Changing our Mind

I’m reading Gushee’s book Changing our Mind.1 While reading, I posted a short quote on Facebook, which provoked interesting discussion, and happily no vitriol. One of the points made there, which was also made by Gushee’s main critic back in 2015 when the book was new, is that Gushee does not do serious exegesis on the key passages. I plan to think about that critique in this post. This post is not a careful presentation and analysis of Gushee’s writing, rather it summarises what he seems to me to be saying – that is, I may have got him wrong, or gone beyond what he says, but this is how his argument looked as I read it.2

The first part of the book (roughly half), after setting the scene, deals with the biblical texts and arguments most often cited in support of the traditional Christian ethical position on LGBTQ sexuality. As I understand it, Gushee is making the point that all of the passages that may directly address the issue are either seriously debatable (the story of Sodom, or what the terms malakos and arsenokoitos referred to exactly) or are not directly addressing our questions but are concerned to make other points (Romans 1).

On Romans 1 it seems to me that Gushee follows Loader in agreeing that Paul understood sex between partners of the same biological gender as abhorrently unnatural. This indeed tells us Paul’s attitudes, but the text does not address our questions, and aspects of sex are mentioned as illustrations rather than the main point. To me this implies that Paul is not teaching about sexual ethics here.3 Now, when we affirm Scripture as authority we are careful not to claim that everything the Bible seems to say is authoritative (thus when it is apparently describing the sun orbiting the earth, or a flat earth with corners, these are not things that Scripture is teaching and so are not authoritative). The fact (assuming with Loader, and I think Gushee, that it is a fact) that Paul perceived sex between same gender partners as disgusting and unnatural, and thus sinful, is not binding on us if this was not what Paul and the Holy Spirit was ‘teaching’ here – and I do not think it was the point of his teaching here.

Because these direct passages are weak (debatable, difficult to translate with confidence, or talking about something else), and certainly not addressing our questions, the main weight of the traditional case must rest on the doctrine of marriage derived (by both Jesus and Paul as well as us today) primarily from Gen 1 and 2. But these passages also are not concerned with the ethics of stable covenanted sexual relationships between homosexual partners. (Unlike the shepherd in Jesus’ parable their interest is in the 95%4 and not in the others.)

Thus the biblical case for claiming that ONLY heterosex is ethically acceptable under any circumstances (the traditional position)5 is weaker than most of us (e.g. Gushee, me, and probably you) assumed.

The conclusion from this is that this set of issues and questions around sex and sexuality cannot be answered responsibly by an appeal to our exegesis of a small set of texts – almost however we understand them after careful exegesis, they simply will not respond to our 21st C questions. We are therefore required to engage in some deeper and broader hermeneutics – as we have had to do consciously or unconsciously on many other issues. Gushee has not stopped being an evangelical ethicist who writes about and believes passionately in marriage as a lifelong covenant, though he has stopped believing that such a lifelong covenant ought necessarily to be restricted only to heterosexual couples.

  1. I was given a copy by friends who hope it will help me change mine. It is the 2017 edition – though the blog posts on which the book is based appeared first in 2014 and the main response to the book dates from that time. Gushee, David P. Changing Our Mind: Definitive 3rd Edition of the Landmark Call for Inclusion of LGBTQ Christians with Response to Critics. Canton, MI: Read the Spirit Books, 2017. []
  2. That is do not hold Gushee responsible for anything I say, and do not complain too much if I have not reproduced his thought closely enough. []
  3. Note this approach is not the same as the minority who claim that this passage does not express Paul’s own thought but rather the approach he is criticising – because that IS a minority position it does not seem helpful to depend upon it. []
  4. In this case, unlike Jesus’ sheep, it is far more than 1 in a 100. []
  5. NB even this heterosexual expression is only acceptable within the stable lifelong covenant relationship we call marriage. []

Biblical Studies in November

Biblical Studies Carnivals are like people, some are longwinded, others mercifully brief, some are careful or even careworn, others care less. Yet these month by month listings of posts on biblical scholarship, especially when they cast the net widely, but use a large mesh so that only the serious or seriously funny posts get included do us all a great service.

Bob McD has done a typically thorough and careful carnival for November 2018. If you are interested in the Bible and its scholarship, especially if you are interested to hear its scholars think aloud, then at least glance through the carnival. For as Bob demonstrates despite the dearth of commenting and cross referencing (features of this technology of publication we all anjoyed in ‘the old days’ and miss terribly) biblical studies online is a thriving and interesting common room of ideas, and in this carnival you will find treasure – I guarantee it.

BibleWorks

I have just read the news that BibleWorks for many many years the best Bible program for PC (if you have a powerful computer and/or lots of time the Logos e-library system is also good Bible software, but BibleWorks just worked, and so for many years has been my daily goto) is closing.

I could see no information about why, and the announcement was vague about the future – probably because it is still unclear. It would be a real pity if the program were to simply die!

Does anyone have more news?

Beyond the Bible? Howard Marshall’s proposed Evangelical hermeneutics (part 1)

Howard Marshall’s little book (see previous post)1 is really important. Yet it seems little-known in the circles in which I move. I decided to postpone my promised second post and to do a series briefly summarising Marshall’s work and seeking to persuade more people to read it :)

In the first chapter Marshall provides a quick neat and authoritative summary of developments in biblical exegesis and hermeneutics among Evangelicals across the span of his career and a little beyond.2

This summary account is directed to two goals, distinguishing what makes Evangelical hermeneutics Evangelical, and presenting what he sees as the need to develop a common understanding of the proper ways to “go beyond the Bible” in ways that are faithful to the Bible. He sees the recognition of the need for this as something fresh in Evangelical hermeneutics. It might be more accurate to say that making this need conscious is the new thing, for it is a need that has been resisted. Such resistance is understandable, for talk of going beyond the Bible sounds like establishing ourselves in control. Indeed, Vanhoozer, in the same volume criticises Marshall’s proposal as risking “lording it over the Bible”!

Next Marshall discusses Packer’s3 proposals of understanding Evangelical hermeneutics he finds them good, yet also lacking in several ways. The most important of these is that they make it difficult or impossible for someone following the proposals closely to address issues that the Bible’s human authors could and did not address.

This point is a key one and I wish Marshall had developed it further rather than assuming everyone would see the need for and importance of recognising this requirement on us to live by Scripture by going beyond Scripture in addressing issues the Bible does not address.

Marshall then points to the need to avoid the Scylla of “liberalism” (meaning “peeling off of those aspects of biblical teaching about Christian faith and ethics that are held by many people today to be incompatible with a so-called scientific worldview and an “enlightened” understanding of morality) and the Charybdis of “Fundamentalism”. The latter temptation being more natural to most Evangelicals he spends longer explaining why it should be resisted.

Thus this the first lecture sets up the context and need for a hermeneutic that allows us faithfully to “go beyond” the Bible, that is to address issues that were not part of the world the Bible’s human authors addressed.

  1. Marshall, I. Howard, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stanley E. Porter. Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Baker Academic, 2004. []
  2. Basically from the 1960s till today. The emphasis is on the UK rather than the USA, which is refreshing since some issues that weigh heavily on American Evangelicals sit lighter or are even not really significant in the British context and the result is a more spacious treatment. []
  3. James I Packer, “Understanding the Bible: Evangelical Hermeneutics,” Melvin Tinker, ed., Restoring the Vision: Anglican Evangelicals Speak Out. Eastbourne: Monarch Publications, 1990, 39-58. []

Trajectory hermeneutics: Trajectories and biblical theology

The concept of a trajectory, though the word is a technical one from the science of mechanics, is simple enough. In mechanics it describes the path that an object (like a ball that is thrown or hit) takes. As a metaphor for a hermeneutic process it draws on the way in which if we know the direction and speed of start of the path and the forces (like gravity and air resistance) the point at which the ball will touch down can be calculated. Of course, hermeneutics is not a mathematical science, yet the metaphor is an interesting one.

Trajectories in Scripture

Biblical scholars have begun using this picture language for two reasons.

Firstly, within the Scriptures we find examples of developing understanding. So, there are passages which reflect the beliefs of early Israelites that the gods of surrounding (polytheistic) peoples had some sort of reality and power. Psalm 82 is an example.1 Moses’ song of God the Rock in Deuteronomy 32 offers another example (Dt 32:8). Even v.12 which denies the role of any foreign ‘god’ in guiding Israel through the desert seems to allow these ‘gods’ some possibility of existence. Yet alongside, and by far overwhelming, such passages are others that proclaim that God is alone and only, denying existence to all beings claimed as divine. Between these points other passages seem to suggest the beings worshiped in error as ‘gods’ are really demons (Lev 17:7; Dt 32:16-17; perhaps 1 Cor 10:20-22).

There are two main ways for Evangelicals to handle such examples. The traditional conservative approach has been to harmonise the ‘odd’ cases to the predominant view. The tradition rendering ‘god’ in Ps 82 as ‘ruler’ is an example. The advantage of this approach is that it fits neatly and easily with the modern US touchstone of Evangelical approaches to Scripture that it is ‘inerrant’. The disadvantage is that one risks seeming to twist some Scripture passages in ways that contort either the words or the sense. The other approach makes use of the metaphor of trajectory. It recognises that God’s self revelation in Scripture was progressive. Not all of the truth was revealed at once. In the revelation of God through covenant and law to Moses on Sinai some truth about God (e.g. the gospel of grace through the redeeming sacrifice of God incarnate in Jesus Christ) is only present as seeds or hints. These fuller and more complete aspects of God’s nature and work are revealed fully later in Scripture.

Trajectories from Scripture

There is a further area where such trajectory thinking is needed. We live in a world which is different from that inhabited by the writers of Scripture. In many ways the issues that face us were unimaginable to them. Yet, God chose to inspire the dozens of writers with messages that were (with perhaps a few notable exceptions) comprehensible to the writers and their audiences. How can we respond biblically to the challenges of life in the 21st C? Often the answer is simple. The principles the Bible teaches can be applied to our issues. The Bible contains many warnings against becoming intoxicated. Most of these point clearly to the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption. This principle that intoxication is to be avoided can clearly and simply be extended to suggest that the use of P or LSD or other drugs developed in recent times in order to become intoxicated should likewise be avoided. Note that in such cases some Christians push the argument a stage further and suggest (following the trajectory of the biblical teaching) that all consumption of such drugs (like wine and beer) might be better avoided.

Thinking not merely of the principles taught in Scripture but of the direction they point (their trajectory) has evidently been necessary in some cases. All churches today teach that slavery is wrong. No one would argue that slave owning is proper for a Christian seeking to follow the Bible. Yet in Scripture slavery as an institution is not condemned. Indeed in an extreme case (where a partner in ministry of Paul, Onesimus, is the escaped slave of one of Paul’s converts, Philemon) Paul attempts to convince Philemon to forgive and perhaps even set Onesimus free. Paul does not declare slavery itself to be wrong! However, after much bitter argument which pitted those who defended the plain and simple teaching of the Bible against others with ‘weaker’ arguments, we decided that the direction in which Paul’s (and the rest of the Bible’s) teaching was headed made clear that slavery is wrong. This position also coheres well with other core biblical teaching (thus confirming our conclusions). God is the creator of all, Jesus died to save us all, the Holy Spirit fills us all (potential slave and potential slave owner) alike!

In this post I have sought to explain the desirability, even the necessity of a trajectory hermeneutic as one interpretative tool. In the next I plan to consider some of the objections to trajectory hermeneutics (what some have called ‘trajectory theology’). Perhaps the best place to start for an Evangelical thinking about such issues is the book I. Howard Marshall, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stanley E. Porter. Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Baker Academic, 2004.

 

  1. At least it is when the text is translated and read in its plain meaning. Both the Hebrew and the LXX seem to understand the picture in v.1 speaking of Yahweh as the king with the gods as his ministers. One translation tradition, more recent than the LXX understands the ‘gods’ (‘el and ‘elohim, or in Greek the singular and plural of theos) here uniquely as ‘rulers’. []

Superstimuli and the Terrible Ten Biblicist Claims

Today I want to turn to those terrible ten claims made by Biblicists.1

My aim is not to discuss whether, or how much, Evangelical scholarship may have been infiltrated by these ideas. Nor am I really trying to answer the question I was asked on Facebook of how many on the list I could support. Even though this post began with my surprise that DeYoung’s response to them seemed (almost) more negative than mine. He wrote:

I agree with point 1 and would affirm points 2, 7, 8, and 9 with the right nuance. But I disagree with points 5 and 6, and I am not comfortable with the wording in 3, 4, and 10.

Before going further here is the list (with some first comments):

  1. Divine Writing: The Bible, down to the details of its words, consists of and is identical with God’s very own words written inerrantly in human language.
    Right at the start DeYoung and I disagree, he accepts this, I cannot. The words of Scripture are clearly human words, I would claim that the message is divine while the words are human. I think this is what some of the biblical authors themselves claim, like Luke’s account of his process in writing (Luke 1:1-3) or the movement from vision to speech in the prophets (e.g. Amos 7:1-9; 8:1-3). The untruth of 1. is also demonstrated, it seems to me in the fact that Jeremiah does not usually sound like Isaiah, nor Luke like John.
    In this case the untruth of the proposition at best wrongly and badly states the claim that the Bible texts are inspired Scripture.
  2. Total Representation: The Bible represents the totality of God’s communication to and will for humanity, both in containing all that God has to say to humans and in being the exclusive mode of God’s true communication.
    This again is an overstatement. Scripture is NOT the “exclusive mode of God’s true communication” but might be closer to the truth if we inserted the word “authoritative” before communication, and perhaps toned down the claim to exclusivity.
  3. Complete Coverage: The divine will about all of the issues relevant to Christian belief and life are contained in the Bible.
    This one is plainly bonkers. No way does the Bible address every modern concern. Yet, the claim that Scripture is sufficient – that it tells us what and even “all” we need to know about God and for our salvation – is really important.
  4. Democratic Perspicuity: Any reasonably intelligent person can read the Bible in his or her own language and correctly understand the plain meaning of the text.
    The perspicuity of Scripture is vital to Baptist life and ecclesiology, but it should never be misstated like this, there is much in Scripture that is difficult, often reading in the light of serious study helps clarify, and yet (again, what we need to know about God and for our salvation) is clear and we have to (intentionally) misread, or be mislead, to miss it.
  5. Commonsense Hermeneutics: The best way to understand biblical texts is by reading them in their explicit, plain, most obvious, literal sense, as the author intended them at face value, which may or may not involve taking into account their literary, cultural, and historical contexts.
    This one is sneaky. Did you spot “literal sense” in there? Very little in Scripture is expressed literally. Yet the desire to read the plain sense, and not to get carried away with allegorising and spiritualising is a sound one!
  6. Solo Scripture: The significance of any given biblical text can be understood without reliance on creeds, confessions, historical church traditions, or other forms of larger theological hermeneutical frameworks, such that theological formulations can be built up directly out of the Bible from scratch.
    This one is plain untrue. Take the doctrine of the Trinity as example, it fits with and makes sense of so much in Scripture, yet it can nowhere be read as the plain teaching of a Bible passage. The truth it overstates is that our doctrine and practice should be subjected to the test of the text. They should conform to Scripture and not the reverse.
  7. Internal Harmony: All related passages of the Bible on any given subject fit together almost like puzzle pieces into single, unified, internally consistent bodies of instruction about right and wrong beliefs and behaviors.
    Such a univocal text does not describe at all the Bible I read. (I am currently supposed to be marking short essays on the topic “Did God want Israel to have a king” and the nuanced and diverse attitudes to theologies of kingship expressed in just 1 Samuel, let alone more widely in the OT are sufficient to give that claim the lie.)
    Yet, the consistency of Scripture is surely the reason for the claim that 1 Tim 2:11-12 cannot be read in its most obvious plain sense, that sense (that women should not teach or speak in church) is wrong – it does not “fit” with Paul’s own practice. So, I want to affirm the principle of consistency, while denying the excessive claim in Smith’s formulation.
  8. Universal applicability: What the biblical authors taught God’s people at any point in history remains universally valid for all Christians at every other time, unless explicitly revoked by subsequent scriptural teaching.
    This one is a case where DeYoung’s casuistic approach may have merits, for “certain values” of “taught”. The theological understanding that the writers were teaching are indeed true for all times, places, and people,2 But much that they teach (about other more time-bound matters) is not similarly eternal. Thus the laws about wearing clothes of mixed fabrics are not “revoked”  yet do not control my clothing choices. They ought to stand as a warning though against living in ways that are indistinguishable from the Pagans around us.
  9. Inductive Method: All matters of Christian belief and practice can be learned by sitting down with the Bible and piecing together through careful study the clear “biblical” truths that it teaches.
    Here I am with DeYoung, “with suitable nuancing” this is one I can affirm as stated, though sometimes the inductive process is quite lengthy with several steps.
  10. Handbook Model: The Bible teaches doctrine and morals with every affirmation that it makes, so that together those affirmations comprise something like a handbook or textbook for Christian belief and living, a compendium of divine and therefore inerrant teachings on a full array of subjects–including science, economics, health, politics, and romance.
    Even without the (rather naughty?) inclusion of “romance” this is one to resist. And yet even here there is at its heart the admirable desire to take seriously to sufficiency of Scripture. That is a truth worth retaining even while we deny the “supertruth” of the claim.

That last comment will bring me back to my title. But first let me draw your attention to the way this reflection on the claims in the terrible ten have run. In most cases the claim is untrue, yet in every case the claim intends to protect an important truth. This is the insidious nature of these (rightly identified as) terrible ten. They seek to protect truth but affirm a lie. At their heart they are ways in which Evangelicals (certainly in the “wild”, but often in the captivity of the academy too) seek to protect the claim that the Bible is Holy Scripture – the self-revelation of God. But each of them does this by insidiously claiming “more”. In this the terrible ten are like the “superstimuli” that ethologists and pornographers (like the Orange Overlord?) have identified or cashed in. They present something “more” or “better” than the truth, and thus lead the animal astray.

  1. Christian Smith, Bible Made Impossible, The: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture (Brazos Press, 2011) 3-5. []
  2. As I affirm strongly in the first episode of Deep Bible. []

SBL and “being there” (reflections from a past attendee)

Facebook reminded me that seven years ago today I was at SBL, and discussing then (via Facebook) with Stephen Garner (who was in Auckland) the values and value of such face to face meetings in this time of digital communications. I still rather like this reflection:
“Ah, yes, ‘being there’ ;)

photo from Bill Heroman via Facebook of Mark Goodacre, snapping Chris Porter, snapped by Sarah Mayo Heroman at #sblaar16

photo from Bill Heroman via Facebook of Mark Goodacre, snapping Chris Porter, snapped by Sarah Mayo Heroman at #sblaar16

So far paradoxically the only reason for ‘being there’ rather than watching streaming video (with the capacity to ask questions like Dimdim et al.)1 has been meeting people I correspond with daily or weekly on the Internetz, but have not yet encountered in the flesh.

The papers that have been interesting would mainly be better read, with time to reflect and engage,2 David Clines’ Presidential Address was inspiring, but sitting on the floor at the back of the room3 YouTube would have been as inspirational… So the deep irony is that SBL is great because I meet people’s fleshly avatars, but that the format means most get met and left, as I or they rush off to the next timetabled timewaster!”

This photo from Fortress Press via Facebook shows some typical SBL attitudes

This photo from Fortress Press via Facebook shows some typical SBL behaviours

 

Meanwhile back in 2016

I think that was the last SBL I attended, the reasons have not been (so much) lack of enthusiasm, for there is an enormous energy boost to delivering a paper to experts in the field and having them listen with more than polite interest, and even engage (briefly, though often positively, with the ideas). Rather now that my airfare and hotel bill (even staying at Day’s Inns and youth hostels US hotels are expensive) are no longer paid for me I have difficulty justifying the expense. I’m sure many of my friends would not agree with this negative assessment, they are extroverts for whom fleeting but vital people contact does not seem to be a reward they receive in the same way at a distance.

But this introvert wishes that a small fraction of what is spent on SBL4 could be siphoned off as a tithe to pay for enriching academic publication platforms to actually encourage engagement.5

  1. Dimdim may still exist, I have not seen it mentioned recently, but such online meeting rooms abound today, and are still often badly used – the effort to attend seems to correlate with the effort made by the organisers far too often! []
  2. Though, of course that would require a change to academic publishing to allow come form of commenting feature, or at least authors’ emails. []
  3. As I was, the room was rightly packed for a highlight of the show. []
  4. Using the initials of the Society as the moniker of the biggest such jamboree for biblical scholars pars pro toto to refer to the whole “conference” parade. []
  5. I cannot now find, and of course I did not bookmark, the depressing post I read earlier this week concerning how few people actually read peer reviewed articles – the author and some of the reviewers excepted – but the number was shockingly small. []

Small talk and biblical narrative: a challenge

I was grabbed by a question Derek Tovey asked on Facebook. He’s been reading the blurb to Peeter’s edition of Elizabeth B. Tracy, See Me! Hear Me!, Contributions to biblical exegesis and theology 75 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015). The blurb begins with an (unreferenced) quote from Fokkelmann: “The Bible does not contain one single instance of small talk.” Derek asked: “Is he right? Can you find an example of small talk in the Bible?” I think he is and I can’t, can you?

There is banter in the Bible, not least banter between strangers – the case of Jesus and the woman at Sychar (John 4) is a strong example. There are examples of a host’s gracious welcome – Abraham and the three men offers a classic example (Genesis 18). But no “small talk” (which I understand to mean polite by trivial or meaningless talk to oil the wheels of social interaction).

This seems to me not unexpected, I can’t think (though please let me know that I am wrong) of examples of small talk in literature before the modern period, and even then the earliest examples I think of are from Shakespeare (and I think drama works differently from prose narrative).

More than that though biblical narrative is well-known to be parsimonious with unnessary detail of all sorts. Descriptions are almost only given when some detail advances the plot, or characterisation, in significant ways. Indeed, often the silences and omissions are meaningful, “fraught with background” in Auerbach’s redolent phrase.

Fokkelmann, however approached the question differently. The quote comes from his introductory textbook and his concern is with the way characters’ speech is “existentially revealing”.

The other speeches in our pilot story show that the character’s text not only contains many forms of the present tense, but often also commands and wishes. This means that speech is often about the imminent future, and this is something the narrator himself can never manage. Characters may say that they want to have this or that, or want this or that to be done in such-and-such a way. Speeches are often excited or dramatic.The Bible does not contain one single instance of small talk; almost every word by a character is existentially revealing or rooted: the speaker is totally committed to the matter under discussion.1

This notion of speech in biblical narrative as “existentially revealing” is (I think) much more interesting than mere parsimony!

  1. Jan Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative : An Introduction Guide (Louisville  Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999) 68. []

Legacy texts or e-commentaries?

Because designers of file formats and Bible software that uses them are print-centric in their thinking I seem to face a choice in envisaging a new generation e-commentary. Either I produce something that accepts the traditional limitations of print, but which would work within Bible software and so be available to people when and where they need it. OR I produce a genuinely electronic commentary, with links and media (pictures, video and sound), but that must be accessed apart from the Bible study tool.

In my previous post I expressed some frustration at the lack of tools for conveniently preparing a text marked up in OSIS (Open Scripture Information Standard). In this post I will look at OSIS from a different prespective. I am discovering that, as well as the practical difficulties of producing well-formed valid XML, I have  another deeper problem. OSIS is designed for marking up Bible and related texts, but it is designed for and from the print age. Its mentality is that of words written on a page. It is therefore quite good at rendering manuscript texts (after all print largely mimics manuscript). It is not good at producing e-texts.

To make matters worse, different front end1 designers have different ideas about the importance of non-textual elements (like figures)2 or hypertextual elements (most notably links). Among those who can import OSIS text (often adapted into Sword modules) some support figures (though the ability to size and place images in text seem to be rudimentary), others support links – though learning the arcane methods reguired is problematic and on occasions the results are bizzare (Xiphos3 may jump to an internal link in a commentary module, but seems to reset the Bible text displayed to the start of Revelation each time, not quite the effect I am after!

At present it looks as if I have the choice of aiming for commentary that is as print-like as possible, producing such a print-like commentary augumented by links to Internet based materials outside the commentary itself, or producing an e-commentary that does not work inside Bible software.

If anyone can suggest ways to cut the Gordian Knot, or even a decent compromise, would deserve and recieve my deep gratitude!

 

  1. Think Bible software or websites that allow you to read and study the Bible. []
  2. Photos, maps, diagrams, charts… []
  3. One of the most developed Crosswire front ends. []

Returning to e-commentary

Over a decade after the peer reviewed citable edition of the Amos commentary was published, and after several false starts and a lot of unproductive work, I am returning to explore the possibilities for e-commentary.

One thing that has changed for the better is that now OSIS (Open Scripture Information Standard) is more firmly established. It will allow the material coded in such a way it can be shared across, and used within a number of Bible software front ends. Screenshot below shows a mockup of some commentary on Amos 1:1.

amos
One thing that has not changed1 is that OSIS is infernally difficult to code and no convenient tool exists to let anyone but a markup geek work with the markup.

I am learning lots, I now know about modern Bigendians and why they are dangerous to meet. I am discovering the delights of disappearing titles and the vagaries of front end designers, more than I ever thought I’d want to know about file formats and relative paths… One detail I learned is that if you put a BOM where you should not everything blows up. But that is not why everything blew up this afternoon, I still have to discover that new piece of information!

If anyone reading this knows of a decent way for a human (who is not a markup geek) to compose text in OSIS markup I would be delighted to hear from you!

As part of my preparation I have been rereading my old papers describing how I envisaged the project a decade or a decade and a half back, in case anyone else would find them interesting I am uploading them to Academia.edu here are the 2004 ones I have been looking at recently:

  1. As far as I know so far. If you know otherwise PLEASE tell me! []