Reading e-books on small screens

Most readers of this blog know (or at least sense), I think, that I am not a Luddite, though I have a considerably more chastened view of technology than do some digitopians. In any event I have been experimenting with various uses of a SmartPhone of late. My most recent tests have been stimulated by the arrival this past week of my new iPhone 4—an upgrade from my older 3G. The phone itself is substantially faster than the 3G (though I’ve read that the difference from the 3GS is not as pronounced). That plus the increased RAM and higher resolution screen enable new considerations.

Though my ultimate goal is to consider Bible-related uses, my immediate tests relate to more general uses. I just read two books in the iBooks reader: a novel (Pride and Prejudice) and a piece of nonfiction (Luther’s essay on Bible translation). I found the novel easier and better reading on the small screen than I expected. The increased resolution and greater speed made it much more practical Than my previous attempts. The screen orientation lock also helped. As for nonfiction use, I have mixed feelings. It “reads” OK, but other purposes have challenges for serious use. For one, how do I quote efficiently? E.g., if I want to quote this extract from Luther,

“We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to speak German—as these asses do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the market about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the manner of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.”

I can easily copy it and paste it into my WordPress app (as I just did). But how do I cite it? It was p. 22 of 88 when I copied the text, but I’d had to reduce the font size to get it all on the same screen. If I had copied it at my regular reading size, it would have been 35 of 140! So unless e-books include “hard” page numbers from the printed editions, quoting is not very useful—or at least helpful.

I also find it much harder (if not impossible) to compare passages that are very far apart—or even to find those passages. Despite the claims of search abilities in e-texts, one must remember enough of the exact wording. But I’m often thinking, “didn’t the author say something about this earlier?” and that’s as close as I can remember it. At that point search isn’t very helpful—and the small pages make skimming very difficult.

Someday some smart people will probably find solutions to these problems (and maybe already have).

The other tedious thing is entering lots of text this way, i.e., tapping with one finger! I’ve entered this entire post that way. It’s doable, but only that. In due time I want to try synching this iPhone with a BlueTooth keyboard. That wasn’t possible with the 3G, but is supposed to be supported with the new phone and iOS4, but that keyboard is not at home to try tonight.

One of these days, hopefully soon, the Accordance app will be released and I’ll have even more to try out–and perhaps an iPad to buy (but I’m trying to wait for the 2d generation to do that).

But for tonight my one finger is tired!

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Technical jargon

Here’s an interesting quote:

Narrative criticism is a precise, subtle, and complex discipline that has developed a refined conceptuality and vocabulary to express its nuances. It is relatively easy to discuss these nuances with other specialists, using the technical jargon designed for this purpose. It is not so easy to communicate such subtleties to noninitiates without either dumbing down the content or talking down to the reader. It is also risky to be clear, for sometimes when the complex jargon is removed and the point is made in plain English, it no longer seems all that profound.

This is from M. Eugene Boring’s RBL review of Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, Mark’s Jesus: Characterization as Narrative Christology. Boring indicates that this comment is an “appreciative narrative aside” and that he things Malbon has avoided this danger. Since I’ve not read the book, I can’t judge that conclusion, but I am quite sure that Boring’s observation (that jargon often sounds technically impressive, but simple English explanations result in a more banal assessment) is quite true of other work, no less in grammar and related fields than in “more abstract” approaches to the text.

Posted in New Testament | 2 Comments

ἔσχατον as neuter in Mk 12:6?

In Mark 12:6 both the Gramcord and Accordance databases parse ἔσχατον as masculine—I assume because it is parked next to the masculine form αὐτόν (the form is the same for both masc and neut acc sing). Yet syntactically it appears to function as an adverb, modifying ἀπέστειλεν. When adjectives function as adverbs they are usually neuter. If this were masculine, this would suggest, I think, understanding it as substantival in apposition to αὐτόν: “he sent him, the last one.”

I’d put it in English something like this:

“He still had one [to send], a beloved son. He finally sent him to them, saying ‘They will respect my son’.”

Does this analysis make sense? Or am I missing something here?

See BDAG, 397–98.2.b (end) for ἔσχατον as an adverb; for a discussion of adjectives that function as adverbs, see Wallace, 292–93.

Posted in Gospel of Mark, Greek, grammar | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

Emphasis (EMPHASIS!?) :)

FWIW observation: The longer I study the serious, exegetical Mark commentaries who actually deal with grammar and syntax,* the more skeptical I’m becoming of some common claims. As just one example, one of my favorite commentaries (and it is that) on Mark is Robert Gundry’s massive tome. It’s really a magisterial work, worth the price just for the introduction. He’s read everybody and interacts with most of them in massive sets of notes on each section. These notes sections may not be the best organized, but they are loaded with helpful material, even if you often disagree with him. But to my point, the more I read Gundry the more leery I am of claims to “emphasis.” If there is as much emphasis in Mark as Gundry finds, then Mark comes across as a writer who always uses his caps lock key for email. (Or maybe like an Oliver B. Greene commentary filled with CAPS, or an A. W. Pink book! —I think Pink got a fire sale special! and bought an entire warehouse full!! of exclamation points!!! :) ) When everything is emphatic, then nothing is, even if you dress it up with fancy names like hyperbaton, aposiopesis, trajection, etc.

*Surprisingly, not all “exegetical commentaries” spend much time on grammar and syntax. So long as I’m naming names in this post, Craig Evans’ WBC vol on the 2d half of Mark is a good example of this. His notes with the translation are almost entirely text critical, and his commentary (about 600 pgs on 8 chs) rarely discusses grammar or syntax. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a helpful work–but its forte is Second Temple backgrounds, not the language.

Posted in Gospel of Mark, Greek, grammar | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

Busy Day

Today was a busy day. Here’s a photo diary.

It began with these …
BusyDay03.jpg

Working on this …

BusyDay01.jpg

With the goal of getting here …
BusyDay08.jpg

Where I spent an hour and a half waiting next door at noon (gas station hoggies aren’t too bad here! :) ), finishing up a paper on the use of grammar in theology for a conference in a few weeks (what would we do without laptops?) …

BusyDay07.jpg

This project actually began on the way home from the seminary yesterday when I stopped here …

BusyDay05.jpg

And sorted a pile of these …

BusyDay06.jpg

where I actually found a nice Goodyear tire with 7/32 tread left on it for $25 to replace one with a broken belt.

This was one of those days where you spend too much time taking care of “Mom’s old car” and finally getting a state inspection sticker on it. Monroe wanted $100 for new shoes with a lifetime guarantee. I’m just too stingy when a set of shoes cost me $28—and they will probably be the last pair of brakes this car ever gets (at least as long as I own it)! I will admit that it’s been almost 40 years since I’ve worked on drum brakes! But it’s done and the new sticker is in place… on the last day of the month when it expired. Oh yes, I had to track down a broken wire in the tail lights and solder that as well.

Then this afternoon I finally made it here …

BusyDay04.jpg

for a few hours. I got several more verses roughed out for the Mark Handbook. This is an easier section than some (at least in the writing). Here’s a short snippit.

11:27 Καὶ ἔρχονται πάλιν εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα. καὶ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ περιπατοῦντος αὐτοῦ ἔρχονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι

ἔρχονται. Pres mid ind 3rd pl ἔρχομαι. The two present tenses (ἔρχονται bis) introduce a new paragraph (see 1:21). On the use of the plural verb here, see 5:38.
εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα. Spatial. On the form of Ἱεροσόλυμα, see 3:8.
ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ. Locative.
περιπατοῦντος. Pres act ptc masc gen sg περιπατέω. Genitive absolute, temporal. On genitive absolutes generally, see 1:32.
αὐτοῦ. Genitive subject of περιπατοῦντος. The subject recurs in the sentence (αὐτοῦ = αὐτόν), something which normally does not happen in a genitive absolute; see further discussion and examples in 5:2.
ἔρχονται. Pres mid ind 3rd pl ἔρχομαι.
πρὸς αὐτὸν. Spatial.
οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι. Compound nominative subject of ἔρχονται.

Then after supper I left my wife with two grandkids and my father and drove to the far end of the farm to relieve my son and his wife. I spent an hour doing this …

BusyDay02.jpg

and moving several wagon loads of freshly baled hay into the barn. I finished up the last field that was ready today so the kids could get to church on time. I had hoped to be back to my study this evening, but it looks like that isn’t going to happen. So I’ll pick up there a bit after 5 tomorrow morning. (My father wakes up any time between then and 6; depends on whether he’s had a good night or a bad night where my schedule goes from there.)

Posted in Misc | Leave a comment

The Heresy of Orthodoxy

“In the beginning was Diversity. And the Diversity was with God, and the Diversity was God. Without Diversity was nothing made that was made. And it came to pass that nasty old ‘orthodox’ people narrowed down diversity and finally squeezed it out, dismissing it as heresy. But in the fullness of time (which is of course our time), Diversity rose up and smote orthodoxy hip and thigh. Now, praise be, the only heresy is orthodoxy. As widely and as unthinkingly accepted as this reconstruction is, it is historical nonsense: the emperor has no clothes. I am grateful to Andreas Köstenberger and Michael Kruger for patiently, carefully, and politely exposing this shameful nakedness for what it is.”

—D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

The above is Carson’s creative blurb for a new book coming imminently* from Crossway:

The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger (Crossway, 2010).

(*The release date is 6/30, but Amazon has it in stock now.)

I look forward to reading this critique of the Bauer/Ehrman hypothesis. I’ve addressed this issue myself: “The Rehabilitation of Heresy: ‘Misquoting’ Earliest Christianity,” Bible Faculty Summit, Central Baptist Seminary, Plymouth, MN, July 2007, published this past year in JMAT 13 (2009; 2 parts). Part 1 is available online.

Posted in New Testament, theology | 2 Comments

Grammatical categories

I just ran across this comment in BDAG. It was already highlighted, so I’ve read it before, but its point struck home again this morning as I was grappling with getting the right grammatical category term to describe a (fairly familiar) phrase in Mark.

The earliest auditors/readers, not being inconvenienced by grammatical and lexical debates, would readily absorb the context and experience little difficulty. :)

The statement is in regard to the word ἐν (p. 326).

Posted in Greek, grammar | Tagged , | Comments Off

Note on Markan style

C. H. Turner has posited an interesting idea regarding a grammatical feature in Mark that may be stylistic and which may reflect one of his sources. In brief, where Mark often has a pericope introduced with a plural verb form, he often develops the account with a singular reference to Jesus alone. In the other synoptic accounts the same event is often narrated in the singular throughout. Turner listed 21 such texts, from which I’ve eliminated one to conform to the UBS/NA text. (Turner tends to use these stylistic features in a somewhat circular fashion, using them to make text critical decisions, but the decisions also tend toward uniformity of a particular stylistic feature.) Since Turner only gives the Markan text, I’ve worked through these 20 examples, identified the Matthean and Lukan parallel passages, and offer this summary. (And no, I haven’t transcribed all my handwritten notes with all the refs., etc. Sorry.)

Singular in Matthew: 9
Singular in Luke: 9
Singular in either Matthew or Luke: 12
Singular in both Matthew and Luke: 6

Same (i.e., plural) in Matthew: 6
Same in Luke: 1
Text/statement not parallel in Matthew: 5
Text/statement not parallel in Luke: 8

Total passages involving a genitive absolute (in any one of the three): 5
Genitive absolute in Mark: 4
Genitive absolute in Matthew: 3
Genitive absolute in Luke 1

If this were described on the premise of Markan priority, this would be phrased as “instances in which [Matthew/Luke] changed Mark from plural to singular. I have left the stats above “neutral” in that regard (even though I assume Markan priority as a working hypothesis).

It does appear as if there is sufficient change in this regard to suggest that the differences are not coincidental. They are too consistent for randomness to be a helpful explanation. The numbers are not quite as impressive as Turner makes them sound (“The net result is that the retention of Mark’s plural is rare in Matthew, rarer still in Luke”—I wouldn’t call 6/20 “rare”), but significant none the less. I’ve noted the genitive absolute texts since they tend to introduce another variable, being used to reference a related party and consequently a singular/plural variation is not unexpected (especially given the subject matter of Jesus and the disciples).

The “not parallel” category above encompasses several types of texts. They may be a pericope which is not present at all in one of the Synoptics. There may be a parallel account, but the statement/s in question may not be included, or the statement may be reworded to the point where it is no longer a parallel statement.

So what’s the possible significance? Here’s Turner’s suggestion:

Whey then did our earliest Evangelist tell his story in the plural, not being himself one of the company who went about with Jesus, save because he is repeating the story of one to whom the plural cam natural as being himself as actor in the events he relates?

[re. 1:29] The hypothesis that the third person plural of mark represents a first person plural of Peter makes what as it stands is a curiously awkward phrase into a phrase which is quite easy and coherent.

Mark’s story is told as from a disciple and companion, while Matthew and Luke are less directly interested in that particular point of view.

If we give Papias’ account any credibility, this observation would be consistent with Peter being the primary source of Mark’s gospel.

Turner’s article was originally in JTS 26 (1925), part 5 of “Notes on Marcan Usage,” now reprinted in the Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark, ed. J. K. Elliott, 151–84, NovTSupp 71 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), this particular note occurs on pp. 36–42.

For earlier discussions on this blog regarding Mark and Papias, see these two earlier posts from 2007 and 2008.

Posted in Gospel of Mark, Greek, grammar | Tagged , , | Comments Off

MarsEdit paste error

(This is unrelated to regular blog content; I’m posting an image to help troubleshoot a problem in a new version of MarsEdit–my favorite blog editor.)

Here’s what happens when I copy from Word and paste into ME in rich text edit mode (cursor was in the first line of the blank post edit window–not in title or tag field):

PasteErrorME302.png

Posted in Misc | Comments Off

Mark 9:25, κωφός

Although κωφός can mean either “mute” (e.g., Matt 9:33, contrasted with speech: ἐλάλησεν ὁ κωφός) or “deaf,” the collocation with ἄλαλος in this passage would suggest “deaf.” This appears to be the case with all three uses in Mark, e.g., 7:37, τοὺς κωφοὺς ποιεῖ ἀκούειν (see also 7:32). France, 368, suggests that this word “probably adds little [meaning]” due to “Mark’s prolix style of storytelling.” That may be overstated, however, since the use of two adjectives connected by καί is not particularly distinctive of Mark. Normalized per 1,000 words of text, Mark’s frequency of 2.2, though technically the highest in narrative NT texts, is not much different from Matthew’s 1.99, though it is more than Luke/Acts with 1.02/0.84 and significantly higher than John’s gospel at 0.32; Pauline usage, however, can range as high as 6.02 in Philippians or 9.11 in 1 Timothy. LXX usage is similar with narrative texts evidencing a range of 0.54 for 1 Samuel through 4.29 for Genesis and 8.78 for Numbers. Such statistics are only a very rough guide, but they at least caution against overstatement regarding style in such instances.


Stats here, BTW, are based on this Accordance search [with angle brackets replaced by braces since the angles would otherwise be read as (invalid!) html code):

[adj] {FOLLOWED BY} {WITHIN 1 Words} [conj]@και {FOLLOWED BY} {WITHIN 1 Words} [adj]

Posted in Gospel of Mark, Greek | Comments Off

Greek “Whoops!”

Thanks to one of my students, Stephen Stallard, I can show you the Greek inscription on the glass door of the new  Classics Dept. building at Cambridge:

NewImage.jpg

Whoops!

From an Aristotle quote (ref. not given). News source

Posted in Greek, Misc | 1 Comment

A preaching schedule

I recently answered an inquiry from a former student and decided that perhaps the topic would be of interest here as well. I won’t include the questions, but here’s my reply.


The “preaching schedule/calendar” is a constant challenge! The big names of the past who spent years in a book—e.g., Llyod-Jones or Barnhouse on Romans were not in church plants. Those churches were old, established churches with members who had been believers for many years. Barnhouse actually used Romans as a “foil”—he didn’t preach Romans as just Romans. He used it as a framework to preach systematic theology. So though he spent a lot of time in Romans, his people were getting a pretty wide range of truth, though probably not getting much narrative or storyline.

The flip side, of course, is the “typical” (yes, I’m a bit cynical here!) pulpit diet in the typical fund/evang church in which all that is heard is topical preaching that follows the preacher’s whim. In many cases that’s a constant diet of evangelism or of a fairly narrow stream of topics (pray more, give more, witness more, don’t do bad things).

How to balance that out is the issue. I’m convinced that systematic exposition is the mainstay, book-by-book. I’ve known some who start in Genesis and many years later finally arrive in Rev., but I’m not convinced that’s wise either. Not only does it takes decades to do reasonably well, it’s not usually a well-balanced diet, mostly since the first 3/4 of it will be OT/old covenant. While God’s people need to hear and know their OT, I suspect that a church who heard only OT for many years would be “malformed.”

I don’t think there is any one formula that will work because there are too many variations in both congregations and preachers. The abilities, backgrounds, and needs of both parties plan into the mix. Perhaps the best thing to ask is, in light of one specific situation, how do we best accomplish the goal of Eph 4:12-16.

  • to prepare God’s people for works of service,
  • to build up the body of Christ,
  • to reach unity in the faith  in the knowledge of the Son of God,
  • to become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ,
  • to be no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming,
  • to speak the truth in love,
  • to grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ, and
  • to enable every supporting ligament to grow and build itself up in love, as each part does its work.

I suspect that the first order of business would be an assessment of where in that big picture a specific group fit. Then asking how we get from here to there. The goal is relatively general, but it is what God says is the purpose of a church ministry, and specifically the responsibility of those individuals in leadership (though the ultimate goal is that all the members join in mutual efforts along these lines).

It is not only the pulpit ministry that accomplishes these goals, but that is perhaps the central focus around which the other pieces (which I’ve not discussed here) cluster.

In light of the pulpit ministry, we have to ask how we structure a long-term preaching schedule to move toward our goal. This can’t be done in what is too often a frantic, “Sat.-night-late” decision! A pastor ought to know fairly specifically where his preaching is going over the next year, and at least in general terms what he intends to cover in terms of the Bible books, over the next 5 years. And he should know *why* he’s doing that. It can’t be, “I’d really like to preach through Romans.”

[Excursus: every young pastor seems to want to preach through Romans! My father told me that when I finished seminary, but he also told me that most pastors my age weren't ready to preach through Romans. His assessment was that it would take at least 10 years before we were ready. He was probably right. I waited 8.]

[Second excursus: Some books are much more difficult to preach than others---even some that seem "simple." 1 John is a classic example. Many young pastors want to preach through 1 John---because many of them translated 1 John in first year Greek! But that is one of the most difficult books to preach, at least preach effectively. The message is more abstract and it also contains some very difficult theology. Wait until you've grown a bit (both in your pulpit skills, your grasp of theology, and your walk with God) before tackling it. Start preaching from the "easier" books---those with very practical relevance that lies "on the surface"---e.g., James, Philippians, etc. Another tough one to do well is Psalms.]

Back to the original subject, one might consider starting where God started—with Genesis (unless, of course, you are a new pastor and your predecessor just finished Genesis within the past few years!). Just remember that it’s narrative and you shouldn’t spend 2 years in chs 1-12! First time through you might shoot for a year, maybe less if you can preach it more than once a week. (If your 2d slot is typically less well attended, just include a *brief* review at the beginning of the next chunk so that you keep everyone close to being on the same page.)

But then I’d not move directly to Exodus. I’d probably shift to NT. Alternating back and forth between the testaments can be effective to keep things balanced, just don’t leave them isolated from each other. Esp. in the NT you need to constantly show the connections back to the Bible’s earlier story line, even if that means you need to take a 10 min. “side-trip” in a sermon to fill in some gaps—that’s esp. important when dealing with young believers, whether in a church plant or an older church. From the other end, when you’re in the OT, periodically you ought to show how particular OT themes are developed in later revelation, particularly in the NT. Don’t “read the NT back into the OT” hermeneutically to figure out what the OT means, but there is fulfillment involved, whether prophetically or typologically. It won’t be every week that you preach the equivalent of Isa 53! But there will be periodic sections that need a side-trip forward. Or perhaps it can be done by section, e.g., when you finish Genesis you might take a sermon to show how Genesis flows forward to the NT.

I don’t think that I’d probably work straight through the OT after finishing Genesis. At that point I’d want to think about how to best sketch the Bible storyline and be selective as to what books I did and in what sequence. You might even need some survey messages interspersed that show how the pieces fit together in which you “sample” a number of books in a single message. Other books, which can be done chapter by chapter, sometimes ought to be sampled as well. Exod-Deut might well be done that way the first time through so that you can give your people the big picture of the old covenant perspective in a few months—and tie it into the later NT fulfillment of many sections. (If you do it that way, then you owe it to the church to come back through some of those sections in more detail later.) And yes, you can preach Leviticus in a church plant. See one of my blog posts from about two years ago on that subject: http://ntresources.com/blog/?p=143

Well, this is a longer answer than you might have expected, and there is a lot more that could be said, but the details in every situation are too varied to pontificate! If you get the “flavor” of what I’ve said here, you can flesh it out in your situation better than I could.


A related discussion in which I was involved recently touches some preaching issues as well, particularly as it relates to the use of the biblical languages in preaching. It was a reprint of a short article that I originally wrote for one of our Seminary publications (Paraklesis, summer 2009 (you can download that issue from the link given) ) on the Sharper Iron blog. It generated some lengthy and spirited discussion. You may find it of interest if you hadn’t seen it before. (Some comments, esp. early on, may not be as useful as some of the later discussion, which I joined as of comment #34. As is typical of active blogs like Sharper Iron, there’s a wide diversity of opinion expressed—from some who thought my remarks to be “condesending [sic] drivel” to those with helpful interaction.)

Posted in ministry | Tagged | 10 Comments

What’s a PhD for anyway?

 

After reading two rather different discussions of “PHDs” of late (one on Andy Naselli’s blog, and one on Dave Black’s*), I thought I ought to offer a “contribution.”

*5/15/2010, 1:15pm post (since Dave doesn’t use a regular blog format to which I can link)

Andy summarizes John Piper’s comments on the subject (overstated as is not uncommon for Piper) and links to some other responses to it. They are worth reading.

In an entirely different vein, Dave Black illustrates another use of a PHD. Here’s his evidence:

PhDevidence.jpg

(There is more mundane evidence if you track down his post [pun intended!]… :) ) As I’m sure you can tell, this PHD is a “post hole digger.” And some PhDs actually use such tools from time to time. (Hopefully not too many have to actually try to make a living with such a tool! :) )

For what it’s worth, here’s another “take” on Dave’s “PHD.”

PHD-auger2.jpg

OK, I have a “ThD,” not a PhD (yes, double entendre intended), so let’s make that a “tractor hole digger”! :) But I also have a more conventional “PHD” (mostly used to clean out the holes created by the THD:

PHD-hand2.jpg

In case you’re curious, this is another stage in adapting our house to meet the needs of my father who came to live with us last week after my mother died. We’re adding a ramp to make the house more easily accessible for him. It’s projects like this that have greatly reduced the number of blog posts the past month—as well as the number of papers I’ve graded and pages I’ve written!

(No, the fellow in the green sweatshirt in the second picture is not my father, it’s Bo, a friend from church who is helping me with the deck and ramp.)

But perhaps you’d like to meet my parents whom I’ve mentioned a couple of times lately.

OBC-DeckersSm.jpg

This photo was taken last summer when the Osterhout Bible Church celebrated their 60th anniversary. My father started that church while a seminary student and pastored it for 53 years. I don’t know if that’s any sort of “record,” but I do know that it’s unusual—but, in my book, highly commendable, a heritage I do not take lightly. He is in increasingly frail health, but continues to surprise many folks at how well he does cope with Parkinsons. He has been a blessing to my wife and me already.

 

Posted in Misc | Comments Off

The worth of a PhD program

Here’s an insightful note from Andy Naselli. It’s excerpted from the Acknowledgements of his second PhD diss which he just defended today. The “he” is in reference to D. A. Carson, Andy’s Doktorvater.

He routinely assured me that a PhD program that doesn’t make you sweat and feel like a twit at times isn’t worth the expense. By this measure I got far more than I paid for.

You can read more of Andy’s thoughts on his 2d PhD on his blog.

Posted in seminary | Comments Off

The participle as mule (again)

Earlier this spring I inquired about someone who might be interested in creating an illustration for me to replace one I’d found on the web but for which I could not make contact with the owner to obtain permission to use commercially. I’ve since commissioned a commercial illustration which is coming along nicely. Yesterday I received another one gratis from Levi Schooley who ran across my earlier post, so now I have two. Levi has given me permission to post his here and make it available for anyone else to use.

I use such illustrations to tell my first year Greek students, “Don’t let participles get you down!” It plays on Robertson’s analogy (though he quotes Voss) of the participle as a mule. The details are found in an earlier post.

mule_color.jpg

Posted in Greek, grammar | Comments Off