I’ve decided to experiment with the whole concept of team blogging. Consequently, Ken Ristau will become co-blogger from now on, until further notice. I want to welcome him onboard, and look forward to his insights on the Bible software field.

PC Study Bible has been recently updated to version 4.2. Apart from a streamlined interface, the program now supports global searches, and also includes a pop-up preview feature for Scripture or topical references. Another welcome addition is the ability to save study desktops for later retrieval. See a full listing of what’s new here. Given the large amount of titles already available for PC Study Bible, this was a much-needed upgrade.

Yesterday, a first year Greek student requested some advice on B-Greek about an “exhaustive Greek concordance.”

In chapter 1 of his Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study, Frederick W. Danker deals with the different types of concordances. He says that “an ‘exhaustive’ concordance is one that lists passages in sequence under a headword[, without classifying under the various original terms], and in some way accounts for every occurrence of a word in the translation.” (p.1) The words I’ve put in square brackets would not be applicable to a Greek concordance for obvious reasons. The rest, however, would be fine (maybe using “version” instead of “translation”, if you want to get really picky).

Now back to the question at hand. The best exhaustive Greek concordance currently available is most certainly a computer-generated one. Many people still think of a computer as a kind of glorified typewriter. Likewise, picking up on the same metaphor, we might think of Bible software, first and foremost, as a glorified concordance. Bible software is much more than that, to be sure. But at its heart lies a powerful electronic concordance.

Most advanced Bible programs will let you build your own custom made concordance in English, Greek, or Hebrew, tailored to your specific needs and tastes. The output is generally as “exhaustive” and detailed as you want. Besides, you are not limited to single word searches (as is usually the case with printed concordances). You can, in fact, look for different combinations of words, specific grammatical constructions, and almost anything else you may want to come up with. Once you try it, you’ll most likely not wish to go back to using printed concordances anymore (except, perhaps, for cross-checking purposes).

Danker’s chapter is a great primer on the use of concordances. In fact, all of his book is well worth reading. So let me finish with one of my favorite quotes from page 17 of the 1993 edition:

For workers in the original languages, the use of concordances can prove to be a departure for an exciting new interpreter’s world. Shaking off the shackles of debilitating dependence on commentaries is akin to a revival experience. In a lexicon a word is like a friend in a coffin. A concordance restores her to life (…) The lexicographer considers the way a word is used and takes snapshots from various angles. A concordance helps one do what the lexicographer does but permits its user to look anew at the evidence.”

If for no other reason, that would be enough of an excuse to get and use some good Bible software, don’t you think?

A recent blog entry by Torrey Seland, in which he opens up the possibility of having other people contribute on a regular basis on his Philo of Alexandria Blog, reminded me of an idea I have been toying with for some time now.

As all bibliobloggers (sorry, can’t remember who coined the term…) know, Blogger makes it very easy to set up a “team blog”, where more than one person can actually post. I think Torrey’s blog is one of the very few where I’ve seen a co-blogger (Kåre Fuglseth), but theoretically it’s a very good idea, and I’m a bit surprised by the fact that this avenue has not been generally explored by the majority of us.

In my particular case, when I launched Bible Software Review and this blog, I was well aware I would have to start all by myself. But that was only meant to be the initial phase. I do hope to get other people involved in the project in due course. But let’s face it, it’s not easy. I have occasionally approached prospective reviewers, but I haven’t seen any lasting fruit yet.

In general, comments like “I’m taking a break”, “Blogging will be light for the next…”, “I’m too busy at the moment”, and others of that nature appear quite frequently in our weblogs. The reason for it is quite simple: Blogging is demanding, and most bloggers are very busy people. We don’t do it because we don’t have any better things to do. We do what we do because we are convinced that it needs to be done. It is definitely a service, whether large or small, significant or irrelevant, is for others to judge, but a service/ministry nonetheless. I wonder if there could be a place where some of us/you could work synergically. A “team blog” where people from different backgrounds, countries, areas of expertise, and time zones could contribute periodically. This would not mean dropping the current blogs or adding more pressure to the existing workload. Come to think of it, it might help avoid some duplicity, elicit more discussion on certain subjects, increment the number of helpful links and cross-links, appeal to a wider readership, and so on. Utopia or paradigm shift? Probably more the former than the latter at this point in time, but you never know…

Michael M. Homan, co-author of The Bible for Dummies and professor of Theology at Xavier University of Louisiana is involved in a couple of interesting teaching projects that I think are worth mentioning here.

The first one is BibleDudes. The stated purpose of this colorful and informative website is:

…to better educate people about the best selling, most influential, but often read, least understood book ever written: the Bible. We also wanted to convey our enthusiasm for the incredible and amazing academic
discipline of biblical studies.

Note that some of the sections are still under construction, but what’s available looks very nice. It’s a very attractive presentation (cartoons and all!) with solid content.

The second project has to do with blogging. He runs his own teaching blog, and, besides, students of his course Theology 1120: Introduction to Biblical Studies participate in a blogging project under the motto Pedablogically Improving the World One Theology Student at a Time… Michael shares his teaching philosophy here. Very stimulating and highly recommended. Check it out if you can!

Stephen C. Carlson announces on his blog that his very useful (<– my words!) Synoptic Problem Home Page is changing its name and location. The remodeled and updated Synoptic Problem Website is powered by Blogger, which means, among other things, than anyone can subscribe to its site feed and read it with an online aggregator like Bloglines.

Looks good! This is another example of the recent trend to blend “traditional” websites with blogs. This phenomenon seems to blur the differences between both approaches. Maybe from now on we’ll need some new term to refer to this “hybrid” kind of sites. Suggestions are welcome.

One of the most interesting online projects dealing with the Greek New Testament, still under development, is, IMO, the New Testament Transcripts Prototype. This is a brief description of the project taken directly from their website:

New Testament Transcripts features important Greek manuscripts of the New Testament as transcribed by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research at the University of Münster, Westphalia, Germany. The site is being prepared in collaboration with Scholarly Digital Editions (Leicester, UK) and is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Bonn, Germany).

The books currently available are the Four Gospels, 1-3 John, and Jude. There are some very nice things that make this project stand out. Beyond the welcome addition of a newer and fuller Apparatus, the possibility of reading transcripts of some of the most important manuscripts is quite exciting. Besides, the text is color coded for
different purposes, which add to the overall usefulness of the tool. This is all summed up in the following paragraph:

This apparatus is based on the new transcripts. It lists every single variation found in these transcripts. If you click on a manuscript number, you are taken to the transcript of that manuscript. Red color
indicates that the letters were supplied by the editors; they are not found in the manuscript. Red numbers indicate the number of characters that would fit in the space available. Underdots indicate that the characters can’t be identified with certainty in the manuscript. Green links indicate that corrections have been made to the manuscript.
Clicking on green links brings up small windows telling you about alterations by later hands.

The downside is that the Printed Ed. View (NA27) is no longer available, and the same can be said of the fully accented NA27 text and critical apparatus. I do not know if that is simply a temporary situation, but I certainly liked it
better the way it used to be displayed before. For comparison purposes, you can check out the older version and reach your own verdict. Also, in my experience (and here your mileage may vary), Safari (Mac OS X) did a much better job at
displaying and navigating the site than IE for Windows (IE 6, Win XP Pro). Whatever the browser you use, you will need to download the TITUS Cyberbit Basic font (available here) in order to properly display the Greek characters and special symbols. The is also an online Guide which, unfortunately doesn’t help much, since it applies to the previous version of the Digital Nestle-Aland Prototype (still available here), and needs to be updated.

In conclusion, it’s nice to see this online project slowly taking shape. Now I just hope that, after all the rough edges are gone, it will eventually make its way into some of the Bible software programs we all use and like so much. Questions and comments about the NT Transcripts Prototype are welcomed, and there is an email address at the bottom of the homepage where you can send them.

No, I’m not. I promise! There is an electronic Klingon Bible available. You can read all about it here. Non-Trekkies be warned! Ah, and don’t forget to take a look at the KLV English/Klingon Lexicon. No comment.

A few years ago, Robert Harris wrote an article entitled Evaluating Internet Research Sources. Given the general INTERNETization of our modern society, and GOOGLEization of recent research methods, I think it’s probably a good idea to be reminded of the need for some critical thinking/discerning judgment.
You can find just about anything on the net. But there’s a lot of inaccurate and misleading information out there. How are we to discriminate between good and bad sources? Read the article. It won’t harm you.

Jim Davila, over at PaleoJudaica, posts some very sensible comments about certain copyright issues brought up by the recent 2004 SBL Seminar Papers that were made recently available. Mark Goodacre and Stephen Carlson also make some useful follow-up comments.

The whole problem seems to arise from the interpretation given to this sentence: “Because these papers represent works in progress, they should not be quoted or otherwise cited without permission from the author.” Jim thinks, and I agree, that it is important to challenge such interpretation of copyright regulations, and concludes: “If copyright really worked the way the writer of that paragraph quoted above seems to think it does, the Blogosphere couldn’t enjoy the vigorous interchange of ideas which characterizes it.”

It seems to me that there are two different questions involved here: one is the legitimate right to receive credit where credit is due, and to be treated with “academic courtesy” (as Stephen puts it). The other, less understandable, IMO, is the fear I perceive on the part of some to open up one’s thoughts and ideas, so that others may discuss them and interact with them in public forums such as blogs. I wholeheartedly agree with the first concern, but find the second unacceptable. This is the Internet, and if you don’t want any feedback, any interaction, any criticism, any review, simply don’t post. It’s as simple as that. BTW, I hope Mark Goodacre’s questions prove to be unfounded - though I think he’s got a good point - when he asks: “Is there an implied distinction working here between proper publication = print and temporary, work in progress = web? Is this the end of an era?”

Incidentally, I don’t mean to open Pandora’s Box here, but I’m afraid copyright laws are a necessary evil. Perhaps not many people dare say so in public, but I know for a fact that many think this way. Furthermore, I’m sad to see that they are sometimes (mis)used in a way than hinders academic exchange and research, and seriously detracts from the potential of Internet-based communication. This is one of the main reasons, I think, that accounts for the increasing popularity of the open-source movement/ideal.

Okay. Now you are free to have your say and ignore, agree, or disagree with all the above. You may quote at will. I only ask that you do not misrepresent what I’ve just said. And yes, this is also a work in progress. I may change my mind on the subject