Bible Software Review Weblog

I guess I'm back ;-) Workload is still pretty heavy, as usual, but I should now be able to blog regularly (again, as usual). It's been a hectic month of August! Sorry about this unexpected break. I'll try to catch up with "the latest and greatest" as soon as possible. Also, website updates will be coming gradually, so please check back regularly.

You may have noticed that I have added a new feature to the blog. Right after the permanent link (in the "posted by" line) you'll see an Email Post button. This is a convenient way to email a blog entry to anyone you feel might like it or benefit from it. You just have to click the button, fill in a couple of fields, and a link to that particular post will be emailed out to the address of your choice. I hope you find it useful. Finally, the old website and weblog addresses will definitely go offline by the end of this month. So, please make sure you have your bookmarks and links pointing to THIS blog and, of course, to Bible Software Review. Thanks!

John Isett, director of Online Parallel Bible Project emails me to let me know that the site has been significantly updated since I last blogged about it. Two more versions have been added: JPS Old Testament and Weymouth New Testament. Navigating the site is easier, and the new chain link tool (a comprehensive word list compiled from 12 versions and containing approximately 500,000 entries) available for every verse is quite handy. More enhancements will be added soon.

SBL Forum carries an interesting article by Mark McEntire, Associate Professor of Religion at Belmont University, Nashville, TN. It is called Why I Still Write Book Reviews. I could immediately relate to what he has to say. I like his frankness when he asserts, "I started writing book reviews because they were the only things I could get published." (sounds familiar...) But now that this activity is no longer necessary for his professional career, he shares some of his reasons for continuing writing reviews. There are two that stand out, IMO; namely, it's a service to his colleagues that someone has to do, and it helps develop the habit of careful reading and attention to detail (as opposed to skimming). He then goes on with a short overview of the challenges facing "the art of book reviewing" (basically, the need to be fair both to the purpose of the original author and to the role of a reviewer). Finally, he concludes by saying:

As I proceed through an academic career, I regularly feel the impulse toward cynicism all around me. This poisonous attitude can have many targets-university administration, the task of teaching, even the world of academic publishing. One way to avoid such cynicism is to stay involved in the basics of the field. Writing book reviews may not be for everybody, but it is basic, and through the ups and downs of teaching and academic life, it is one of the best ways to keep the critical skills of reading, thinking, and writing sharp.

I must say I enjoyed reading the article, and it elicited the slightly paraphrased title of this post. As a matter of fact, I have wondered myself why I still write Bible software reviews. I will shamelessly admit that, at first, it was a good way to get to see and use some of the most advanced programs and features available on the market. It was also a way in into publishing a few articles. But soon I outgrew that stage. It has now become a service to a larger community, but also a way to sharpen some of the skills Mark McEntire mentions in his article. Ultimately, I suppose it is a combination of reasons - some relatively lofty, others quite pedestrian and selfish. Still, someone has to do it. It's the kind of thing nobody appoints you to do. There's a need, an interest, a first time, and... before you notice, "you're stuck with it." People begin to come to you for "software counseling," your opinion seems to be reckoned (except by your teenage children!), you publish on the subject, and finally set up a website and a weblog where you can rant and rave about it! ;-)

As I mentioned not too long ago, Bible.org, home of the NET Bible has been undergoing some changes recently. The main feature continues to be the New English Translation (NET Bible), which is available in a wide variety of formats (some of them absolutely free).

I have known about the NET Bible for a number of years, and own a few electronic incarnations of it for use with some of the main commercial Bible software programs. But when the second beta edition was released (in September 2003), I made a point of ordering a printed copy. I thought it would be nice to have a bonded leather edition, so I went ahead and ordered it (almost a year later!).

Now that I have been able to look at it in some detail, and use it for a couple of weeks or so, I must say I am really impressed. It is the best study Bible I have seen. In fact, to use the term "study Bible" may be misleading. It is a huge work, with 60,237 notes (and terrific satellite maps of the Holy Land!) written by the translators and editors, which includes a very full critical apparatus in English. Now, since textual criticism is something of a hobby horse of mine (I bought my first UBS Greek New Testament, as well as Metzger's "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" long before I learned Greek!), I have particularly enjoyed the frequent text-critical notes.

Under "NET Bible Principles of Translation" (p. 2305) it says that "Computerized concordance programs and electronic search engines were used extensively in the production of this translation". And it shows! Lots of useful statistics on vocabulary, cross references, and other valuable material are included in the study notes and translator's notes. Also, the fact that this is still a work in progress means that certain features (even the translation itself) can be improved based on the feedback from users and the ongoing work of the scholars involved in the project. Last, but not least, much of the philosophy of the NET Bible would fall under the category of "open source scholarship". Therefore, use and distribution of this unique, Internet-based Bible is encouraged. This is the first major modern English translation to follow this path.

All in all, a scholarly study Bible, yet readable and clear, which I can heartily recommend. Incidentally, there is now a new NET Bible Nestle-Aland27 Diglot available. After looking at the features (a PDF can be downloaded here), I can't wait to lay my hands on it. Prices start at $59.95.

Update (September 14): Rick Brannan has posted some thoughts on the diglot.

Eckhard J. Schnabel, "Textual Criticism: Recent Developments" in The Face of New Testament Studies, eds. Scot McKnight and Grant R. Osborne (Baker Academic/Apollos: Grand Rapids-Leicester, 2004), p. 60, bemoans the fact that

Electronic study of the manuscript tradition of the NT is, unfortunately, not yet possible. High resolution images of the newly published P99-P115 can be found on the Oxyrhynchus website. If basic textual research of Greek NT MSS is to fin broader appeal, it seems necessary to have all papyri, majuscules, and a representative selection of minuscules available on a searchable CD-ROM.

Schnabel writes a very helpful update on the current state of the discipline of New Testament textual criticism, and I think his remark makes a lot of sense. He is obviously not talking about digital editions of the critical apparatus (which are already beginning to be released), but rather of the primary sources themselves. Would that that could come true in the not too distant future! Any takers?

Reading David Alan Black's blog (daveblackonline) I learned about the October 2003 issue of NetGuideWeb, which features interesting tips on how to blog from nine seasoned bloggers. In spite of the fact that many of the recommendations are intended for people who write personal weblogs, there are a number of tips that are suitable for more professional blogs.

Many of the advices offered are plain common sense: thinking before writing, using good English, updating the blog frequently, setting some limits, sticking to the point, and things of that nature. But four or five comments caught particularly my attention as I considered the role of those blogs that fall loosely into the "Biblical Studies" category. Here they are, followed by my own reactions to each one of them.

"Don't worry about who's reading, and just write about what's interesting to you. Don't try to please some external person, just focus on writing about stuff you think is interesting." - Easy to say, and easily done... at the beginning. Later on I've noticed that you tend to take into account the profile of your audience and the feedback you receive. So you end up writing about what you consider interesting and think your readers will appreciate.

"Don't post simply because you feel like you ought to - only post when you have something to say." - Very good point. Blogging is not a full-time job, nor and end in itself. I sometimes get the impression that if we only blogged when we have something to say, we would do it less frequently. On the other hand, there could well be some virtue in following the discipline of blogging, so that when we really have something to say, it is worthwhile indeed, and/or that most of what we say ends up being worth saying it.

"When you have something especially important, email some other bloggers and let them know. They're likely to link to you and you'll pick up readers." - I don't think I've ever done that so far. Besides, the notion of "especially important" is rather subjective. Is peer-review (blogger-review?) and interaction among bloggers a good indication of the really important stuff? How many truly seminal lines of thought have been advanced in our specialized blogosphere? Maybe blogging is still in its infancy, and we need some hindsight to actually perceive that some important scholarly questions are shared, considered, and built-upon by a larger community of bloggers. Could it even be the case that some blog entries will make it into books reviewing the current state of Biblical Studies? or that the posts themselves will be published as books in the future?

"Retain your sense of self and style - don't constantly emulate and copy those around you. Your personality needs to shine through first and foremost. It's what will make your blog unique and 'you'." - I concur. Emulation and plagiarism are widespread in our day and age. It is difficult to find your own place among other blogs that attempt to fill vaguely the same niche. Difficult, but certainly worth the effort.

"The blog should do what you say it's going to do. You want people to come back, to become regular readers, so you need to live up to whatever you promise. If you've set up a tech blog, your readers might be surprised if you start writing long accounts of why your marriage/team/country is going down the drain. Of course, in the process you might pick up some new readers and decide to relaunch the blog." - Now, this I find very relevant! One of the things that turn me off is the fact that otherwise good and useful Biblical Studies weblogs begin to talk about things that have nothing to do, whatsoever, with the stated purpose of the blog. Don't get me wrong. I think it is a perfectly legitimate thing to hold certain political views, sports interests, and what have you. However, I do believe they belong elsewhere, and since it is so easy to set up a personal weblog and vent our opinions there, I think it would be in everybody's interest if we could somehow keep focused. This is not to say, of course, that I don't like personal touches here and there. I, for one, love to know some details about any Tom, Dick and Harry "Blogger", see pictures of them, and so on. We're dealing with people here. And you'll agree with me that Stephen is more important than Hypotyposeis, Mark than NT Gateway, or Jim than Paleojudaica, to name just three of them (forgive me the rest of you!). But the fact remains that I feel I cannot add certain blogs to my blogroll simply because they mix "apples with oranges," and that is kind of frustrating.

Just my thoughts, of course. You're welcome to disagree with me or pat me on the back!

The August 2004 issue of Stimulus, The New Zealand journal of Christian thought and practice, edited by blogger Tim Bulkeley, includes a Bible software review written by Michael Hanson (Studying the Bible for free). In it, Hanson, who is Dean of Studies at Carey Baptist College in Auckland, compares three freeware programs (Sword, e-Sword, and Online Bible) and surveys three other Internet-based Bible study tools (The Bible Tool, The Blue Letter Bible, and Crosswalk Online Study Bible). Here's an excerpt taken from his concluding remarks:

All of the tools tested are very good. They all have strengths and weakness but none disappoint (...) Over the next couple of years expect to see major developments in the web-based tools. These will be refined and additional features added. As more and more users get high-speed internet access these tools will grow in popularity. Are these free Bible study tool worth using? Most definitely. Will these tools provide the average student of the Bible what they need? Without a doubt. Will these Bible study tools provide the tools for serious students of the Bible? Probably not yet!

It is worth downloading the PDF file (follow link above) and reading the whole article.

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 ;-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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...

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?

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.

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.