If you’re reading this blog, then you’re probably interested in attending the BibleTech conference, held on April 11-12, 2019, in Seattle.
You may even be interested in submitting a proposal for a talk; if so, the deadline is January 31.
Here’s what I plan to talk about if they accept me:
Designing for Agency in Bible Study
This talk explores the theory and practice of designing a Bible study experience so that the distinctive property of digital media–interactivity at scale–enhances rather than constrains the participant’s agency, or ability to act. We’ll discuss how people’s psychological needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy affect their approach to and expectations of the Bible and church life, and how developers can support these needs by considering agency during the design process. We’ll also look at a specific application that HarperCollins Christian Publishing has developed to put these ideas into practice and promote agency in the context of daily Bible reading, explaining how and why we transformed a product that wasn’t a good fit for print into one that feels digitally native.
Posted in Technology | Comments Off on BibleTech 2019
The problem with using satellite photos for Bible (or other historical) maps lies in their photographic nature–they present the world as it is, with modern cities, agriculture, land use, and other infrastructure that didn’t exist in the ancient period that the maps are depicting. However, satellite maps are useful in showing “true-color” views and revealing features like transitions from deserts to wetlands.
If you’re not using satellite photos for the Bible maps you’re creating, you’re using other data, like elevation; indeed, with only elevation data, you can produce a variety of map styles. Shaded relief shows hills in a naturalistic way, approximating the look of satellite images. A hypsometric map, where the map color changes with elevation, also depicts this data, though I would argue that hypsometric maps can be misleading if they transition from green colors at low elevations to brown colors at higher elevations, since people have become used to satellite photos with these colors as depicting land cover.
The main problem with relying on elevation data (a digital elevation model, or DEM) is its relatively low resolution; until 2015, a 90-meter resolution (i.e., one pixel of elevation data corresponds to an approximate square 90 meters by 90 meters) was the highest resolution freely available worldwide (well, mostly worldwide). In 2015, the SRTM worldwide elevation data became available at a 30-meter resolution, or 9 times higher resolution than previously. Also in 2015, similar ALOS 30-meter data became available. If you’re willing to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, you can also find proprietary elevation data at resolutions of 5 meters. Most of us aren’t in a position to pay that kind of money, however, so I’m interested in free data.
Bible atlases produced before 2015 almost certainly use the coarser 90-meter resolution, while Bible atlases produced since (though as of late 2018 I’m not aware of any) would likely use the 30-meter resolution and can zoom in much further without becoming blurry.
However, 30 meters feels rough compared to the satellite imagery available in Google Maps, which is often at 30 centimeters. Even free imagery from the European Sentinel-2 project is available at 10 meters, or 9 times higher resolution than 30 meters.
DEM Enhancements
The question I have is whether it’s possible to enhance a 30-meter DEM to bring it closer to the high resolution that Google Maps is training us to expect on maps everywhere.
To answer that question, I turned to Terragen, 3D modeling software designed to render photorealistic landscapes. (I actually tried several different programs, but Terragen was the least confusing.) Terragen and similar programs procedurally improve resolution by adding fractal enhancement–in other words, they extrapolate from the available data to add plausible, if fake, detail. My process was the following:
Find a high-resolution DEM to use as a reference for the output of the process.
Downsample the DEM to 30-meter resolution to match the DEM available worldwide.
Enhance and style the DEM in Terragen to mimic a satellite photo.
Compare the output.
The U.S. Geological Survey has started making elevation data available at a 1-meter resolution for select parts of the United States. I picked a desert area near Dayton, Nevada, that roughly matches the terrain of ancient Israel (since Israel will probably be the subject of most Bible maps).
I converted the USGS .img file into a geotiff using gdal_translate and resampled it to 30-meter resolution using gdalwarp -tr 30 30 USGS_NED_one_meter_x27y436_NV_Reno_Carson_QL2_2017_IMG_2018.img nv-30.tif.
The result was two tiffs that I imported into Terragen. After that, I spent some time coloring and styling them, with the below results:
This image shows 1-meter shaded relief, 30-meter shaded relief with blurry bicubic resampling, 10-meter publicly available satellite photo that I slightly retouched, 1-meter colored and enhanced in Terragen, 30-meter colored and enhanced in Terragen, and the Google Maps view for this area.
I feel like the 30-meter Terragen view, which is what you could plausibly produce for Bible maps, looks pretty OK, actually–though a trained 3D artist would do better. The 1-meter data, while accurate, reproduces modern features like the road on the right side, which is unhelpful for Bible maps–mitigating modern features is the one of the main points of this exercise. While the 30-meter view doesn’t have all the detail of the 1-meter version, the rendering feels plausible to me.
Of course, “plausible” doesn’t mean “accurate,” and there’s the question of whether it’s ethical to enhance terrain in this way–you’re essentially inventing detail that doesn’t exist in the source data, which could mislead someone if they believe that the detail reflects reality. It depends how far you want to push the idea that all maps are in some way plausible fictions.
Scaling Up
What’s needed to implement this technique in production?
A base map to use for coloring (I’d use Natural Earth II–I tried it in the Nevada scene and think it could work–but you could also use satellite imagery or your own colors).
A way to export and reproject the finished product. My free version of Terragen can only export images 800 pixels wide; you’ll probably want to export them at over 10,000 pixels wide. And then you’ll need to stitch them together and reproject them to Web Mercator to display them in online mapping applications.
A way to layer the images with other data (such as bodies of water and labels).
A delivery mechanism (probably tiles over the Internet, as with Google Maps and most mapping applications).
Conclusion
This approach represents a plausible way to improve the resolution of Bible maps or other historical maps using only publicly available, free data. Although it creates some ethical problems, with proper disclosure it could potentially be a useful way to make Bible maps more compelling and zoomable.
Art of the Bible is a website I made to catalog 5,800 freely available historical Christian-themed artworks on Wikipedia. The site primarily focuses on European paintings from the 1400s to the 1800s that, at least in the U.S., should be free from copyright considerations. Arranged into 116 Bible stories, it relies on linked data to populate its database–which means you should be able to use these images for pretty much any purpose.
Linked Data
The site uses Wikidata, a “linked,” or structured, data project from Wikimedia that annotates Wikipedia articles and Wikimedia Commons images with computer-readable data.
All the data is available in Wikidata; the two SPARQL queries that power the site are for biblical and Christian art.
Most images on Wikimedia Commons don’t have a corresponding Wikidata entry; I estimate that Wikimedia Commons contains at least 50,000 potential biblical artworks that aren’t on Wikidata.
The Frontend
The frontend is a simple, static HTML browser; it’s full of JSON+LD if you’re into that kind of thing.
Google just announced an AI-powered experiment called Talk to Books, which lets you enter a query and find passages in books that are semantically similar to your query, not merely passages that happen to match the keywords you chose. For theology- and Bible-related questions, it often presents an evangelical perspective, perhaps because U.S. evangelical publishers have been eager for Google to index their books.
Here are some questions I asked it, with a sample response (not always the first):
Does God exist? “Creatures may or may not exist; God must exist; He cannot not exist.” — The Catholic Collection.
Why does a good God allow suffering? “Either you somehow deny the world’s suffering (that is, suffering is eventually shown to belong to a higher order of goodness) or else one or more of God’s characteristics (existence, benevolence, omnipotence) are denied.” — A Philosophy of Evil.
When does the rapture happen? “Depending upon one’s view, the rapture occurs either before, during, or after a seven-year period of intense trial and trauma on earth known as the tribulation, as recorded in Revelation 6-19.” — Armed Groups: Studies in National Security, Counterterrorism, and Counterinsurgency.
Where is Jesus now? “Wherever you are as you read these words, he is present.” — And the Angels Were Silent. Some of the other answers, like “He is on the shore of the Sea of Galilee with Andrew and other apostles,” are on the strange side–even in context, the answer is wrong, as this sentence is talking about Peter, not Jesus.
It totally whiffs on Who is Abraham’s father? Rather than interpreting the question and providing a factual answer, it presents a number of passages describing how Abraham is the father of Isaac or of Isaac’s descendants. These passages relate semantically but don’t answer the question.
This year social networking topped the list, followed by Twitter, alcohol, chocolate, and swearing. It was a fairly typical year, with the top five the same as last year (though in a different order)–except for swearing, which came in at #6 last year, behind chips. (Chips had received a boost last year from Theresa May’s vow to give them up; this year they returned to closer to their usual spot.)
This year, 29,609 tweets (excluding retweets) specifically mention giving up something, down substantially from last year’s 73,334. In all, this year the analysis covers 427,810 tweets, down from 694,244 last year.
Relationships
As expected with Valentine’s Day falling on Ash Wednesday this year, relationship-related tweets increased:
Plastic
Plastic also jumped substantially this year, boosted by the Church of England’s suggestion that followers give up various forms of plastic for Lent.
Fortnite
New to the list this year is Fortnite, a Hunger Games-style video game:
“It’s all they talk about,” said Glen Irvin, a teacher coach at a high school in Sauk Rapids, Minn., of “Fortnite”-playing students. “The only other game I’ve ever heard kids get this passionate about is ‘Minecraft.’”
Juuling
Also new this year is juuling, a slick and covert way to vape:
Resembling a flash drive, Juul conveys a sense of industry — you’re Juuling into your MacBook Air while you are cramming for your test on Theodore Dreiser and thinking about trigonometry — and it is so easy to conceal that, as one mother explained to me, she failed to notice that her daughter was vaping in the back seat of the car as she was driving.
Giving up juuling this year was nearly half as popular as giving up smoking:
Shootings
Two newcomers to the list this year are #30, guns, and #88, mass shootings. These tweets reflected a shooting at a Florida high school on Ash Wednesday.
Donald Trump
Donald Trump fell this year from #22 to #67, sandwiched between hope and procrastination.
Tide Pods
Finishing just out of the top 100 this year are Tide Pods, which people keep eating for some reason.
Fast Food
Chick-fil-A surged to near-parity with McDonald’s, while Chipotle this week decided to deal with its Taco Bell parity by hiring Taco Bell’s former CEO.
Snack Food
Have Hot Cheetos finally plateaued?
Emojis
This year 4,667 tweets (16%) contained at least one emoji, down from 19% last year. The most-popular emojis were: 😂 😭 ♀ 😩 🙃 🙏 ✌ 😅 🙄 ♂.
Retweets
Here’s the most-retweeted Lent post this year, with over 71,000 retweets. I’m not totally sure why. (All the rest of the data on this page excludes retweets.)
As I write this post, with about 1,500 tweets analyzed, perennial favorites “social networking,” “alcohol,” and “twitter” lead the list. Ash Wednesday coincides with Valentine’s Day this year (and thus Easter with April Fools’ Day), so I expect relationship-related tweets to run higher than usual.
Look for the usual post-mortem on February 18, 2018.
Posted in Lent | Comments Off on Track in Real Time What People Are Giving Up for Lent in 2018
Gospel harmonies have a long history, dating back to the second century, and come in two main varieties:
1. Parallel
Accounts of similar events in different gospels appear in parallel columns so that readers can compare all four accounts side-by-side. This approach allows the distinctive voice of each author to remain, while visually emphasizing continuities and discontinuities–a story found in all four gospels looks much different on the page from a story found in only one. Typically parallels appear at the pericope or story level rather than at the word or verse level. Nearly all gospel harmonies we see today fall into this category.
2. Blended
A blended, or composite, gospel attempts to present the four disparate accounts as a single story, often picking a dominant gospel and using other gospels to fill in gaps. This approach emphasizes the unity of the gospel story while often smoothing over differences small (word choice) and large (chronology of events) among the gospels. It also diminishes the literary structure, purpose, and language of the individual gospel writers. In exchange for these drawbacks, a blended gospel (ideally) gains simplicity and narrative clarity.
The earliest known gospel harmony, the Diatessaron, dates from around 160 and is a blended account. Since the Protestant Reformation, however, parallel column-style harmonies have dominated.
A Digital-First Harmony
A blended digital gospel harmony can overcome many of the shortcomings of a static, print-based blended harmony for two reasons: unlimited space and interactivity.
Unlimited space allows harmonizers to make visible the choices they’re making as they blend accounts. Rather than choosing a single word and omitting variations from other gospels, they can show all the variations and allow the reader to check their work. This approach imports one of the advantages of parallel harmonies: it’s easy to see the similarities and differences among the different gospels. I feel that presenting these variants inline rather than visibly separate–as in different columns–only minimally disrupts the reading flow while giving readers the ability to understand the complexities involved for themselves.
Interactivity addresses three major problems of a blended gospel: which account takes priority, how to arrange the material chronologically, and determining whether different gospels are recounting either the same event with apparent discrepancies or two different events (e.g., Matthew’s sermon on the mount and Luke’s sermon on the plain). The solution in each case: let the reader choose.
In this way, harmonizers are creating less a product and more a system that allows readers to explore the system and draw their own conclusions.
Any blended harmony necessarily dilutes the intent of the original author–adding or omitting details is part of the editing process. However, by making such changes explicit and explorable, an interactive blended harmony can minimize the dilution.
Example: Blended Palm Sunday
This blended Palm Sunday account illustrates some of what I discuss above. All variations appear near the related main text. (The extent of your browser’s support of the <ruby> element dictates where the variations appear.) I also added some minimal interactivity: selecting the checkboxes changes the text from the selected gospels to red–in this case, all the text from Matthew is red. You can imagine other interactivity: maybe you can excise certain gospels, or choose which ones receive priority. John, for example, presents the Palm Sunday story in nearly reverse chronological order compared to the other three gospels; rearranging the synoptic narrative to fit John’s account would be an interesting exercise.
This example is just a proof of concept and took a surprisingly long time to put together. I can only imagine that constructing a complete blended harmony of the gospels at this level of detail would involve a large investment of time with no realistic commercial return. Kermit Zarley in 1987 published The Gospels Interwoven, an NIV blended gospel blurbed by Billy Graham; it was out of print a decade later and survives only in print-on-demand form. If a product like that doesn’t find commercial success, the one I’m proposing would find even less. Still, I like to think that this proposal serves as an example of a digital-first product that wouldn’t be possible in print form; it’s a bit ironic that technology could reintroduce and potentially improve the oldest approach to harmonizing the gospels: blended gospels like the Diatessaron.
Posted in Gospels | Comments Off on A Blended Account of Palm Sunday
This year, alcohol topped the list for the first time; it’s been hovering in the top five for the past few years, last year landing at a then-record #3. Possibly the recent popularity of Dry January (according to the article, 16% of British adults participated in 2016) is carrying over to Lent.
“Chips” cracked the top five this year largely because British Prime Minister Theresa May announced she was giving them up for Lent. This announcement had knock-on effects lower down the list, with “her favourite thing” and “live mice” both coming in at #88. The announcement of the potential closure of a U.K. chip factory the next day led to further jokes. For my U.K. readers, yes, I know you call them crisps (and your “chips” are U.S. “French fries”); I would now tell myself in 2009, when I first started compiling this list, not to combine “chips” and “crisps” into a single line, but it’s too late now.
Donald Trump is a big winner this year, landing at #22, just behind “Facebook” but ahead of “hope.” “The presidency” comes in at #52. In all, there are 1,002 tweets mentioning “Trump,” “President,” and “POTUS,” which is good enough for #10 on the list if we were to combine them all into a single line.
“The dirtiest thing” (#66) refers to a campaign to give up non-renewable energy.
This year, 73,334 tweets (excluding retweets) specifically mention giving up something. This total is up from last year’s 60,000 tweets; I used broader search terms this year (“lent” and “lent2017”) than I have in the past. In all, this year the analysis covers 694,244 tweets, up from 200,000 last year–again, largely because of the broader search terms.
Just over 14,000 tweets (19%) included an emoji this year. I haven’t tracked emoji usage before, so I can’t say how that compares to previous years.
Here are the top five emojis used this year, along with the most-popular items given up:
Emoji
Tweets
Most-popular Given Up
😂
2,428
chocolate, alcohol, twitter
😭
1,154
chocolate, sweets, fast food
😩
889
chocolate, sweets, fast food
🙃
875
chocolate, coffee, fast food
🙄
640
chocolate, alcohol, social media
Conversely, here are the most-popular things given up with tweets that include emojis:
Given up
Tweets
Most-popular Emojis*
chocolate
793
🍫 🙈 😫
social media
549
✌ 👋 🙏
alcohol
537
😅 ♀ 😬
twitter
482
✌ 👋 🙏
sweets
355
😅 🍬 🍫
* Excluding the top-ten emojis for the year.
Retweets
The rest of this data excludes retweets, but here are the three tweets mentioning Lent that drew the most retweets. I feel that this list encapsulates Twitter; not many other top-three lists would include college humor, the pope, and Rick “Never Gonna Give You Up” Astley.
As I write this post, with about 1,600 tweets analyzed, perennial favorites “social networking,” “alcohol,” and “chocolate” lead the list. My main question, given the current U.S. political climate, is how high Donald Trump will rank: he’s currently vying with smoking and sugar for #24–last year, as a presidential candidate, he finished at #82.
At Christianity Today I have a piece today about bad passwords that Christians use: Beware of Making Jesus Your Password. I’m pretty excited that they kept the line about soccer.
The main list of passwords comes from (1) taking this list, (2) removing non-alphanumeric and leading and trailing numbers, (3) lower-casing the result, and (4) combining the totals. In the raw list, “jesus” is the 103rd most-common password; by normalizing it with these steps, it jumps to #30. The purpose here is to find the core part of the password. It’s good from a security perspective that people add leading and trailing (mostly trailing) numbers to their passwords, but they’re not so relevant here.
The list of “Christian” passwords is based on a different breach of a faith-based website. I pulled a bunch of patterns from passwords that were popular there.
Here’s the data behind the piece:
normalized-passwords.zip. A list of 238,000 passwords following the normalization scheme I describe above. Every normalized password from RockYou that appeared at least ten times is here. Note that there’s extensive swearing.
verse-passwords.txt. All 295 plausible verse references. Not all of them are actually references: for example, “daniel14” could refer to Daniel 1:4 (or even Daniel 14), but it’s most likely just someone’s name with the number “14” after it. So I don’t include it in the top-25 list that appears at CT.
These are my favorite tweets about it:
@nicole_cliffe i am fishing for men while they are phishing for men.