Dunelm Road

I’m doing a short series on BibleWorks 8.  Here’s part 1 and part 2.

One of the most important parts about BW is its integration with wordprocessors since most of us are communicating ideas about these texts.  For this post I thought I would, therefore, make a few comments about BW8 with regard to Fonts and MS Word.

Fonts.  For the most part you won’t see much in the way of difference with the way fonts are used, but BW8 continues to focus on making use of Unicode fonts easier, which is good because everything is moving this direction.  In particular, you’ll notice that there are a few more options as far as setting output font options.   (While this doesn’t relate to wordprocessing, I wish BW would include an option to change the font size ‘on the fly’ instead of having to go into settings.)

Word.  I’d say one of the few bugs that continues to bother me about BW is the problem of copying and pasting into Word since this is central to my daily experience.  When I copy and paste any Greek into Word, BW does two bad things: 1) it automatically puts a ‘hard return’ (or carriage return) after the word, and  2) it would override the paragraph formatting (thus getting rid of the first line indent).  I reported this problem with BW7 and they said they would look into it, but nothing was improved.  I again reported the problem with BW8, and it now appears that they have set things to handle the problems but I still have problem 1).  So, it’s now more of an issue of incovenience to just backspace a couple of times in Word to undo the problem.  One positive thing to note with all this is that I’ve always gotten personalised attention from the BW customer support people, and I haven’t had a chance to play with my settings based on their last email.  A more difficult issue is coping-pasting Hebrew into Word because the letters come out in the reverse order.  I think the easiest work around is to copy Hebrew into the BW editor and then copy-paste into Word.  I would say the copy-paste functionality should be a central place that BW needs to spend time to improve its usability.

If you are having the problems 1) and 2) above, I have figured out a short work around that deals with problem 2). a) in Word, click the Office Button (or Alt-F), select ‘Word Options’, select ‘Advanced’.   b) in Cut, Copy, and Paste settings, change the setting for ‘Pasting from other programs’: choose the option ‘Match destination formatting’.

If any of you that are moving over are going to get Sky tv, I would like to take the opportunity to refer you. You’ll get Sky+ at no extra cost, and I’ll get a few coupons. Just reply here and I’ll send you the info. Thanks. We now return to our regularly scheduled broadcasting.

I’m doing a short series on BibleWorks 8.  Here’s part 1.

Though this doesn’t apply just to BW8, I think it’s definitely worth mentioning since I use this feature regularly: BW has a powerful feature that allows you to integrate information from other sources: from online and other software.  I consider this one of the most impressive things about BW and a clearly positive signal that they aren’t just in a protectionist stance.  They rightfully recognise that  modern users have a variety of tools and that BW cannot provide all of them.  In fact, BW’s website says that they intentionally focus on ancient primary texts and related tools but not the plethora of other materials that could be integrated.  I think this is a fine way to proceed, especially if they allow outlets to those other sources.

The two ways that BW allows you to integrate external sources are 1) Ermie (External Resource Manager) and 2) External Links.  Ermie, which is new to BW8 and greatly adds to its value, is quite robust with links a huge number of websites and online resources like Google books.  The range of topics go from languages, dictionaries, commentaries, preaching resources, theology, and beyond.  (Resources: Ermie, I wonder why it isn’t in the External Resources option?).  I don’t use this resource near as much as I could and should.  On a day to day basis the External Links are more of a use for me.

External Links: About 4 years ago, I wanted a copy of BDAG but didn’t want a paper version.  Since I didn’t yet own BW, I went with the Logos/Libronix version based upon a recommendation from someone one and the ability to search specific aspects (by gloss, definition, etc.).  Being pleased with their formatting, I have accumulated other key resources on Logos (IVP dictionaries, TDNT, ABD, and LSJ–anybody know when the OLD will be coming out?).  Also, along the way I started using BW and after poking around I was introduced to BW’s External Links, which are the means to integrate with other sources.  Now that I’ve set up LSJ as an External Link , I just have to right click (in BW) on a Greek word and after selecting the option, LSJ will open up in Logos to that word.  It’s obviously not as easy as looking at it in the analysis window directly in BW, but you get the page numbering and Logos’ formatting.  So I’ll leave it up to you as to which is more important. 

So, I’ll point you to the key places that explain this and also give some details about how to go about it in case you don’t want all the detail other places or can’t decifer it.  I’m focusing just on BW to Logos, but there are many other relationships that you can set up.  Greek based items are easier to set up than Hebrew, but you can also do things based upon verse references.

The BibleWorks unofficial blog is great for this stuff.  For LSJ tips see here.  See also here.  For linking other resources see here.

Basics:

1) You have to update Libronix to accept calls from BW with the PowerTools Addin.

2) Set up the External Links:  Go to: Resources: Edit External Links.  Use the following information for LSJ.  You can also edit the ShellExec.ini with a text editor if you want to just copy/paste the following information for each link.

//
// External Link #24
//[Liddell-Scott-Jones (Logos)]
Operation = Open
Directory = NULL
File = libronixdls:macro|name=TextKeyLink|text=|lang=el|scheme=beta|res=LLS:46.30.25
Parameters = NULL
MenuLocation = Browse Window Greek
TextType = Greek Text
MapToVersion = NULL
Lookup = Lemma
MenuText = Liddell-Scott-Jones (Logos)
Enabled = 1

libronixdls:macro|name=TextKeyLink|text=|lang=el|scheme=beta|res=LLS:46.30.18 (for BDAG)
libronixdls:macro|name=TextKeyLink|text=|lang=el|scheme=beta|res=LLS:46.10.26 (for EDNT)
libronixdls:macro|name=TextKeyLink|text=|lang=el|scheme=beta|res=LLS:46.10.16 (for TDNT)

Another original language resource website: Παρακάλυψις.  It’s got OT, NT, Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha, Patristics and classics.  Some stuff comes up online, and other stuff you have to use djvu (like pdf) software. 

HT: Roger Pearse

I wanted to say thanks to BibleWorks for the opportunity to review BW 8. 

When I was in Dallas I just used a basic program put out by Zondervan, but when I started PhD studies I knew that wouldn’t be adequate anymore.  So at the recommendation of others here I bought BW7 about 3 years ago.  Since I haven’t really ever used any of the other major programs, the focus of my review will be on the differences between BW7 and BW8.

On the whole, users won’t see much of a difference with the interface of BW8, but don’t let that fool you. 

• OT Greek Pseudepigrapha
• Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics
• Improved Analysis Window
• ANF and NPNF

The inclusion of the Greek OTP is the biggest reason to get BW8.  Since this only includes the Greek portions of the OTP it doesn’t include things like 2 Enoch or parts of 4 Ezra that aren’t in Greek, otherwise it includes most of the works in Charlesworth’s edition. 

The inclusion of Wallace’s grammar is worth about $30 by itself.  I made the mistake of buying the electronic Pradis version before I had BW and regretted it from the beginning because it was so poorly formatted.  Needless to say the BW version is much more user friendly. 

The other big improvement is making the analysis window more robust: 1) With the ‘Browse’ tab you can see the larger context in one window while you are looking at individual verses in the Browse window.  2) The ‘Resources’ tab is very good.  It shows where the verse you are looking at is referenced by different resources–lexicons, reference grammars, and to my great pleasure Schaff’s Early Church Fathers, which includes the Ante-Nicene and the Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers. 

And as you’ll know from my interest in patristics, the inclusion of the Ante-Nicene and the Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers is quite a welcome addition.  However, its inclusion as a html help file, which is the way that BW includes many reference works, is unfortunate.  The real power with BW is its search capability, and searching through the ANF and NPNF in the help file format is tedious to say the least.  Most of the ANF has been converted as a user defined database on the unofficial BibleWorks blog.  If you use it, you’ll see the difference.

Other smaller, but helpful tweeks include the use of Ctrl-Tab to move through the Search window tabs.  I’m a big fan of keyboard shortcuts so this was a welcome improvement.  Maybe they should also add the function of hitting Ctrl+ a number to take you to a specific tab.  Also, the opportunity to use an editor for papers and the like as well as notes on particular verses is handy.

Check out the Patristics Carnival XXVII at the Church of Jesus Christ.

See here for part 1, part 2, and part 3 of the interview.

9) How do you see your work on non-violence fitting into your discussions of co-crucifixion and theosis?

I have a whole chapter on this in Inhabiting, but basically because I see the cross both as the definitive theophany and as the display of God’s nonviolent way of reconciling enemies, participation in the life of this God must take on God’s nonviolent character. I think that is Paul’s perspective, and for him it is part and parcel of justification by faith/co-crucifixion.

10) How do you think Paul`s understanding of participation in Christ relates to the Platonic and Aristotelian understandings of participation?

I am not an expert on either Plato or Aristotle, but I suspect that Paul is not indebted to either tradition for his experience and understanding of participation. Paul’s participation in Christ is fundamentally narrative, kinetic, and missional by virtue of being a sharing in the story and reality of God’s self-giving love displayed especially in Christ’s incarnation and death. Thus participation is neither an end in itself nor static, both of which may be more appropriately attributed to certain philosophical traditions.

11) Could you comment on the timing of justification? It seems that you describe justification as a process in distinction to those who make it more an ‘already’ kind of thing, which could make some Protestants a little uncomfortable.

I am not sure I would describe justification as a process as much as it is a mode of existence that has an initial point and an eschatological culminating point. That’s somewhat similar to Tom Wright’s idea of justification having two moments. I would also stress the time between the two as part of justification. The justified live a life of justice, not as some supplement to justification understood as a finished reality, but as the embodiment of justification itself.

Here’s a relevant quote from chapter two:

What justification by co-crucifixion will imply, however, and not surprisingly, is that a theological rift between justification and sanctification is impossible, because the same Spirit effects both initial and ongoing co-crucifixion with Christ among believers, a lifelong experience of cruciformity or, in light of chapter one, theoformity—theosis.

If that makes Protestants uncomfortable, so be it!—and blame Paul, not me. He’s the one who won’t limit “”just-“ (dik-) language to some past event. In Christ we become the justice of God. That’s justification! That’s theosis!

Thanks again, Ben!

Thanks to you, Mike.

See here for part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4 of the interview.

See here part 1 and part 2 of the interview.

6) You also brought out theosis as an aspect of Pauline theology at that conference. What sparked your interest in theosis?

My interest in theosis, as mentioned above, was sparked when I came to the realization that cruciformity was really participatory theoformity. I knew the tradition well enough to recognize that I was beginning to move in an Easterly direction, but I was pleasantly surprised to find both that some parts of the Western tradition had stressed theosis and that it was now gaining momentum across traditions and disciplines. As I say in the introduction to my book, there is much more to be done in connection with Paul and theosis—especially by scholars like you!

7) What about theosis adds to protestant theology that we have been missing?

Protestant theology is profoundly Christocentric and frequently rather juridical in its understanding of our relationship to God. Theosis does not lose Christocentrism but links it explicitly to a profound participation in God and the Spirit of God—hardly a juridical relation. (I realize that some embrace participation but reject theosis. My guess is that this is ultimately a semantic rather than a substantive difference, though those who reject theosis disagree.) Theosis also holds together things that Protestants tend to split apart and label something like stages: justification, sanctification, glorification. In theosis, these are all of a piece. Paul’s distinctive contribution, I think, is to insure that theosis is always understood cruciformly. Theosis is conformity to Christ crucified even in its final phase of eschatological glorification.

8. Could you tell us a handful of books or articles that that have been important for shaping your understanding of theosis?

Believe it or not, the conclusion of Bonhoeffer’s (Cost of) Discipleship might be at the top. Bonhoeffer convinced me that my putting theosis and the cross together was not a mistake—or an original idea. Stephen Finlan’s articles have been helpful in opening up the NT connections. The collections of essays on theosis that have appeared in the last few years have also been helpful (e.g. Christensen and Wittung, which has a lot of good essays, including a provocative one on Paul by Finlan). Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen gives a broad perspective in One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. An “older” (1990s) essay by Ann Jervis on Paul (“Becoming like God through Christ: Romans”) has not gotten sufficient attention, nor has the still older work of Morna Hooker—she wrote extensively about theosis in Paul without ever calling it that. And it would be inexcusable of me not to mention Richard Hays and his work on narrative and participation, who is himself favorably disposed toward theosis and reading Paul through the Eastern fathers, and you. Though your and my approaches differ, I think our work is complimentary, and it was very encouraging to me to learn of your dissertation topic when I was first working on theosis.

See here for part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4 of the interview.

See here for part 1 of the interview.

4) You got a bit of pushback at SBL in DC (2006) about co-crucifixion as being synergistic. What do you say to that response? Did you adjust your arguments based on that interchange?

The phrase that pushed people’s buttons was and is “justification by co-crucifixion.” My response, as I recall, was twofold. First, I argued that typical notions of faith, especially in Protestant circles, are impoverished vis-a-vis Paul’s; they are simply not “thick” enough, robust enough, demanding enough. I cited Bonhoeffer as the counterpoint to this impoverished understanding of faith in Paul. (I have many pages devoted to this in Cruciformity, by the way.) Second, I reminded the critics that I have repeatedly made the point that co-crucifixion, cruciformity, theosis, etc. is the work of the Spirit, a work of grace. To be sure, humans (or at least believers) must respond and even, yes, cooperate with the Spirit, but my theme verse on this subject is “Work out, or actualize, your communal salvation because it is God who is at work in your community.”

I have actually taken great pains to make it clear that grace and the Spirit—as expressed in those passive verbs—are the source of our co-crucifixion and transformation. After the pushback, I certainly checked my language and sharpened it a bit, but my basic position remained, and remains, unchanged.

5) Based on Richard Hays’ blurb of your book (Gorman deftly integrates the results of recent debates about Pauline theology into a powerful constructive account that overcomes unfruitful dichotomies and transcends recent controversies between the ‘New Perspective on Paul’ and its traditionalist critics.), how do you see your work transcending the Old/New perspective debates?

I think it transcends the dichotomy in several ways. First, I want to maintain both the “vertical” and the “horizontal” (social) dimensions and demands of justification, whereas the Old and New perspectives often (even despite cries to the contrary from the New folks) stress one or the other. I think they are not only both present, but inseparably so. Second, and this is related to the first point, I see participation as central to Paul, not as an alternative to justification, but as the very essence of justification. I think that both the Old and the New perspectives have generally missed this connection and actually have common (mis-)understandings of justification as a verdict, as a judicial metaphor. They simply disagree on what the verdict is. Third, I think that justification as participation means that both human effort/pride (Old) and cultural elitism, to use Matera’s phrase (New), are ruled out as the basis for justification—anything but the cross as the objective and subjective basis of justification. Finally (at least for now), I think that the Old and the New perspectives both treat the cross as a formal, but not a material, ground for justification. In my read of Paul, the cross embodies the covenant faithfulness and love of God and of Christ, which means that what it is, is intimately connected to what it effects (justification, salvation).

See here for part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4 of the interview.