour drive took them 3+ hours due to weather.
Evans unfortunately had to deal with a sound issue in his opening statements of the first night that caused him twice to pause — it threw him off.
Evans had to answer a lot of questions about the Gospel of John when both clearly look to the synoptics as the primary texts for understanding the historical Jesus.
Personally, I can’t understand how anyone could declare Ehrman the winner of the first night when he began his opening statement by saying he disagreed with almost everything Evans said, and then proceeded through the night to say he AGREED with him on most points! Even the Chronicle Herald newspaper piece noticed this.
One of Evans’ great achievements was a sound and in-depth argument based on the arguments of other scholars. That was also a weakness, because it was over the head of many in the audience the first night. Ehrman kept it at the lay level. Evans’ opening statement was better the second night.
One of Ehrman’s greatest achievements of the first night was to say Evans was using a ‘sleight of hand’ argument. He said it a few times, and Evans did not really challenge that label sufficiently.
While almost any NT scholar would laugh off Ehrman’s talk on the Gospel of Peter (talking of verisimilitude in his closing statement!!), Evans did not jump on the opportunity to smash that argument when he had a chance. Evans did say it was derivative, but he didn’t unpack the reasons for the listeners.
Likewise, Evans missed the chance to crush Ehrman’s argument that the death of Jesus in Mark is totally different than the other synoptics - that Jesus was clearly caught of guard. That is perfectly true IF YOU IGNORE THE WHOLE OF MARK UP TO THAT POINT!
Despite one of Evans’ arguments being about eyewitness tradition, and even an audience question about this going to Ehrman, Ehrman successfully side-stepped this issue without ever really talking about eyewitness tradition.
The question of the debate was “Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus?” Ehrman, on the first night, successfully did his own sleight-of-hand and reposed the question (without challenge) to make the question “when you read JUST Matthew (or JUST Mark, or JUST Luke) you do not get a reliable portrait of Jesus. That wasn’t the question, but he is such a good communicator that he convinced the audience that that was the question and thus his was the right answer.
Humorously enough, Ehrman made some brilliant statements about the importance of Jesus and the Gospels and that we can know a great deal about Jesus from the Gospels. I even heard an amen in the audience at one point for Ehrman! It is humorous, of course, because he was arguing that we don’t have a reliable portrait in the NT.

There you have it! I’ll post here again when the videos go up for the world.

Google Scholar Citations

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:21:46 -0500

Google Scholar Citations:

Many thanks to Patrick McCullough for pointing this one out.

Google Scholar citations builds upon the power of google scholar and allows you to keep a list of your own works. With this list in place, Google scholar then tracks how often your citations are cited by others. It is a bit of ego-surfing, but nothing wrong with that!

Patrick mentioned that it would be nice to be able to create a citations list for someone else - particularly useful if you are interested in the reception of another scholar in the secondary literature — I think this would be cool too.

Christ at the Checkpoint conference (Mar 5-9, 2012)

Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:36:21 -0500

Christ at the Checkpoint conference (Mar 5-9, 2012):

A topic I have a keen interest in peace and justice in Israel and Palestine. It interests me more than others, partly, because early in my life as a Christian I was taught and bought into traditional dispensationalism. Built into that system, typically, is a staunch belief that the promises of the land in the OT still belong to Jewish people, and in particular the modern nation of Israel. My reading of the scriptures no longer follows a dispensationalist model, but I find it incredible how pervasive dispensationalism and help-Israel-at-all-costs theology still pervades the church.

This conference is a conference that seeks to interpret the scriptures responsibly, and hopes that Christians will not be pro-Israel or pro-Palestine, but pro-peace and pro-justice. I could not agree more. If I had the money or the time, I’d be there in a heartbeat!

2 years of the changed status quo?

Thu, 10 Nov 2011 14:11:49 -0500

2 years ago Michael Heiser made a post that bugged some people noting that Logos has changed the status quo in bible software.

In our new curriculum we have begun to integrate Bible software more heavily into our language courses (which I teach). Because of this, I have begun to work more heavily with Logos. I have begun to appreciate Logos Bible software more, all the while continuing to heavily use and enjoy Accordance. In light of the fact that I’ve become an equal parts user of both of the programs (and I have contributed work for both companies too!), I thought I would offer some thoughts and opinions on both programs. I do this not to draw a comparison of which one is better than the other, but in hopes that some of these observations may cause the developers to further refine their software and make them even better for their fans and users, of which I am one.

Accordance

Strengths (some, not all)

More intuitive to initially learn.
Unbelievably fast searching compared to the competition.
Accordance has made clear that its focus is on the primary texts on resources immediately related to its study. Accordance does an excellent job of this. It is not focused on a huge library in the way Logos is. (this is more an observation than a strength or weakness but it results in very strong resources, usually available quicker in Accordance)
The amount of primary texts and text critical resources is unparalleled.
Morph searching is easier, stronger, and more intuitive.
The new interlinear feature in 9.5 is pretty awesome, and you can add more to the interlinear than Logos interlinears can (which has been known for its interlinears).
The copy as citation works from any pane, scripture or resource.
Superior iOS companion app, with no restrictions on which apps can be on the iOS (e.g.: HALOT on Logos for iOS doesn’t come over)
I like that you actually talk to developers on the forum, they are very active on the forum.
Morph searching is superior. Likewise, Accordance’s construct window is a very intuitive drag and drop interface. The syntax searching is not as powerful as in Logos, but it is much easier to construct a search.

Weaknesses (some, not all)

Its interface is dated in my opinion.
A Biggy: Highlighting, notes, and history are not as well integrated and useful as in Logos and do not automatically sync. It would be great if syncing included these things, as well as preferences.
I prefer Logos’s syntax structures visually and the nomenclature Logos uses. The full syntax resource has also been slower in coming than I would have expected.
Another biggy: There is nothing comparable in Accordance with Logos’s Bible Word Study, Exegetical Guide, and Passage Guide. This does not mean I cannot get all of that info from Accordance, but it means multiple searches in different resources. These features of Logos provides a unified place for these types of research, particularly useful for pastors (whom I teach). I have found myself going more and more to Logos’s Bible Word Study when researching a word. Its graphics for showing how a word is translated in English, or the Septuagint, as well as its integration with syntax data (this word works as a subject with these words, as an object with these words, etc) is incredible. Syntax info simply isn’t (yet) integrated into Accordance search results in this way.
I wish Accordance would just tell me their are updates and update if I say yes. I need to run a check for updates, and if it is an update to Accordance itself, I need to manually install it too. Contrast this with Logos’s simple updating ability.

LOGOS

Strengths (some, not all)

Interface is clean. Layouts and tabs are great. The command bar is great too.
The program is powerful, but takes some time to learn.
Huge library.
Powerful, centralized search capabilities in all resources.
Bible Word Study and Exegetical Guide (and passage Guide) are excellent for pastors and students and are unrivaled. These are awesome centralized places for study.
Right-click contextual menu provides an awesome amount of info that quickly allows for further research.
ability to link resources, the inline information (interlinear) in each resource, and parallel resources is impressive.
Perseus and LSJ = awesome.
Highlighting and note-taking system is superb, and syncs!
Logos keeps a complete history of activity, and again syncs!
Visual filters allow for a great way to visualize the text.
Logos is unmatched in syntax resources and syntax search ability.
A strength if you use multiple platforms, Logos runs on all platforms (I don’t personally care about that:-)

Weaknesses (some, not all)

incomplete help files. I often have to go to the wiki or forums to find answers.
The morph data (which shows with a mouse hover) doesn’t work in a search pane. Annoying! The only way to see the morph data is to open the search results in a new pane, but then the search results are not clustered together anymore. Again, annoying!
Likewise, the right-click contextual menu doesn’t work in search results. Annoying!
While the syntax search is powerful, it is not easy to figure out (compare this to Accordance’s construct window which is so intuitive and easy to use)
While Logos has obviously put a lot of emphasis on syntax search, I am surprised at the inefficiency of morph search, particularly when you want to search for more than one word (a search string). For instance, I wanted to find a demonstrative pronoun immediately followed by a noun in concord: In Accordance it is dead simple. In Logos, I need to construct a syntax search! I think this type of morph search should be easy to do in the morph search tab. Compare this to the search commands in Accordance which are pretty simple, and the construct window which is very intuitive.
Related to morph search, Logos has some parameter commands. But are they easy to access like morph data (hit @) ? Nope! Are they even in the help files? No. You need to memorize them from the wiki.
Again, related to morph searches — It is incredible to me that a lemma search can give me no more information in the graph results than hits. Compare this to the info Accordance can provide (case use count, mood use count, etc).
Confusing graphs (eg: passage analysis)
One thing that continues to make Accordance a cut above the rest is its interactive atlas. I’m astonished Logos doesn’t have something like this in the works. Accordance’s timeline likewise is great.
Logos is behind in text-critical resources and manuscript image resources.

So did the status quo really change 2 years ago? It depends what you are looking for. I am more inclined right now to recommend Logos for pastors and Accordance for academics. But with some enhancements on both sides this dichotomy may not endure. I welcome any comments.

Porter's intro Greek grammar and teaching Greek

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:47:31 -0400

A recent review of Stanley Porter, Jeffrey T. Reed and Matthew Brook O’Donnell’s new intro textbook in RBL by Laurence M. Vance is affirming of the textbook’s contents on the one hand, but damning as far as actually using it to teach intro Greek on the other. I am inclined to agree with Vance’s review, though it pains me to say so. I enjoy Stan Porter’s work immensely, and am always stimulated by his work. But I do not think this new intro Grammar succeeds as an intro grammar. It may work as a 1.5 year intro grammar, but I’m not sure any school is looking for that type of work.

I have experienced something as a teacher over the past few years that I think may account somewhat for this textbook. It is the problem of knowing a topic well. After speaking about it often and thinking about it all of the time, it becomes hard to remember that it was difficult to learn about at first. We start to think that the topic and concepts should come easy to a new learner because it is so simple for us now to understand. I think this is what happened with Porter et al. How else can one explain the expectation to learn 900+ vocab words? And to spend so much time on the optative and other little-occurring verb forms?

It is unfortunate, because the book is great as far as content and as a reference. But using it for teaching intro Greek, I’m not so sure. I will be interested to see if any teachers do adopt it, and would very much like to hear about the experience of teaching with it.

languages and the NT PhD

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:04:32 -0400

I’m coming even later to the game than everyone else, but in case for some insane reason you follow my blog but not any other better and more popular biblical studies blogs, the conversation revolves around language requirements for PhD students in NT.

Larry Hurtado started (and continued) the discussion here, here, and here. Some fellow PhD students (from a different school) take issue with the public school system too.

I applaud Dr. Hurtado for bringing attention to this, but at the same time I need to ask for some clarification. First off, I agree that Greek and Hebrew is very important. At the seminary I work at, we heavily stress to the MA students the original languages. We encourage them to take as much as possible, and with our recent curriculum restructure we have made it possible to take much more original language courses than ever before.

But I need to ask — are we asking for competence or fluency? Particularly for French and German? Confession: I suck and have to work hard at languages. I’m writing my dissertation now and have worked with a few key German articles. But can I sit down with a cup of joe and read them? Heck no! It takes me forever. And that is my problem that I continue to work on. But the results are the same.

So I ask again, are we wanting competency or fluency? I have known students who, because of their knowledge of the Bible and their Greek vocabulary, can read the Greek NT pretty well. But can they explain case usages? Syntax? Morphology? Not as much. So what exactly do we want from NT PhD’s? Competency or fluency?

I personally want to have expertise in Hebrew and Greek. This means I can analyze the crap out of a passage using the best grammars and lexicons. Do I want to be able to pick up the GNT or Hebrew Bible and read fluently? Yes, but that is secondary to fully understanding the text.

The same goes for German and French. These are going to take me a long time to master. Does that excuse me from using the most important secondary literature related to my research? Absolutely not. It will be a longer and more painful process for me when I read these texts, but the end result is the same. And what do you care how long it takes me? Just as long as I don’t ignore them.

So should reading fluency in French and German be required for an NT PhD? I don’t think so. But should competency in French and German be required? And should I be required to interact with the relevant literature in German and French? Absolutely.

Parsing app in the Works

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:23:07 -0400

There are a number of iOS and/or Android apps on the market aimed at the biblical scholar or student. The majority fall into the category of “Bible or text”, with the next groups being related usually to vocabulary—including my multimedia flashcard apps.

What isn’t there for the struggling Greek and Hebrew student is a parsing app—something to practice parsing over and over. I aim to change that. I’m officially getting into the developer game.

I was a little hesitant to announce this prematurely, but my database is coming along well and I have found a great partner/programmer so I feel safe in announcing it now. I haven’t decided on a name yet, so if you have a good one, let me know!

The application will be aimed at two groups: 1) First year students studying with some of the main intro grammars (Mounce, Croy, Black, Hewett) and 2) students beyond 1st year working on improving parsing skills with lower frequency words. I also aim to deploy the program to both the iOS and Android platform. Users from group 1 will be able to create a parsing quiz based on several criteria:

which vocabulary from which chapters (of a corresponding textbook) do you know?
What grammar from which chapters (of a corresponding textbook) do you know?
Further delimiters based on part of speech will be available if desired.

For group 2, the delimiters will be word frequency, parts of speech, and major grammar categories.

In coming days (the wait may be a while) I’ll show a mock up of the interface to give you a better idea of what to expect. Suffice it to say, it will be second to none and I look forward to releasing this to the wide world!

Doubting Morton Smith and Secret Mark

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:32:56 -0400

Doubting Morton Smith and Secret Mark:

Being Craig Evans’ student and now colleague, I have heard him speak on many occasions about Secret Mark. This article is a very clear presentation of his thoughts on the issue of Secret Mark.

Principal Parts Got You Down?

Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:53:33 -0400

A friend of mine suggested I make a flashcard set for principal parts drilling. After I looked at the data I have collected for my multimedia flashcards, I realized this was something I would be able to do.

So for those of you interested in Greek Principal Parts flashcards, it is now available on Deinde for $4 (Mac or iOS, with Mental Case).

The set covers every verb that occurs 10x or more, and is categorized by frequency. The principal parts in the set are primarily those that actually do occur in the NT. The total is 1250 cards.

I hope you find them useful. And if you are a teacher, email me for your free copy.

Ancient Lives | Help us to Transcribe Papyri

Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:48:53 -0400

Ancient Lives | Help us to Transcribe Papyri:

U of Oxford is opening up the untranscribed/translated Oxyrhynchus papyri to the public for ‘arm-chair archaeologists’ to help out. You can read more about the project here.

If you are teaching an upper level Greek course, why not consider an assignment that includes your students working on one of these documents?

Interview with Danny Zacharias: The Singing Grammarian

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:57:40 -0400

Interview with Danny Zacharias: The Singing Grammarian:

Thanks to Matthew Montonini for the interview on my latest publication.

The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 15:50:39 -0400

The Online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek-English Lexicon:

Wow !! Every NT, LXX, and ancient Greek scholar needs to know about this new resource. LSJ is one of the best lexicons — but add to it a simple searchable interface and BEST OF ALL live links to all of the ancient texts which LSJ mentions. What a huge undertaking! Accordance and other Bible Software offer live links in their lexicons, but only to the scriptures. Because of TLG’s corpus, it is able to link to everything !

Topping this all of is the fact that it is free. Although TLG is a subscription resource, LSJ is free and will show you a tooltip-style snippet of the ancient texts. If you have a subscription, then the full ancient text will open up.

Unless there is something out there I do not know about (and I doubt it) this is now the most fully featured lexicon available to the Greek student. Awesome!

How long were biblical manuscripts used?

Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:45:04 -0400

How long were biblical manuscripts used?:

In my last post I mentioned the discussion among some bloggers. Craig Evans has recently posted an article on bibleinterp on the subject as well. A good read!

How Long Were Manuscripts Used? Evans, Hurtado, BW3

Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:28:12 -0400

How Long Were Manuscripts Used? Evans, Hurtado, BW3:

Larry Hurtado blogged recently on how long ancient manuscripts were used. Ben Witheringon III followed up on Hurtado’s blog as well.

As both of those scholars know, Craig Evans has been doing work on this. At this year’s Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint lectures Craig Evans discussed the issue briefly, and then in more detail at SEBC’s Legacy Conference. You can here the SEBC lecture here. In due course Evans’ work will be published as well. Very interesting stuff!

Kostenberger rebuke

Sun, 29 May 2011 14:58:41 -0400

Kostenberger rebuke:

A very fine rebuke of Kostenbergers complementation position.

SugarSync

Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:44:24 -0400

SugarSync:

I liked Mozy when it came along. Then I liked dropbox more. But SugarSync is the bomb. I even like it better than MobileMe. If you aren’t yet backing up, sign up now! And if you are an avid dropbox user, so was I! Sugarsync is better. You have the dropbox type folder (your magic briefcase) AND can sync any folder on your computer. Plus 5GB instead of 2! And right now, get another half gig if you use my link above to sign up. Try it out!

The Singing Grammarian

Mon, 18 Apr 2011 20:40:03 -0400

The Singing Grammarian:

I’ve been talking about this project for many moons but it is now a reality. You can now purchase my 18 songs (with video presentations) for learning intro Greek grammar through Kregel academic.

In the coming months the publisher will be advertising them more than this mere blogpost, but I at least wanted to let my blog readers know — The Singing Grammarian is out and ready to help you and/or your students learn.

Shibboleth - unicode typing

Fri, 01 Apr 2011 08:55:43 -0400

Shibboleth - unicode typing:

Logos Bible Software has created a very nice little program (only PC unfortunately) for typing in unfamiliar unicode fonts. Check it out!

In praise of Glo

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:14:48 -0400

Those who know me in my work setting know that I rely heavily on Bible software, specifically Accordance Bible Software. It is the best of the bunch - but for those stuck with a PC Bibleworks and Logos are good too.

But one very important group that I don’t think these platforms reach is the average church-goer. They don’t need the raw searching power, access to the original language modules, and access to critical commentaries. But they do need to be able to easily access info and media that will make the bible come alive.

Glo Bible is that Bible - it is the study bible of a new generation. Available on computer and iPad/iPhone, so it can be carried just like any other bible. Glo is the most visually appealing Bible software, bar none. It is simply beautiful to navigate. Simple to use because it has a narrow focus—The text, media about the passage in question, and some study bible notes.

So if you are looking to suggest an interactive Bible for people in your church, Glo is it.