Blog RSS Feed

Calculating the Time and Cost of Paul’s Missionary Journeys

July 5th, 2012

Stanford University recently unveiled ORBIS, a site that lets you calculate the time and cost required to travel by road or ship around the Roman world in A.D. 200. It takes into account a lot of factors—my favorite is that it models ancient sea routes based on historical sources and wave height.

A view of the Mediterranean, including Roman cities and roads, from ORBIS.

The apostle Paul went on three missionary journeys from A.D. 46 to 57, traveling around much of Asia Minor and Greece. In 60, he was also taken to Rome. ORBIS allows us to calculate how long these journeys would have taken in pure travel time (excluding time spent at each destination) and how much they would have cost.

Journey Distance (miles) Travel Time (days) Cost per Person (denarii)*
First 1,581 53 237
Second 3,050 100 314
Third 3,307 92 481
Rome 2,344 36 699

* Ship travel only. According to Wikipedia, the denarius from 200, used here, is roughly 22% weaker than a denarius from the mid-first-century.

I conclude a few things from this exercise:

  1. The journeys get progressively costlier as more of each journey happens by ship. Sailing is fast but expensive—of course, Paul and his companions may not have had to pay the full fare.
  2. I like to imagine that Paul’s overnight escape from Thessalonica to Berea was partially by riverboat (though the costs above assume it was by road).
  3. Not much of the route of Paul’s journey is in doubt—Luke describes the trips pretty precisely in Acts. About the only question is whether Paul traveled from Berea to Athens by ship or by road. The above costs follow the ESV Study Bible and assume it was by ship.

For more about Paul’s missionary journeys, Dale Bargmann has written a good walkthrough with maps and photos.

Download the raw data (Excel).

Rise of the Robosermon

April 29th, 2012

In a recent issue of Wired, Steven Levy writes about Narrative Science, a company that uses data to write automated news stories. Right now, they mostly deal in data-intensive fields like sports and finance, but the company is confident that it will easily expand into other areas—the company’s co-founder even predicts that an algorithm will win a Pulitzer Prize in the next five years.

In February 2012, I attended a session at the TOC Conference given in part by Kristian Hammond, the CTO and co-founder of Narrative Science. During the session, Hammond mentioned that sports stories have a limited number of angles (e.g., a “blowout win” or a “come-from-behind victory”)—you can probably sit down and think up a fairly comprehensive list in short order. Even in fictional sports stories, writers only use around sixty common tropes as part of the narrative. Once you have an angle (or your algorithm has decided on one), you just slot in the relevant data, add a little color commentary, and you have your story.

At the time, I was struggling to understand how automated content could apply to Bible study; Levy’s article leads me to think that robosermons, or sermons automatically generated by a computer program, are the way of the future.

Parts of a Robosermon

Futurama has a robot preacher. I've never seen these episodes, so hopefully this image isn't terribly heretical. After all, from a data perspective, sermons don’t differ much from sports stories. In particular, they have three components:

First, as with sports stories, sermons follow predictable structures and patterns. David Schmitt of Concordia Theological Seminary suggests a taxonomy of around thirty sermon structures. Even if this list isn’t comprehensive, it would probably take, at most, 100 to 200 structures to categorize nearly all sermons.

Second, sermons deal with predictable content: whereas sports have box scores, sermons have Bible texts and topics. A sermon will probably deal with a passage from the Bible in some way—the 31,000 verses in the Bible comprise a large but manageable set of source material (especially since most sermons involve a passage, not a single verse; you can probably cut this list down to around 2,000 sections). Topically, SermonCentral.com lists only 500 sermon topics in their database of 120,000 sermons. The power-law popularity distribution (i.e., the 80/20 rule) of verses preached on (on SermonCentral.com are 1,200 sermons on John 1 compared to seven on Numbers 35) and topics (1,400 sermons on “Jesus’ teachings” vs. four on “morning”) means that you can categorize most sermons using a small portion of the available possibilities.

Third, sermons generally involve illustrations or stories, much like the color commentary of sports stories. Finding raw material for illustrations shouldn’t present a problem to a computer program; a quick search on Amazon turns up 1,700 books on sermon illustrations and an additional 10,000 or so on general anecdotes. You can probably extract hundreds of thousands of illustrations from just these sources. Alternately, if a recent news story relates to your topic, the system can add the relevant parts to your sermon with little trouble (especially if a computer wrote the news story to begin with).

Application

You end up being able to say, “I want to preach a sermon on Philippians 2 that emphasizes Christ’s humility as a model for us.” Then—and here’s the part that doesn’t exist yet but that technology like Narrative Science’s will provide—an algorithm suggests, say, an amusing but poignant anecdote to start with, followed by three points of exegesis, exhortation, and application, and finishing with a trenchant conclusion. You tweak the content a bit, throwing in a shout-out to a behind-the-scenes parishioner who does a lot of work but rarely receives recognition, and call it done.

Why limit sermons to pastors, though? Why shouldn’t churchgoers be able to ask for custom sermons that fit exactly their circumstances? “I’d like a ten-part audio sermon series on Revelation from a dispensational perspective where each sermon exactly fits the length of my commute.” “Give me six weeks of premarital devotions for my boyfriend and me. I’ve always been a fan of Charles Spurgeon, so make it sound like he wrote them.”

Levy opens his Wired article with an anecdote about how grandparents would find articles about their grandchildren’s Little League games just as interesting as “anything on the sports pages.” He doesn’t mention that what they really want is a recap with their grandchild as the star (or at least as a strong supporting character—it’s like one of those children’s books where you customize the main character’s name and appearance). Robosermons let you tailor the sermon’s content so that your specific problems or questions form the central theme.

The logical end of this technology is a sermonbot that develops a following of eager listeners and readers, in the same way that an automated newspaper reporter would create fans on its way to winning a Pulitzer.

You may argue that robosermons diminish the role of the Holy Spirit in preparing sermons, or that they amount to plagiarism. I’m not inclined to disagree with you.

Conclusion

Building a robosermon system involves five components: (1) sermon structures; (2) Bible verses; (3) topics; (4) illustrations; and (5) technology like Narrative Science’s to put everything together coherently. It would also be helpful to have (6) a large set of existing sermons to serve as raw data. It’s a complicated problem but hardly an insurmountable one over the next ten years, should someone want to tackle it.

I’m not sure they should; that way lies robopologetics and robovangelism.

If you’re not an algorithm and you want to know how to prepare and deliver a sermon, I suggest listening to this 29-part course on preaching by Bryan Chapell at Biblical Training. It’s free and full of homiletic goodness.

Bible Verses for the Pinterest Set

March 24th, 2012

Jonathan Ogden runs Typographic Verses, a collection of about seventy-five Pinterest-friendly Bible verses designed as posters. Here are three of my favorites:

Romans 8:38 crosses out all the things that can't separate us from the love of God. Matthew 6:22 is rendered as an eye chart. Psalm 48:1 uses striking, infographic-style type.

Also see Jim LePage’s Illustrations of Every Bible Book.

What Twitterers Are Giving up for Lent (2012 Edition)

February 25th, 2012

The top 100 things that people on Twitter are giving up for Lent in 2012.

This year, Twitter continues to take top honors. Facebook drops a few places compared to last year–has it become less-central to people’s lives? This year’s hot new site, Pinterest, almost makes the list, showing up at #118. (Incidentally, Pinterest has a number of Lent-related boards.)

Chocolate comes in at #2–however, if you add up all the mentions of chocolate in its various forms (“chocs,” “chocolate chips,” etc.), it totals over 14,000 mentions, enough to put it at #1.

This year’s biggest gainers are “breathing” and “makeup,” both of which jumped up more than 30 places in the list.

No celebrities make the top 100 this year. Boy band One Direction (aka #1D) is at #144, followed by Justin Bieber at #194 and Tim Tebow at #221. Last year’s curiosity, Charlie Sheen, only got two mentions; he dropped to #10,000 or so.

Overall, food was by far the most popular thing given up.

This list draws from about 300,000 tweets from February 19-25, 2012, and excludes retweets.

Rank Word Count Change from last year’s rank
1. Twitter 13,937 0
2. Chocolate 13,001 +1
3. Swearing 11,737 +1
4. Alcohol 9,998 +1
5. Soda 9,942 +2
6. Facebook 9,025 -4
7. Fast food 6,529 +3
8. Sex 6,146 -2
9. Sweets 4,973 +2
10. Meat 4,444 -1
11. Lent 4,171 -3
12. School 3,976 +1
13. Junk food 3,388 +6
14. Chips 3,150 +4
15. Coffee 2,263 0
16. Candy 2,217 +6
17. Bread 2,124 +3
18. You 2,056 -2
19. Smoking 2,002 +2
20. Giving up things 2,001 -8
21. Homework 1,908 +11
22. Food 1,800 +5
23. Social networking 1,754 -6
24. Religion 1,701 -10
25. Marijuana 1,594 +4
26. Beer 1,359 +4
27. Work 1,331 -3
28. Stuff 1,302 -3
29. McDonald’s 1,249 +21
30. Virginity 1,152 +7
31. Cookies 1,137 +3
32. Masturbation 1,134 +4
33. Ice cream 1,113 +15
34. Shopping 1,068 -6
35. Fried food 993 -4
36. Boys 956 +6
37. Sobriety 910 +7
38. Coke 899 +3
39. Catholicism 881 -13
40. Cheese 858 -7
41. Nothing 831 +5
42. Carbs 818 +16
43. Red meat 758 -8
44. Procrastination 738 +1
45. Desserts 733 +26
46. Pizza 714 +15
47. Pancakes 650 -9
48. Sugar 645 -5
49. Rice 633 -10
50. Breathing 631 +34
51. Me 628 +12
52. Texting 627 +3
53. Starbucks 623 +1
54. Fizzy drinks 595 +12
55. French fries 593 +7
56. Diet Coke 572 +21
57. Porn 562 +10
58. Tumblr 548 +12
59. Wine 546 -7
60. Makeup 539 +31
61. Liquor 534 -5
62. Booze 530 -22
63. College 524 +18
64. My phone 508 +30
65. Life 486  
66. Caffeine 466 -17
67. Laziness 453 +11
68. Chipotle 452 +30
69. Tea 445 +6
70. Chicken 442 +2
71. Cake 440 +3
72. Sarcasm 429 +4
73. New Year’s resolutions 422 +15
74. Takeout 417 +11
75. Men 412 -10
76. Pork 394 -3
77. Christianity 388 -18
78. Sleep 386 +1
79. People 384 +8
80. Caring 377  
81. Juice 357 +11
82. Snacking 345  
83. Lying 333  
84. TV 332 -31
85. Complaining 331 -2
86. Church 328 -35
87. Him 327 +2
88. Sweet tea 326  
89. Lint 326 -21
90. Vegetables 324  
91. Talking 323  
92. Bacon 321  
93. Being mean 320  
94. Pasta 316  
95. Eating out 316 +5
96. Negativity 314 -39
97. Eating 298  
98. Biting my nails 294  
99. Nutella 291  
100. Being nice 258  

Categories

Rank Category Number of Tweets
1. food 79,977
2. habits 21,836
3. technology 19,190
4. smoking/drugs/alcohol 19,073
5. health/hygiene 11,101
6. sex 9,948
7. irony 9,352
8. school/work 8,567
9. relationship 6,919
10. religion 4,157
11. generic 2,841
12. shopping 1,491
13. entertainment 1,344
14. money 526
15. sports 512
16. celebrity 461
17. possessions 376
18. clothes 111
19. politics 105

The image is a Wordle.

Track What People Are Giving Up for Lent in Real Time

February 22nd, 2012

See the top 100 things people are giving up for Lent on Twitter, continually updated for the next few days.

Look for the usual post-mortem later this week.

Re-visualizing Cross References (Interactively)

February 7th, 2012

Visit an interactive visualization of Bible cross references.
Browse this grid interactively.

This visualization is arranged by book, showing cross-reference sources on the y-axis and targets on the x-axis. Within each square, the first verse in the book or section is at the top, and the last verse is at the bottom. Here’s what a detail of a square looks like:

Cross references between Genesis and Daniel

Genesis 1 is at the top left; Genesis 50 is at the bottom left. Daniel 1 is at the top right; Daniel 12 is at the bottom right. The most-striking cross references between these two books, to me, involve Joseph’s interpretation of dreams in Genesis 40-41 and similar stories in Daniel.

Also see a previous cross reference visualization.

The Topical Index and the Living Index

January 2nd, 2012

The New York Times writes about the first-ever topical index for the Talmud. It looks like a topical Bible and contains 6,600 topics and 27,000 subtopics. (For comparison, Nave’s Topical Bible contains about 5,300 topics and 20,000 subtopics.)

The first page of the Talmud topical index shows entries for Aaron (seven subtopics), Abandon (five subtopics), and Abba (part of two subtopics).

The Sabbath

Two parts of the article stand out. First:

For three decades, Talmud students have been able to use a Nexis-like CD search engine, the Responsa Project, created by Bar Ilan University in Israel…. Bar Ilan officials acknowledged that the CD had one major disadvantage: it cannot be accessed on the Sabbath, when much learning takes place. It also costs $790.

Of course it makes sense that you wouldn’t be able to use a digital study tool on the Sabbath; it had just never occurred to me. The evangelical analog might be having to use a print Bible in church instead of a mobile or projected version.

The Living Index

The second highlight from the article is:

Rabbi Benjamin Blech, professor of Talmud at Yeshiva University, said the rabbis believed that study should not be made too easy. “We want people to struggle with the text because by figuring it out you will have a deeper comprehension,” he said. “They wanted a living index, not a printed index.

Bible software, websites, and apps are all working to create a “living index” (or at least a “responsive index”) of the Bible that lets you find comprehensive answers to every question that pops into your head while studying the Bible. But will this work devalue the actual experts (pastors and Bible teachers) who currently serve as living indexes?

The book The Lean Startup provides a framework for answering this question. It quotes Farbood Nivi, founder of test-preparation website Grockit:

“Whether you’re studying for the SAT or you’re studying for algebra, you study in one of three ways. You spend some time with experts, you spend some time on your own, and you spend some time with your peers. Grockit offers these three same formats of studying. What we do is we apply technology and algorithms to optimize those three forms.”

Or, in evangelical terms:

Study Type Current Source
Time on your own Personal Bible study; daily quiet time
Time with your peers Small group Bible study; Sunday school (not taught by clergy)
Time with experts Sunday morning sermon; radio and television programs; in-person academic Bible classes

Bible software has historically augmented “time on your own” by tying together study materials: connecting documents to each other.

Recently, Bible software has expanded into “time with your peers” by mixing in the social layer that is enveloping the wider world of technology—“away from a web that connects documents together to a web that connects people together,” as Paul Adams puts it in his book Grouped. Bible software has three options when embedding social technologies: (1) Inject technology into existing offline practices (e.g., automating the irritating or the expensive); (2) Copy technology from secular sources (e.g., foursquare-style checkins); or (3) Come up with something new. The most likely outcome will involve a combination of these options.

Eventually, Bible software will delve into “time with experts,” as well, whether those experts are your local pastor or nationally recognized figures. Biblical Training is pioneering this approach in the field of Bible studies and theology, while Stanford and MIT are leading the way in other fields.

Will Bible software someday become an “expert” itself, giving you custom answers to your questions and a personal study plan? It’s certainly possible. Khan Academy is already disrupting math education and assessment. Someone will undoubtedly explore whether a similar approach works for Bible studies.

Of course, the open question is just how much we want Bible software to function as a living index; the rabbis who preferred that students “struggle” with text have a point that learning and wisdom come with effort. In a future where Bible software can provide time for you to study on your own, with peers, and with experts, I guess we’ll find out just how “easy” we want Bible study to become.

A Javascript Bible Passage Reference Parser

November 18th, 2011

Browse the Github repository of a new Bible-reference parser written in Coffeescript / Javascript (it understands text like “John 3:16”), try a demo, or review the annotated source. You can use the parser as-is or as a starting point for building your own–the source code includes 200,000 real-world passage references to give you a head start. It’s designed to handle how people actually type Bible references (typos and all) and tries hard to make sense of any input you give it.

From the readme:

This is the fourth complete Bible reference parser that I’ve written. It’s how I try out new programming languages: the first one was in PHP (2002), which saw production usage on a Bible search website from 2002-2011; the second in Perl (2007), which saw production usage on a Bible-related site starting in 2007; and the third in Ruby (2009), which never saw production usage because it was way too slow. This Coffeescript parser (at least on V8) is faster than the Perl one and 100 times faster than the Ruby one.

I chose Coffeescript out of curiosity–does it make Javascript that much more pleasant to work with? From a programming perspective, the easy loops and array comprehensions alone practically justify its use. From a readability perspective, the code is easier to follow (and come back to months later) than the equivalent Javascript–the tests, in particular, are much easier to follow without all the Javascript punctuation.

My main interest in open-sourcing and thoroughly documenting this code lies in giving future programmers data and code that they can use to build better parsers. While this code reflects my experience, it’s hardly the last word on the subject.

Jim LePage’s Illustrations of Every Bible Book

November 11th, 2011

Jim LePage has just finished a two-year project in which he’s created an illustration for every book of the Bible. The always-underappreciated Obadiah is my favorite:

A giant hand reaches for a bird, with the caption, “Though you soar like the eagle, I will bring you down. Obadiah.”

Jim also runs Gettin’ Biblical, a site that showcases non-schlocky Christian-themed artwork. I particularly enjoyed The Savior collage and the papercut-esque Burning Bush. Good examples of “Christian art” (a difficult term to define if you’ve ever talked to artists who are Christians) are hard to come by, and I appreciate Jim’s efforts to collect them.

Update September 2016: Removed outdated link to Gettin’ Biblical.

Applying Sentiment Analysis to the Bible

October 10th, 2011

This visualization explores the ups and downs of the Bible narrative, using sentiment analysis to quantify when positive and negative events are happening:

Sentiment analysis of the Bible.
Full size download (.png, 4000×4000 pixels).

Things start off well with creation, turn negative with Job and the patriarchs, improve again with Moses, dip with the period of the judges, recover with David, and have a mixed record (especially negative when Samaria is around) during the monarchy. The exilic period isn’t as negative as you might expect, nor the return period as positive. In the New Testament, things start off fine with Jesus, then quickly turn negative as opposition to his message grows. The story of the early church, especially in the epistles, is largely positive.

Methodology

Sentiment analysis involves algorithmically determining if a piece of text is positive (“I like cheese”) or negative (“I hate cheese”). Think of it as Kurt Vonnegut’s story shapes backed by quantitative data.

I ran the Viralheat Sentiment API over several Bible translations to produce a composite sentiment average for each verse. Strictly speaking, the Viralheat API only returns a probability that the given text is positive or negative, not the intensity of the sentiment. For this purpose, however, probability works as a decent proxy for intensity.

The visualization takes a moving average of the data to provide a coherent story; the raw data is more jittery. Download the raw data (400 KB .zip).

Update October 10, 2011

As requested in the comments, here’s the data arranged by book with a moving average of five verses on either side. (By comparison, the above visualization uses a moving average of 150 verses on either side.)

Sentiment analysis of the Bible, arranged by book.
Full size download (.png, 2680×4000 pixels).

Update December 28, 2011: Christianity Today includes this visualization in their December issue (“How the Bible Feels”).