It’s certainly been a while since I’ve been able to update Withering Fig. “What could have possibly brought me out of my Salinger-like public coma?” you ask. Well, images of papyri, of course!

Goodacre, over at the NT Gateway, has called my attention (via his excellent blog) to some new images of papyri that Harvard is making available. Here’s is Goodacre’s post:

Harvard Papyri Online

I must say that the quality of these scans is quite good. During my 18 months on Harvard’s LDI (Library Digital Initiative) Project (via.harvard.edu), I was always pleased with the images that we were putting out. It looks like the folks in charge of this project have done superior work.

Categories: Biblical Studies · Technology · Bible Tech · New Testament

I have been inspired to think about this topic by those who have come before me. Most notably, Loren Rosson thought about this a while back in a pair of posts called “Back to Oral Culture.”

As I’ve been blogging over the last few months, I’ve come to notice that the world of the web is indeed a world not defined by literacy. As a web designer I know that people who come to my sites are not “literate” people. I don’t mean this in a pejorative sense. Rather, people do not take the time to read a web site in the same way that they do a book. They do not work through it sequentially. Rather they scan for content. Sometimes, they don’t even do that…they just search for it. I know all of this not from my careful study of Google Analytics and other web phenomena/theory—I know this because I’m guilty.

Who examines a page carefully, word-for-word?

If I put myself into the audience of a Pauline house church, and I listen to the reading of a fresh letter that has just arrived, do I examine it word-for-word? No. First of all, it might not be likely that I can read. Second, I’m listening to the letter read aloud. This gives me pause. Why is it that I study this corpus in such a different way than its original audience did?

We scan web pages with the eyes. Perhaps we should scan ancient texts with the ears.

I am guilty of sitting down in a corner of a library and reading aloud in Greek, Hebrew, or Latin. This was primarily to build my pronunciation skills (which, by the way, are so useful outside of class). Perhaps I was missing something. Perhaps there is something mystical and enchanting that I was missing as I recited Genesis 22 for Prof. Hackett (who was, is, and shall remain one of my “faves”). Honestly, as I did it, I could not get my mind off of the fact that it was silly. What practical purpose would reciting the akedah serve? I felt like a high school student in Calculus: when am I gonna need integrals and derivatives? Not in line at McDonald’s…

As I’m going through the Epistles of John in a very thorough manner, chunk-by-chunk, word-for-word, I wonder if it might be better for me to read the words aloud. Let them wrap around me. What does the scansion tell me? Where does the stress fall naturally? Perhaps rhythm is more important than word order.

So, a few questions to you:

• Do you employ oral and aural techniques in your study of a text? If so, how?
• Do you think that reading and listening can serve any practical function as we delve deeper into these texts? Or, am I just ruminating on a bunch of rubbish?
• How do you think hypertexts relate to ancient texts in terms of orality and literacy? (Rosson’s post and the links he provide might be helpful for your thoughts on this topic…)

Categories: Biblical Studies

This is the 25th part in an ongoing series on the Epistles of John.

Okay, we get into some heady stuff here. Following from the previous section which dealt with this idea that those who are abiding in God cannot sin, John goes on to say that those who continue to sin are doing the work of the devil. More importantly, it was this very work which Jesus came to abolish. From the beginning the devil sinned.

In John’s view, the devil is responsible for sin. Likewise, God is responsible for righteousness. Just as we can tell a tree from the fruit it bears, we can tell to whom a person belongs based on their fruit. If a person is producing righteousness, then they must be of God. If a person is producing sin, then they must be of the devil.

Interesting to note in this section is this idea of being “born of” God, or “born of” the devil. Again, John emphasizes this notion that we are God’s spiritual children. Indeed, we are “born of” God. And like a son takes after a father, we begin to take after the Father. The greatest example of this fruit, the best way to do this righteousness into which we are born, is to love your brother.

Are we talking only about familial brothers here? I think not. This is your brother—you know…your brother. Loving our fellow man (or woman) is what we are called to do. Again, John is returning to the theme of 1 John 2:9–11. Brotherly love is where it’s at!

Categories: Biblical Studies · New Testament

This is the 26th part in an ongoing series on the Epistles of John.

This is one of those passages that a pastor of mine would have called: “a hard Word.” It is. On the one hand, it is perfectly reasonable for John to describe those who “practice sinning” as “practicing lawlessness.” This is not surprising; we should not be taken aback. [I think it should be noted that “lawlessness” probably has little to do with Mosaic law.]

The second bit works quite easily too: “You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.” I can get on bored with that. Jesus came to take away sin, and He Himself was sinless. Right on.

Finally, John says that “no one who abides in Him keeps on sinning.” At first, this makes me think that maybe the bar is set pretty high for what “abiding in Him” really means. Perhaps “abiding in Him” is not possible here on Earth, because my understanding is that we all sin. Then, however, John goes on to say that “no one who keeps on sinning has either seen Him or known Him.” Well, what am I supposed to do with that? I continue to sin, but I wouldn’t say that I’ve never seen him or known Him. What is John getting at?

The short answer is: “I’m not entirely sure.” It seems to me that it can’t mean what it sounds like, largely because it would contradict what we’ve already read in 1 John 2:1. If anyone who sins has an advocate in Christ, it would seem that these people do indeed know Him. That’s the way it seems to me anyway.

So what does John mean here in 3:6? I’d love to hear some opinions down in the comments…

Categories: Biblical Studies · New Testament

This is the 25th part in an ongoing series on the Epistles of John.

For John, we are adopted sons of God. This is a huge honor and expresses God’s love in a very profound way. It is a gift of love. Our sonship is unrecognizable to the world, just as He was unrecognizable to the world (see the prologue to the Gospel of John, John 1). John’s audience is so intertwined with the spiritual, so intertwined with God, that those who do not recognize God do not recognize His people.

The next part is intriguing. John tells his audience that they are God’s children now, but what they will be has not yet appeared. My question is this: What more can they be? How can there be anything higher or greater than “children of God”? No doubt, it is a lofty title. But this status is nothing compared to the status to be gained upon his return: “Like Him.”

Placing our hope in this purifies us. This is reminiscent of what Paul has to say in Romans 8:23–25. We place our hope in this adoption. The result is on the level of the miraculous: we become “Like Him.”

Categories: Biblical Studies · New Testament

This is the 24th part in an ongoing series on the Epistles of John.

John makes an obvious claim here: those “born of Him” practice righteousness because He is righteous. However, there is more to this than meets the eye (like Transformers, I guess). The way that it reads makes a far more important claim: He is the only one righteous.

John’s syntax points us to this claim: anyone doing righteous stuff is born of Him. First of all, it does not say that those doing righteous stuff are righteous themselves. Doing good things is not the same as being good. Doing righteous things is not the same as being righteous. Second, this statement excludes the notion that any righteousness can be derived from any other source.

Again, when we consider the ideas that we’ve been rolling around, such as abiding in Him, or pressing into Him, the system becomes clear. Knowledge and righteousness are derived from a relationship with Him because He is the ultimate source of knowledge and righteousness. Further, there is no other source.