Attic? Koine? Both? Groten and Finn? Anne Groton's Alpha to Omega? Donald Mastronarde? Hansen and Quinn? This week Jeff and Dave start a short series on how to choose a Greek textbook. After a few moments strolling down memory lane (γε!), the guys get down to business with a brief discussion of the merits of studying the Attic vs. Koine dialects (more on that in the next episode). Then they walk through the first two books in the series, pointing out the standard structure for an introductory textbook and some strategies for getting your feet wet in the language. Episdoe 185 will go deeper into the standard college texts, before pivoting (everything's basketball) to the Koine books by Mounce, Wallace, and co. Oh, and MossMethod may come up at some point! If you've studied Greek, are teaching Greek, or are thinking about taking it up, then this episode could be a great entry point for your interests!

This week we head back to Carl Richard's masterpiece from 2009, and the guys are taking a careful look at Chapter IV: Nationalism. We start out with a nice definition and perspective from one of Dave's long list of overrated authors (does he like anybody?): C.S. Lewis. Clive explains to us from The Four Loves that every country has a dreary past of some shameful and shabby doings, but it's natural and good to love her nonetheless, within reason. Then we dive into the antebellum adulation of one George Washington. Is he Demosthenes, Cicero, Hannibal, Severus, Cincinnatus, Camillus? Or is he actually all of them rolled into one? Tune in for insights from Edward Everett, Calhoun, Walt Whitman, Danile Webster, Frederick Porcher, and more, on everything from neoclassical revival to the vast American superiority over those doddering ancients. Along the way, you'll enjoy reminiscences of the celery fields of Jenison and rural Ionia County, Michigan, as well as one of Jeff's all-time best puns. And in the end, Marathon is Always Great Again.

So, is there a Homeric influence on the New Testament? Or, more specifically (per MacDonald), did Luke deliberately pattern and structure elements in Acts of the Apostles on episodes from Iliad 2? In this episode, the guys consider the case that MacDonald lays out, namely that Luke pairs the visions of Cornelius and Peter (in Acts 10 and 11) in a way that tags the Zeus-sent dream to Agamemnon and Odysseus’ recollection of the portent of the serpent and the sparrow. Does it hold up? Would a first century audience have recognized it as such? Are the linguistic parallels convincing? And perhaps the biggest question of all: why tag Homer in the first place?