Spanish as PhD Language Requirement -- Help is on the way

My doctoral progess is being held up in the absence of a scholar who can test my Spanish competency. In light of recent blog discussions regarding language requirements, I thought I'd share my lament, and offer my plea to the biblioblogsphere. Is there no other Spanish-reading scholar here of whom I may inquire?

Two years ago, like a good traditional NT PhD student, I spent a summer in Germany and then returned home to take a translation exam to satisfy a requirement of my doctoral program, a standard program requiring two modern languages. The two languages have historically always been German and French, but because of my context, my interests, and encouragement from other scholars, I decided to prepare to make use of Spanish scholarship in my work. While my doctoral program approved of the decision, they have no means to satisfy the requirement, mostly because the GSFLT went defunct. My school offers a mini French and German program, but nothing in Spanish.
We have contacted three Spanish-reading scholars, and none have been able to assist. For several months now, I have been in limbo until we can figure out a solution. I can't submit my dissertation proposal until I get this taken care of. Hence, my plea for help.

Can anyone among my small but distinguished readership recommend a Spanish-reading biblical scholar that could be such a reader? The process need not be time intensive: send a Spanish Biblical Studies article... I translate... you read and say "yea" or "nay"... repeat as needed. :) My directer is very open to any qualified scholar using whatever means they wish to simply say, "Yes, Joe can make use of an article written in Spanish to contribute to his scholarship." We'll pay!

Update: The biblioblog community has been extremely responsive and helpful regarding my plea. I just want to say thank you, and that this represents some of the best of what an online community is. A few very able folks contacted me directly, as well as some in the comments for this post. But more so, colleagues contacted me to brainstorm ways in which "we" might solve this problem together--offers to make referrals, etc.
David Ford told me that he would love the opportunity to fail me, so it looks like we'll make arrangements for it soon. I'll let you know how it goes.

Review of Biblical Literature Newsletter

ee gads... I've just received my 3rd email edition of the Review of Biblical Literature Newsletter, June 17th, 2005. Somebody shut it off... Shut it off!. I wonder how many more we'll receive.

If you don't receive these weekly emails, you might want to consider it. From the RBL website:

If you are not a member and would like to receive the RBL weekly email newsletter (FREE!), send an email to rbladministrator@bookreviews.org with "SUBSCRIBE TO RBL" in the subject line.

If you frequent Mark Goodacre's blog, you've observed his personal obsession with strong dedication towards posting the review notices in web form.

Apple is 'Switching'

Apple announced today that beginning in 2006, new Apple computers will run not on IBM's Power PC chip, but on Intel's chip. The transition is brought about by IBM's failure to deliver higher speeds (the 3gig G5) and more importantly Intel's development plans that produce more productivity with lower power wattage usage--think powerbook. They actually confirmed that Marklar exists-from the beginning, OS X has been written to compile on both PPC and Intel all along.
Really, this means very little to you, typical bible scholars and pastors. It does mean that Macs will get faster quicker and/or possibly less expensive. Newer version of applications will be able to run natively on both older PPC computers or Intel machines. But still, your "old" OS X apps will run on the newer processors via a tranparent translator (which they've named "Rosetta"!) without any performance or speed issues. It will be the end of 2007 before Apple before the entire Macintosh computer line runs on an Intel Pentium processor. It means that apps that currently run only in Classic mode might be left behind (until someone writes a new emulation).

For others, especially developers, it means more. It most likely means the death of PPC Linux. Don't get crazy with the speculation, as does the oft-pleasantly-inciting Ken Ristau. This does not mean that Mac apps will be running on Windows, or vice versa. The applications run off of the OS kernel and API calls, not the chip alone. It will not be possible to run OS X on a generic Intel box, nor Windows on a Mac Intel machine. The combination of custom asic, Apple's nonstandard, nondocumented chipset, and most likely some form of DRM will allow Apple to maintain its control. Speculation is that it might be slightly more possible that the hackers will be able to get Windows running on a Mac Intel box.
It does mean that older applications which fall in the 25% of Mac apps that are currently coded other than in Xcode (Ac*cough*cough*cordance*cough*) will have to do some extra work to transition towards the new Universal Binary. But not immediately. For the next few years, they'll simply still just run.
All in all, it is an exciting day for Mac users.

Followup: I think it's worth repeating quotes from a C-Net interview being discussed in the comments to this post.

Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that." However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

Microsoft won't be making Longhorn so that it can't run on a "Macintel" computer, but you better believe Apple will be doing everything they can to prevent hacks allowing a beige box bootup of OS X.

Criteria for Analyzing Author's Style

Here's an example of style analyses I do when comparing portions of the New Testament. I maintain sets of grammatical/syntactical structures to search for on each section of text and then compare the results. Some of the searches are mere tallies of tenses, person, moods, cases, etc. Things like:

V1 [VERB present]
V2 [VERB future]
V3 [VERB imperfect]
...

Note that these are in Accordance format. Other searches are structural in nature, such as

I10 [PREPOSITION] [ARTICLE] [VERB infinitive]
I11 [VERB infinitive] <NOT> <PRECEDED BY> [ARTICLE]
I12 ([ARTICLE] [VERB infinitive]) <OR> ([ARTICLE] [Particle] [VERB infinitive])
...

I run the searches for each set of texts (and by "I run the searches", I mean that I write an Applescript to do all the tedious work for me) and then put the results into a table. As an example, here is a taste of the results from an unpublished paper I have that compares the speeches in Acts.

In addition to collecting data for Paul's speeches, Peter's speeches and a sample of narrative in Acts, data was compiled for the whole of Acts, Luke, 1 Maccabbees and 2 Maccabbees, all for the sake of comparison. I toy around with what correlation coefficient to use, but the purposes is then to compare how similar and different sections of text are. Here are the results from the Acts paper:

One of the grand observations of the paper is that Paul's speeches and Peter's speeches are more similar to each other than they are to any other sampling of text. A perfect correlation is one that approaches 1.0 (positive or negative), and the .92 correlation between Paul and Peter is greater than either's correlation with the narrative in Acts (.89 & .88).
In addition, I look at the results for each criteria and consider any anomalies that fall outside of one standard deviation and are not so small of a sample to be statistically or practically insignificant. The ones I think are worth mention in the manuscript are easily put into charts, of course.

Some stylistic differences so clearly affirm what are expected features of different forms. The speeches have a higher number of Vocative uses; the narrative material has a higher percentage of continuative conjunctions.

But other anomalies are understood only in the context of the subject matter. Look at V29 and V30 which are [VERB first] and [VERB first singular]. Paul's speeches clearly stand out. The contain much first person, as often with the inclusive, community building "we". See how the fun stuff really begins once you've compiled the data and looked at it?
In my current work, I'm doing these types of analysis on text portions that have significance in Synoptic Problem issues (ie. Luke's Q, Matthew's Q, Mark, Reconstructed Mark, etc.).
Having layed out a sketch of the methodology, I'd like to hear suggestions for grammatical and syntactical searches to add to the list of criteria, ones that represent more features of the style of a text that are worth considering when compiling data. Here's the full list I work with right now:

V=Verbals
I=Infinitive and Participles
N=Nouns
P=Pronouns
C=Clauses and Phrases
O=Particles and Other
(Vicinity searches (And/OR) reflect those within same clause.)

V1 [VERB present]
V2 [VERB future]
V3 [VERB imperfect]
V4 [VERB aorist]
V5 [VERB perfect]
V6 [VERB pluperfect]
V7 [VERB optative]
V8 [VERB imperative]
V9 [VERB second imperative]
V10 [VERB third imperative]
V11 [VERB aorist imperative]
V12 [VERB subjunctive]
V13 [VERB second subjunctive]
V14 [VERB subjunctive] <NOT> ean
V15 [VERB middle]
V16 [VERB present middle]
V17 [VERB future middle]
V18 [VERB imperfect middle]
V19 [VERB aorist middle]
V20 [VERB perfect middle]
V21 [VERB pluperfect middle]
V22 [VERB passive]
V23 [VERB present passive]
V24 [VERB future passive]
V25 [VERB imperfect passive]
V26 [VERB aorist passive]
V27 [VERB perfect passive]
V28 [VERB pluperfect passive]
V29 [VERB first]
V30 [VERB first singular]
V31 [VERB first plural]
V32 [VERB first present]
V33 [VERB first future]
V34 [VERB first imperfect]
V35 [VERB first aorist]
V36 [VERB first perfect]
V37 [VERB first pluperfect]
V38 [VERB second]
V39 [VERB second singular]
V40 [VERB second plural]

I1 [VERB participle]
I2 [VERB future participle]
I3 [VERB aorist participle]
I4 [VERB present participle]
I5 [VERB perfect participle]
I6 [VERB passive participle]
I7 [VERB aorist passive participle]
I8 [VERB infinitive]
I9 [VERB future infinitive]
I10 [PREPOSITION] [ARTICLE] [VERB infinitive]
I11 [VERB infinitive] <NOT> <PRECEDED BY> [ARTICLE]
I12 ([ARTICLE] [VERB infinitive]) <OR> ([ARTICLE] [Particle] [VERB infinitive])
I13 [ARTICLE] [VERB participle]
I14 [VERB participle] [ARTICLE]
I15 [VERB participle] <NOT> <PRECEDED BY> [ARTICLE]
I16 eimi <FOLLOWED BY> <WITHIN 3 Words> [VERB participle nominative] <NOT> [ARTICLE nominative]
N1 [NOUN nominative]
N2 [NOUN genitive]
N3 [NOUN dative]
N4 [NOUN accusative]
N5 [NOUN] [NOUN]
N6 kai [NOUN]
N7 (kai [NOUN nominative]) <PRECEDED BY> <WITHIN 3 Words> [ARTICLE nominative]
N8 (kai [NOUN genitive]) <PRECEDED BY> <WITHIN 3 Words> [ARTICLE genitive]
N9 (kai [NOUN dative]) <PRECEDED BY> <WITHIN 3 Words> [ARTICLE dative]
N10 (kai [NOUN accusative]) <PRECEDED BY> <WITHIN 3 Words> [ARTICLE accusative]
N11 [NOUN vocative]
N12 [INTERJECTION] [NOUN vocative]
N13 [NOUN singular vocative]
N14 "*e"@[NOUN vocative]
N15 [NOUN vocative] [NOUN vocative]
N16 "andres"@[NOUN vocative]
N17 "andres adelfoi"
N18 "andres" [NOUN vocative]

P1 [PRONOUN]
P2 [PRONOUN correlative]
P3 [PRONOUN demonstrative adjectival]
P4 [PRONOUN demonstrative substantival]
P5 [PRONOUN indefinite]
P6 [PRONOUN interrogative]
P7 [PRONOUN possessive]
P8 [PRONOUN reflexive]
P9 [PRONOUN relative]
P10 [PRONOUN personal intensive]
P11 [PRONOUN personal]
P12 [PRONOUN personal first]
P13 [PRONOUN personal first singular]
P14 [PRONOUN personal first plural]
P15 [PRONOUN personal second]
P16 [PRONOUN personal second singular]
P17 [PRONOUN personal second plural]
P18 [PRONOUN personal third]
C1 ei <FOLLOWED BY> [VERB indicative]
C2 ei <FOLLOWED BY> [VERB optative]
C3 ean
C4 [PREPOSITION genitive]
C5 [PREPOSITION dative]
C6 [PREPOSITION accusative]
C7 [PREPOSITION] (men, de, gar, oun)
C8 [PREPOSITION] <Within 2> [NOUN] (men,de,gar,oun)
C9 [VERB passive] <AND> upo
C10 [VERB passive] <NOT> upo
C11 en
C12 eis
C13 ek
C14 epi
C15 pros
C16 dia
C17 apo
C18 kata
C19 meta
C20 peri
C21 upo
C22 para
C23 uper
C24 sun
C25 pro
C26 anti
C27 ana
C28 [IMPROPERPREPOSITION]
O1 de
O2 kai
O3 men
O4 te
O5 [CONJUNCTION continuative]
O6 [CONJUNCTION correlative]
O7 [CONJUNCTION disjunctive]
O8 [CONJUNCTION interrogative]
O9 [CONJUNCTION copulative]
O10 [CONJUNCTION inferential]
O11 [CONJUNCTION explanatory]
O12 [CONJUNCTION adversative]
O13 [CONJUNCTION causal]
O14 [CONJUNCTION conditional]
O15 [CONJUNCTION locational]
O16 [CONJUNCTION nominal]
O17 [CONJUNCTION comparative]
O18 [CONJUNCTION result]
O19 [CONJUNCTION concessive]
O20 [CONJUNCTION temporal]
O21 [PARTICLE]
O22 [PARTICLE alternating]
O23 [PARTICLE indefinite]
O24 [PARTICLE interrogative]
O25 [PARTICLE emphatic]
O26 [PARTICLE negative]
O27 [PARTICLE comparative]
O28 [PARTICLE subjective]
O29 [PARTICLE modal]
O30 "idou"
O31 [ADVERB]
O32 [ADJECTIVE]

Special Key Symbols

This has been an increasingly popular reference page on the Macintosh Biblioblog. Lot's of folks come here looking for the Mac key symbol for the alt key or the option key or the control key or the open apple key, or other standard symbols for the Macintosh keyboard. Apparently it is a handy reference to have all the popular symbols for the special keys on the keyboard. Here they are more or less in order from left to right, including Unicode Hex code point references:

⎋	Escape	U+238B
⇥	Tab forward	U+21E5
⇤	Tab back	U+21E4
⇪	Capslock	U+21EA
⇧	Shift	U+21E7
⌃	Control	U+2303
⌥	Option (Alt, Alternative)	U+2325
	Apple symbol 1	U+F8FF
⌘	Command (Open Apple) 2	U+2318
␣	Space	U+2423
⏎ ↩	Return	U+23CE U+21A9
⌫	Delete back	U+232B
⌦	Delete forward	U+2326
﹖⃝	Help	U+003F & U+20DD
⇱ ↖ ↸	Home	U+21F1 U+2196 U+21B8
⇲ ↘	End	U+21F2 U+2198
⇞	Pageup	U+21DE
⇟	Pagedown	U+21DF
↑ ⇡	Up arrow	U+2191 U+21E1
↓ ⇣	Down arrow	U+2193 U+21E3
← ⇠	Left arrow	U+2190 U+21E0
→ ⇢	Right arrow	U+2192 U+21E2
⌧	Clear	U+2327
⇭	Numberlock	U+21ED
⌤	Enter	U+2324
⏏	Eject	U+23CF
⌽	Power 3	U+233D

For information on how to type or enter these symbols in your documents, have a look at Entering Unicode Text and Symbols.
1 The Apple symbol  is in the corporate private range and is only available in Mac fonts. It can be typed with Option+Shift+k ( ⌥⇧+k ).
2 For the history on the Apple key symbol/Command key symbol, have a look here.

3 Most fonts render this code point as IEC 5010 "line within a circle", , not , IEC 5009 "line partially within a broken circle" which is found on newest keyboards, though some fonts do.

(If any symbol isn't displaying correctly, Unicode font replacement is the culprit. Everything tests great in latest versions of Safari and Firefox.)

Last updated: 9/19/12