We've been noticed by other bloggers. Does this mean we can increase our blog-salaries? Stephen Carlson has even read my article in the recent NTS on P4, 64, 67 so that is enthusiasm for you. http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
Pete
A forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
- Contributors
- Peter M. Head (ed)
- Tommy Wasserman (ed)
- P. J. Williams, and others
I think your blog salaries should be doubled, maybe even tripled.
ReplyDeleteMaybe requests for salary rises could be in our prayers section.
ReplyDeleteWe could have a series of buttons (which some technophile would have to organise, not me) where viewers/readers of the blog [is there a blog-dom type term for the people out there?] could press to donate money to the contributor who had, for example, made the best joke about Santa or introduced pirates sureptitously [I wish this thing would spell check for me] into the discussion without anybody noticing. Or perhaps we could have an award for the most parenthetised [bracketed] entry [or blog note].
ReplyDeleteWhat do you [all] think about this?
A more useful cause would be to donate money for a project to collate all the Greek mss of the NT. Any millonaires out there who want to sponsor a worthy cause? Start by sponsoring all the libraries to put up digital images of their mss and then mobilize your congregations to get collating. With the right technological support the whole lot could be concluded in 5 years and all our questions answered by computer searches. Then we could go and study the OT.
ReplyDeleteOr even millionaires?
ReplyDeleteCome on Pete,
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously saying that with a huge grant your number one priority would be collating huge numbers of mansucripts? Horror. Surely we could have more exciting dreams than that.
Did you know that if you Google 'millonaires' you get 2,660 results? Talk about common typos.
Pete
And what, pray, would your TC dreams be? Or am I just failing to see irony in print?
ReplyDelete