Wow. I'm doing my theology paper on the book of 1 John, and it has already, on my first night of checking it out, become absurdly complex and delightfully intricate. It reminds me of the snow dance in the Silver Chair. Current tally: eight snowballs connected, two in the face. Four repetitions of "Beloved?" What's with that?
However, there has been a lot of great dodging as well. Definitely chiastic (but confusingly so), light and life references to John, and lots of cool stuff. John is definitely my favorite author, and I cannot wait to have time to delve into the John and Revelation as two halves of the same book theory.
Blessings,
Jesse Broussard
Showing posts with label School. Show all posts
Showing posts with label School. Show all posts
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The Damage so Far
I have had most of my finals, and am only waiting on my Latin oral and written. I did best in theology (no big surprise), with a second CL on my worksheet, and perhaps a CH to SCH on my oral, but of course I'm not sure. My Natural History was wretched, and I'm awaiting my course grade. Part of the problem was that it was very early in the week, and I had less time to prepare, but most of it was that I had no idea what was expected (which was my own fault), and prepared poorly. My History was on the low side of average, probably a CS-CH, depending upon the way the test was weighted (if at all) and mistakes that I'm not yet aware of (which are indubitably manifold).
I have my Latin oral tomorrow morning, and the written is Thursday afternoon. I don't expect to do very well on the oral, but I may end up surprising myself, and I expect to do decently on the written, with a lot of work ahead of me. Yet, in a time, two times and half a time, I will be on to something else. Probably more school, but that's okay: I enjoy school. I expect to spend ten very happy years getting my Bachelors, and may go for a Ph D, depending on whether I can still hear the lectures by then. No, I actually am having fun, but am very much looking forward to being home.
Blessings.
I have my Latin oral tomorrow morning, and the written is Thursday afternoon. I don't expect to do very well on the oral, but I may end up surprising myself, and I expect to do decently on the written, with a lot of work ahead of me. Yet, in a time, two times and half a time, I will be on to something else. Probably more school, but that's okay: I enjoy school. I expect to spend ten very happy years getting my Bachelors, and may go for a Ph D, depending on whether I can still hear the lectures by then. No, I actually am having fun, but am very much looking forward to being home.
Blessings.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Theology Worksheet #2
3.03.09
Theology Worksheet #2
Second choice: John 9: 1-41
Worksheet #2: Structural Analysis in John’s gospel
In this worksheet, you will analyze the structure of a passage of John’s gospel. You need to perform the various operations that you performed on an OT book last term, to wit: 1) Determine or explain the boundaries of the text; 2) break down the text into its component sections; 3) explain the formal or narrative arrangement of the parts; and 4) explain the purpose or effect of the structure.
First off, thank you for letting us do John: he is my favorite Scriptural author, and my favorite Biblical character (though Phineas and Jehu are not too far behind).
John 9:1-41: I chose this section as nine is the world’s most interesting number, and this section is encapsulated within a really spiffy inclusio:
A: 9:1: Falsely declared sinful because of blindness,
A’: 9:41: Justly declared sinful because of sight.
A quick bit of background: chapters 1-12 of John contain what are commonly seen as his “seven signs,” seven great miracles that John gives (as proof of Christ’s divinity), and this is the sixth of these signs. Also, this is toward the end of John’s section on bread and light: John can be viewed as an entrance into the temple, so the first five chapters deal with water (the ceremonial washing: water into wine, woman at the well, born of water and blood, etc), the second five deal with bread and light (the showbread and Menorah: burning and shining lamp, the feeding of the five-thousand, bread of heaven, bread of life, I am the light of the world, giving light to the blind man), and so on.
There are references (which I will deal with in greater depth later) to creation (a new creation with clay), anointing (with clay, which is interesting in itself), baptism (washing in the pool), discipleship (the Pharisees’ interrogation and his response), and, very interestingly, an elusive Christ that brings to mind your comments in lecture regarding Him being the one “born of the Spirit,” of whom we cannot tell where He is from or where He is going. This theme in particular is capitalized upon in this chapter: “Where is he?” “I do not know.” “He is not from God;” “We do not know where he is from,” “You do not know where he is from,” etc. This cannot be accidental.
A quick throwaway: the clay theme may have something to do with this being the sixth of the seven signs: six is generally viewed as the number of man (made on the sixth day, six days he may work, slavery lasted six years for a Hebrew slave, six cities of refuge for the accidental slaying of a man, etc), and man is made from the dust of the ground. Personally, I would be hesitant to venture much further out on the skinny branches of two man-made hermeneutical tools, but it may bear more fruit upon later study. I found nothing all that apparent save a definite focus upon man’s relationship with man.
Also this section is chiastic: I have made it rougher than it has to be for space considerations (especially points E and E’, which could justifiably be E-R), but it is easily expanded once the basic outline is grasped. Since it is rough, there are a great number of points worth studying that may not even be mentioned, and I am open to many slight changes within this overall chiastic frame. All chapter references are chapter 9 and are omitted, and I have changed the phrasing to make the parallels more obvious.
• A: 1: Jesus and His disciples: he’s blind; is he a sinner? No.
o B: 4-5: Day and night, I am the light of the world…
• C: 6-12: sent, who is he? Receives sight.
• D: 13-16: brought to the Pharisees, not from God, can’t be a sinner.
o E: 17-21: Prophet, blind—sight, parents interrogated, born blind, he is of age, etc.
• F: 22: “they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that he was the Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.”
o E’: 23-29: Disciples of Moses (prophet), blind—see, son interrogated, blind, he is of age, etc.
• D’: 30-34: cast out by the Pharisees, must be from God, God doesn’t hear sinners.
• C’: 35-38: cast out, who is he? You have seen Him.
o B’: 39-40: Seeing and blind, I am the judgment of the world…
• A’: 41: Jesus and the “disciples of Moses:” Are we sinners? You’ve sight; yes.
The overall theme is that of the blind, “sinless” false Israel accusing Christ, the absentee defendant, while the seeing, “sinful” true Israel acts as His advocate. The parents appear to be two cowardly witnesses that, nevertheless, validate the testimony of the true Israel, who is then cast out when he successfully defends the One that sent him out, and sends him out again.
The central point (F) accents an aspect of this trial: two mindsets of the Jewish world. First, there are the captive Jews that fear their captors rather than the Liberator, and out of fear of being cast out of Israel reject Israel for the “synagogue of Satan.” Second, there are their captors, who greatly fear the Liberator and decide to excommunicate anyone that accepts Him (a rather weak threat to anyone that had accepted him, but quite terrible to anyone that was on the fence).
Two verbs in this verse interest me, so far as time is concerned. The Greek συντίθεμαι (had agreed already) is in the pluperfect tense, which is quite rare, and is like a perfect past tense: the meaning is “had once and for all agreed,” and puts one in mind of a covenant. The verb ὁμολογέω(confessed) is in the aorist, and therefore pays no heed to time: past, present, future, it doesn’t matter: the aorist includes them all. The action of this sentence then feels along the lines of “the Jews had irrevocably agreed that if anyone ever confessed Jesus as the Christ, he would be excommunicated.” No big difference is impressed upon the sentence, save perhaps a bit more force.
Another interesting tidbit is how Jesus healed this man. The man was blind from birth, and had apparently done a good deal of work to find a cure (“Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind…”), and being blind from birth was apparently viewed in no favorable light (“Who sinned, this man or his parents…” and “You were steeped in sin in your mother’s womb…”). It is not too much of a stretch to say that this hopeless beggar didn’t suffer from an excess of popularity, and I don’t think I’d be wearing white socks with my exegetical suit were I to posit that he’d been spit on plenty of times. It is of course just like God to take shame and turn it into glory, into an anointing. This may be completely off base, and there is no Scriptural leg to stand on, but I like the interpretation, and will probably keep it around.
Back to solid ground: this is a recreation story, and that without question. Jesus molds clay, anoints a blind man with it, and has him baptized. He emerges from his baptism as a new man. There is division in the “opening” of the man’s eyes, and there is separation in his excommunication from the synagogue. What God had divided, He filled: in this case, with Himself (verse 37). His separation also speaks to John’s ever-present message of light and darkness, which is obviously a pervasive theme in this story.
There are two ways to interpret John’s light vs. dark message: either good verse evil or the New Covenant being rejected by the so-called adherents to the Old. Arguments are made for both, and I think that there are times when both are equally valid. However, his message in John appears to be the latter: “and the darkness comprehended it not…” “He was sent to bear witness to that light…” etc. If this is the case, and it seems to be, then this recreation is yet again a symbol of the new creation being rejected and cast out by the old: the created light (blind man) shines (speaks truth) into the darkness (the truly blind Pharisees), but the darkness comprehended it not, and men loved darkness rather than light.
The verb anoint is a very peculiar choice of word. The translation is good, but why did John use that word? Why is the blind man “anointed” with mud? And why are we told this twice? It is obviously important, but what is important about it?
Several explanations present themselves. First, this is the Sabbath, and John, intentionally or no, sanctifies Christ’s “work” on the Sabbath.
Second, the man was about to be brought before the synagogue, and he hadn’t given any thought to what he would say. So, the image is given that Paul later refers to.
But most likely it is because Jesus says that He is doing the work of His Father just before He anoints the man’s eyes. So this can easily be taken to represent his actions on a larger scale: “The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me for He has anointed me…” Jesus was going around opening the eyes of the Spiritually blind, and especially in John’s eyes.
We have also seen that the work of the Spirit is portrayed differently in John than in the synoptic Gospels, and this is fitting with that theme. The anointing is what opens the man’s eyes; it is what prepares him to face the Pharisees alone, and it is what enabled him to recognize and worship Christ.
The theme of clay is also interesting, but as I have alluded to it several times already, I will only give it a brief overview here. I believe that it mostly refers to the creation theme: “He formed him out of the dust of the ground…” but it also references the curse. So, the curse is taken and placed upon the blind eyes of the man, and is done so as an anointing? Or the anointing is mixed with the curse? It is unclear, and I don’t think it matters much: the main point that can be drawn is the washing, the cleansing from the curse that is accomplished by baptism, and even this really is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.
One of the most interesting features of this chapter is the absence of Christ from it when He is so central to it. He appears at the beginning and at the end, but is nowhere to be found between his bookending cameos. He is the central figure: He is the one that is on trial (“Give glory to God we know this man is a sinner…”), and it would certainly have removed the pressure from the formerly blind man had He shown up. But He didn’t. He didn’t even wait to be thanked: the blind man first sees Him when Jesus seeks Him out.
First off, I’d just like to comment that this is about as flawless an analogy of conversion as can be made. Blind from birth, anointed and healed by the Spirit of a God we know of but don’t know, baptized into Him, violently and unpleasantly divorced from our idolatry, and then we begin to see Christ as the Son of God as He seeks us.
I think that Christ is absent from the story for one main reason (though I am sure there are others): so we can get a picture of what it is like to serve an absent Master. We are the people that put up that obscene footprints poem on our walls and think nice thoughts about gentle Jesus. We have no concept of the God that spoke to Jeremiah, asking him how he was going to manage to keep up with horses if men wore him out. We have some pagan notion in our minds that God is primarily concerned with out comfort and happiness, when we have nothing of that in Scripture or in life. This is the God that we serve: He does not come when called; He is not a tame Lion. We are to serve Him faithfully anyway.
Theology Worksheet #2
Second choice: John 9: 1-41
Worksheet #2: Structural Analysis in John’s gospel
In this worksheet, you will analyze the structure of a passage of John’s gospel. You need to perform the various operations that you performed on an OT book last term, to wit: 1) Determine or explain the boundaries of the text; 2) break down the text into its component sections; 3) explain the formal or narrative arrangement of the parts; and 4) explain the purpose or effect of the structure.
First off, thank you for letting us do John: he is my favorite Scriptural author, and my favorite Biblical character (though Phineas and Jehu are not too far behind).
John 9:1-41: I chose this section as nine is the world’s most interesting number, and this section is encapsulated within a really spiffy inclusio:
A: 9:1: Falsely declared sinful because of blindness,
A’: 9:41: Justly declared sinful because of sight.
A quick bit of background: chapters 1-12 of John contain what are commonly seen as his “seven signs,” seven great miracles that John gives (as proof of Christ’s divinity), and this is the sixth of these signs. Also, this is toward the end of John’s section on bread and light: John can be viewed as an entrance into the temple, so the first five chapters deal with water (the ceremonial washing: water into wine, woman at the well, born of water and blood, etc), the second five deal with bread and light (the showbread and Menorah: burning and shining lamp, the feeding of the five-thousand, bread of heaven, bread of life, I am the light of the world, giving light to the blind man), and so on.
There are references (which I will deal with in greater depth later) to creation (a new creation with clay), anointing (with clay, which is interesting in itself), baptism (washing in the pool), discipleship (the Pharisees’ interrogation and his response), and, very interestingly, an elusive Christ that brings to mind your comments in lecture regarding Him being the one “born of the Spirit,” of whom we cannot tell where He is from or where He is going. This theme in particular is capitalized upon in this chapter: “Where is he?” “I do not know.” “He is not from God;” “We do not know where he is from,” “You do not know where he is from,” etc. This cannot be accidental.
A quick throwaway: the clay theme may have something to do with this being the sixth of the seven signs: six is generally viewed as the number of man (made on the sixth day, six days he may work, slavery lasted six years for a Hebrew slave, six cities of refuge for the accidental slaying of a man, etc), and man is made from the dust of the ground. Personally, I would be hesitant to venture much further out on the skinny branches of two man-made hermeneutical tools, but it may bear more fruit upon later study. I found nothing all that apparent save a definite focus upon man’s relationship with man.
Also this section is chiastic: I have made it rougher than it has to be for space considerations (especially points E and E’, which could justifiably be E-R), but it is easily expanded once the basic outline is grasped. Since it is rough, there are a great number of points worth studying that may not even be mentioned, and I am open to many slight changes within this overall chiastic frame. All chapter references are chapter 9 and are omitted, and I have changed the phrasing to make the parallels more obvious.
• A: 1: Jesus and His disciples: he’s blind; is he a sinner? No.
o B: 4-5: Day and night, I am the light of the world…
• C: 6-12: sent, who is he? Receives sight.
• D: 13-16: brought to the Pharisees, not from God, can’t be a sinner.
o E: 17-21: Prophet, blind—sight, parents interrogated, born blind, he is of age, etc.
• F: 22: “they feared the Jews, for the Jews had agreed already that if anyone confessed that he was the Christ, he would be put out of the synagogue.”
o E’: 23-29: Disciples of Moses (prophet), blind—see, son interrogated, blind, he is of age, etc.
• D’: 30-34: cast out by the Pharisees, must be from God, God doesn’t hear sinners.
• C’: 35-38: cast out, who is he? You have seen Him.
o B’: 39-40: Seeing and blind, I am the judgment of the world…
• A’: 41: Jesus and the “disciples of Moses:” Are we sinners? You’ve sight; yes.
The overall theme is that of the blind, “sinless” false Israel accusing Christ, the absentee defendant, while the seeing, “sinful” true Israel acts as His advocate. The parents appear to be two cowardly witnesses that, nevertheless, validate the testimony of the true Israel, who is then cast out when he successfully defends the One that sent him out, and sends him out again.
The central point (F) accents an aspect of this trial: two mindsets of the Jewish world. First, there are the captive Jews that fear their captors rather than the Liberator, and out of fear of being cast out of Israel reject Israel for the “synagogue of Satan.” Second, there are their captors, who greatly fear the Liberator and decide to excommunicate anyone that accepts Him (a rather weak threat to anyone that had accepted him, but quite terrible to anyone that was on the fence).
Two verbs in this verse interest me, so far as time is concerned. The Greek συντίθεμαι (had agreed already) is in the pluperfect tense, which is quite rare, and is like a perfect past tense: the meaning is “had once and for all agreed,” and puts one in mind of a covenant. The verb ὁμολογέω(confessed) is in the aorist, and therefore pays no heed to time: past, present, future, it doesn’t matter: the aorist includes them all. The action of this sentence then feels along the lines of “the Jews had irrevocably agreed that if anyone ever confessed Jesus as the Christ, he would be excommunicated.” No big difference is impressed upon the sentence, save perhaps a bit more force.
Another interesting tidbit is how Jesus healed this man. The man was blind from birth, and had apparently done a good deal of work to find a cure (“Since the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind…”), and being blind from birth was apparently viewed in no favorable light (“Who sinned, this man or his parents…” and “You were steeped in sin in your mother’s womb…”). It is not too much of a stretch to say that this hopeless beggar didn’t suffer from an excess of popularity, and I don’t think I’d be wearing white socks with my exegetical suit were I to posit that he’d been spit on plenty of times. It is of course just like God to take shame and turn it into glory, into an anointing. This may be completely off base, and there is no Scriptural leg to stand on, but I like the interpretation, and will probably keep it around.
Back to solid ground: this is a recreation story, and that without question. Jesus molds clay, anoints a blind man with it, and has him baptized. He emerges from his baptism as a new man. There is division in the “opening” of the man’s eyes, and there is separation in his excommunication from the synagogue. What God had divided, He filled: in this case, with Himself (verse 37). His separation also speaks to John’s ever-present message of light and darkness, which is obviously a pervasive theme in this story.
There are two ways to interpret John’s light vs. dark message: either good verse evil or the New Covenant being rejected by the so-called adherents to the Old. Arguments are made for both, and I think that there are times when both are equally valid. However, his message in John appears to be the latter: “and the darkness comprehended it not…” “He was sent to bear witness to that light…” etc. If this is the case, and it seems to be, then this recreation is yet again a symbol of the new creation being rejected and cast out by the old: the created light (blind man) shines (speaks truth) into the darkness (the truly blind Pharisees), but the darkness comprehended it not, and men loved darkness rather than light.
The verb anoint is a very peculiar choice of word. The translation is good, but why did John use that word? Why is the blind man “anointed” with mud? And why are we told this twice? It is obviously important, but what is important about it?
Several explanations present themselves. First, this is the Sabbath, and John, intentionally or no, sanctifies Christ’s “work” on the Sabbath.
Second, the man was about to be brought before the synagogue, and he hadn’t given any thought to what he would say. So, the image is given that Paul later refers to.
But most likely it is because Jesus says that He is doing the work of His Father just before He anoints the man’s eyes. So this can easily be taken to represent his actions on a larger scale: “The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is upon me for He has anointed me…” Jesus was going around opening the eyes of the Spiritually blind, and especially in John’s eyes.
We have also seen that the work of the Spirit is portrayed differently in John than in the synoptic Gospels, and this is fitting with that theme. The anointing is what opens the man’s eyes; it is what prepares him to face the Pharisees alone, and it is what enabled him to recognize and worship Christ.
The theme of clay is also interesting, but as I have alluded to it several times already, I will only give it a brief overview here. I believe that it mostly refers to the creation theme: “He formed him out of the dust of the ground…” but it also references the curse. So, the curse is taken and placed upon the blind eyes of the man, and is done so as an anointing? Or the anointing is mixed with the curse? It is unclear, and I don’t think it matters much: the main point that can be drawn is the washing, the cleansing from the curse that is accomplished by baptism, and even this really is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.
One of the most interesting features of this chapter is the absence of Christ from it when He is so central to it. He appears at the beginning and at the end, but is nowhere to be found between his bookending cameos. He is the central figure: He is the one that is on trial (“Give glory to God we know this man is a sinner…”), and it would certainly have removed the pressure from the formerly blind man had He shown up. But He didn’t. He didn’t even wait to be thanked: the blind man first sees Him when Jesus seeks Him out.
First off, I’d just like to comment that this is about as flawless an analogy of conversion as can be made. Blind from birth, anointed and healed by the Spirit of a God we know of but don’t know, baptized into Him, violently and unpleasantly divorced from our idolatry, and then we begin to see Christ as the Son of God as He seeks us.
I think that Christ is absent from the story for one main reason (though I am sure there are others): so we can get a picture of what it is like to serve an absent Master. We are the people that put up that obscene footprints poem on our walls and think nice thoughts about gentle Jesus. We have no concept of the God that spoke to Jeremiah, asking him how he was going to manage to keep up with horses if men wore him out. We have some pagan notion in our minds that God is primarily concerned with out comfort and happiness, when we have nothing of that in Scripture or in life. This is the God that we serve: He does not come when called; He is not a tame Lion. We are to serve Him faithfully anyway.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Someone's in a Spot of Trouble
Today our constant freshman/faculty vs. upperclassmen competition reveals itself in the basketball court. So, someone (and I honestly have no idea who) affixed the name of our illustrious president to the following email. Repercussions will be interesting.
Students and Faculty:
Over the last week or two several issues have been brought to my attention regarding the upcoming basketball exhibition. Several students have voiced various concerns, and I would like to specifically address these questions in the context of the robust paideia and ultimate educational vision of New Saint Andrews College.
Many of you are probably aware of the first issue that I need to address. Nate Douglas has requested that the traditional ‘dark and white’ shirts for the basketball game be replaced with a new paradigm more in line with NSA’s values. Mr. Douglas asked that ‘shirts and skins’ be the new distinguishing factor. After discussion with interested parents and NSA’s BOD (board of directors), I decided to partially grant his request, and allow the upperclassmen to partially unclothe themselves for the game only. Standard dress code is still required for classes and game attendees (c.f. Student Handbook pgs. 207-449, which does not contain any specific rules).
This satisfied Mr. Douglas. However, more concerns have arisen since my initial decision. Micah Shryer, who recently acquired a weight bench via the church email, has complained about the discrimination against the lowerclassmen, and has asked for the new dress standards to be applied both ways. Although he initially did not plan to play in the game, he has since asked to join, giving as his reason, and I quote, “I may not be good at basketball, but I am good at shirts and skins.” Numerous freshmen have echoed his concerns.
The final decision I have reached is that there may be 5 total shirtless players on the court at one time, for both teams. Also, only certain players will be given this privilege. If you have a vested interest in any specific player, please email me your vote.
Concerns have also been raised by anxious female patrons of the College. Without detailing the reasons for their anxiety, the following list of Ineligible “Skins” Players has been compiled:
1. Jason Helsel ("long" shorts, please--thigh exposure is still prohibited)
2. Brian Kohl (full-length pants required in this instance)
3. Daniel Alders.
4. Mr. Schwandt and Mr. Griffith (the college does not support Ancient Olympic-style costume)
Finally, after certain problems with last year’s half time entertainment, this year the faculty have decided to sponsor a speed reading competition--Ms.Gwen Burrow versus Ben Saunders. As always, comprehension will not be a factor. The prestigious “semper current, numquam comprehendunt” award will be given to the winner.
Go Paideia!!
Sincerely,
President Dr. Roy Atwood
Students and Faculty:
Over the last week or two several issues have been brought to my attention regarding the upcoming basketball exhibition. Several students have voiced various concerns, and I would like to specifically address these questions in the context of the robust paideia and ultimate educational vision of New Saint Andrews College.
Many of you are probably aware of the first issue that I need to address. Nate Douglas has requested that the traditional ‘dark and white’ shirts for the basketball game be replaced with a new paradigm more in line with NSA’s values. Mr. Douglas asked that ‘shirts and skins’ be the new distinguishing factor. After discussion with interested parents and NSA’s BOD (board of directors), I decided to partially grant his request, and allow the upperclassmen to partially unclothe themselves for the game only. Standard dress code is still required for classes and game attendees (c.f. Student Handbook pgs. 207-449, which does not contain any specific rules).
This satisfied Mr. Douglas. However, more concerns have arisen since my initial decision. Micah Shryer, who recently acquired a weight bench via the church email, has complained about the discrimination against the lowerclassmen, and has asked for the new dress standards to be applied both ways. Although he initially did not plan to play in the game, he has since asked to join, giving as his reason, and I quote, “I may not be good at basketball, but I am good at shirts and skins.” Numerous freshmen have echoed his concerns.
The final decision I have reached is that there may be 5 total shirtless players on the court at one time, for both teams. Also, only certain players will be given this privilege. If you have a vested interest in any specific player, please email me your vote.
Concerns have also been raised by anxious female patrons of the College. Without detailing the reasons for their anxiety, the following list of Ineligible “Skins” Players has been compiled:
1. Jason Helsel ("long" shorts, please--thigh exposure is still prohibited)
2. Brian Kohl (full-length pants required in this instance)
3. Daniel Alders.
4. Mr. Schwandt and Mr. Griffith (the college does not support Ancient Olympic-style costume)
Finally, after certain problems with last year’s half time entertainment, this year the faculty have decided to sponsor a speed reading competition--Ms.Gwen Burrow versus Ben Saunders. As always, comprehension will not be a factor. The prestigious “semper current, numquam comprehendunt” award will be given to the winner.
Go Paideia!!
Sincerely,
President Dr. Roy Atwood
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Masquerade
We Muscovites just had our Masquerade, and it was epic. About a lot of people were there, but the ratio of guys to girls was almost even, so we didn't have the usual horde of girls off to the side, though there were a few. The grand march was exhausting: fifteen minutes or so of sprinting, whirling, being the end of the whip that's cracked, sprinting between two lines of people not more than a foot away, and they're sprinting the opposite way. I haven't yet heard of any injuries save a stomped foot, but wow. We reformed people can dance, and that right crazily. We've got pictures of people being tossed a full three feet in the air, and I would love to see a video of the Postie's Jig: it was insane. The Spanish Waltz was great fun, but I'm actually starting to get the hang of the faster ones, and am starting to like them just as much. All in all, it was a great four hours of real dancing, and I cannot wait for the next one.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Theology Worksheet (CL)
This is the first of our worksheets in theology. Due to my incredible skills in "never putting off till tomorrow what can be avoided entirely," I was up till four writing this, when it was due at seven thirty. Yet, I got a Cum Laude (second highest possible grade), so I am resolved on two points (so if the first break, the other will hold, but if both break, my britches fall down). First, if you can't tie a knot, tie a lot: I just kept talking and hitting the questions from every conceivable angle, and some of my points were apparently good. Second: I make more sense when my brain stops trying to edit what I'm saying.
Here you are. Reader beware.
J. Broussard
Theology Worksheet #1
Assignment #2: Mt. 26-27
Due: 2.12.09
I. 1. What is the source of the quotation in Matthew 26:31?2. What is the passage referring to in its original context? 3. How is that context relevant to Matthew’s gospel? 4. How does it fit into Matthew’s over-all story line?
II. 2. What is the source of the quotation in Matthew 27:9-10? What did the passage refer to in its original context? How does it fit into this context in Matthew’s gospel? How does it fit into the overall storyline of Matthew’s gospel?
III. 3. What is the source for the quotation in Matthew 27:43, 46? What do these passages refer to in their original contexts? How is Matthew using them?
I. 1. The source for Matthew 26:31 is Zechariah 13:7. 2. The original context is rather surprising. It is the last burden given to Zechariah, and therefore the last theme of his book, and is in a series of blessings that will take place “in that day”: God will remove all idols, there will be no false prophets or unclean spirits, God will provide cleansing for the uncleanness of Jerusalem and the house of David, etc. The surprising things are these: first, the previous list is not quite accurate: there will be no prophet, false prophet is never specified, and second, it is the Lord that does the striking of the shepherd.
In the first case, the prophet is assumed to be false: he “speaks lies” and does not put on a rough garment “to deceive,” he shall deny that he is a prophet and claim rather to be a “husbandman,” for, “for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.”
The use of “husbandman” here is very interesting: in its seven occurrences in Scripture, it is (aside from this use) a farming term (Gen. 9:20, Jer. 51:23, Amos 5:16, John 15:1, 2 Timothy 2:6, James 5:7). In fact, one of the uses actually puts the husbandmen and the one raising cattle side by side: Jer. 51:23: “I will also break in pieces with thee the shepherd and his flock; and with thee will I break in pieces the husbandman and his yoke of oxen; and with thee will I break in pieces captains and rulers.” There is then one indefinite use of husbandman found in Amos, where he is called on to mourn, but what makes him a husbandman is not mentioned. So, the only case that we have of someone being a husbandman because he tends cattle instead of a vineyard or a field is right here.
The people of God are both equated to being a vineyard and sheep, so the reference is not essential, but it is very surprising that the meaning of a word is changed or re-interpreted in this one verse alone out of Scripture. Later in this passage, the shepherd is mentioned, so why is the person here a husbandman because he tends cattle, and later a shepherd because he tends sheep? Sheep are a subset of cattle, but it would be hard to argue that a shepherd is a subset of husbandman when every other case of husbandman is farming. Cain would have been a husbandman, Abel a farmer. To be honest, I have no idea why the terms and vocations appear to be switched here. It wouldn’t just be a slip of the tongue on the part of the prophet (that would be comparable to claiming to be a carpenter because you were taught from your youth how to milk cows), and it does seem to have some importance or relevance that is utterly beyond my grasp.
But continuing on the lack of prophets: they are driven out right alongside false spirits (verse 2); they are killed by their own parents (verse 3); they are ashamed to be prophets (verse 4), and will attempt to avoid the “charge” as if it were a crime rather than an honor.
Also, the prophet appears to be a foreshadowing of Christ due to the wounding of the hands in verse five, which is very odd indeed: portraying Christ as a false prophet as well as the fountain in which the sins of Jerusalem and the people of David have their sins removed within four verses of each other? The former would be odd enough.
The second oddity was the fact that it is God that does the striking. The verse marks the segue from the blessings to the destruction of all but a remnant, in this case one third (in a passage about the death of a member of the Trinity that’s not too surprising) as opposed to Isaiah’s tenth, which will be tried by fire as if it were silver or gold, and the remnant will eventually return.
The passage has the shepherd being struck so that the sheep will be scattered in a way reminiscent of binding the strongman before plundering his house: God wants to turn His hand against the little ones, so He first strikes the (His) shepherd and scatters the sheep. This is not necessary from the structure, but it is implied. The strangeness of two members of the Trinity working at what appear to be opposite goals is very stark and very unusual: a far cry from “if you have seen me you have seen the Father” is this “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.” However, with the end in mind, this does appear to be consistent: God protects Israel both in the letter and in the Spirit of the law.
3. So the overall context of the passage quoted is that of the judgment upon Israel and the removal of her protection (the shepherd) so that the sheep might be scattered. Ironically enough, this passage (which is so apt to the coming state of Israel just a few decades after this time) is quoted in application to Christ and the disciples.
Matthew is telling the story of the transfer of the Kingdom of God from Israel to Christ and all who would follow Him: Israel is changing into a New Israel. Depending on exactly when you place that change, this passage could have several meanings. For example, if that transfer has not yet taken place, then the reference is limited to the disciples running off at this precise moment (as the simplest reading gives, which is no less accurate for being simple), or to Israel being the nation that God raises up against…. Well, against Israel. Israel strikes her own Shepherd, and let the scattering begin. But if the transfer has already taken place, then the Shepherd is struck and the New Israel scatters and then returns after the resurrection. Or, from a bird’s eye view historically, we simply see the death, burial and resurrection of Christ leading into the sheep scattering to all nations and making new sheep in all nations, but I generally like to avoid fitting verses into my theology with a sledgehammer, so I’ll stick with the first and second views both being accurate, and the third view being true, but not defensible from this passage alone.
A very interesting point that merits further study would be looking at Israel as the shepherd of the New Israel, though there are obvious and massive limitations to this application, the first and foremost being that of the shepherd trying to kill the sheep for a century or two. But I think that there is still merit to be found in it.
4. Within the overall story line, this falls very near the end. The shepherd being struck is the first of two tremendous crescendos, the second of which lasts from the resurrection to the ascension and adds a twist that was unforeseeable to those within that chapter of the story.
II.1. The allusion is to Jeremiah 18:1-4 19:1-3 but more distinctly to Zechariah 11:12,13. Despite the fact that the text does quote Jeremiah as the source, I will be primarily using Zechariah, as I believe that his reference is the one that is intended, though the similarity between the two texts is great enough that the difference will end up being, in many respects, negligible.
Also, I believe that Zechariah may well have been familiar with Jeremiah’s account of buying the field (Jer. 18-19), and I think that he would have linked his prophecy with that of Jeremiah in his own mind, especially by the language of the siege. There are not all that many places that condemn people to cannibalism, so if Zechariah was at all familiar with Scripture, I think it very probable that he would have had Jeremiah in mind.
2. The original context was Zechariah playing the part of a shepherd and receiving his payment. The chapter is quite complex (he both feeds and is paid by “the poor of the flock”) and seems that it would lend itself to various interpretations, but I believe this to be the most straightforward of them.
Zechariah begins tending to a flock of sheep, and then declares that he will cease to feed them: “ I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.” Obviously sheep do not eat each other, so the analogy is very apparent, and appears to refer to one siege or another, but a particularly violent one in which a city is reduced to cannibalism.
He then breaks covenant (Beauty), and states that “it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it [was] the word of the LORD.” There appears to have been an event that vindicated him in his prophetic utterance, but what it was is not made clear. He then requests that if his employers see fit, that they pay him, but if they do not, don’t. They pay him thirty pieces of silver that he in turn “casts to the potter.”
He then declares that the brotherhood between Israel and Judah is broken, and the Lord declares that “I will raise up a shepherd in the land, [which] shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.” After this declaration, God condemns the “idol shepherd that leaveth the flock,” stating that the sword will be upon his arm an his right eye, that his arm shall be dried up (withered) and his eye utterly darkened (so he will lose his strength and sight).
3. This context is really quite horrifying, and its horror is only accented by its accuracy. It is quoted just before Matthew’s account of the trial of Christ, which culminates in the sickening “His blood be on us and our children.” As Christ is being led away to Pontius Pilate, Matthew finishes the story of Judas returning the money to the faithless shepherd (chief priests) that had condemned the flock. The apathy of each account reflects the other: Zechariah’s “that that dieth, let it die” chillingly echoed by the priests’ “What is that to us? See thou to that.” Then the faithless shepherds buy the potter’s field (to bury strangers in), completely oblivious in their calm and reasoned folly (more Hellenistic than anything they fought against) to the connections between themselves and Zechariah’s shepherd, and missing out entirely on the dual accounts of Zechariah and Jeremiah acting as two witnesses that testify against them to their death.
Each account is fulfilled, and the siege followed soon after. The father’s words “on us and our children” condemned their sons to eat each other as the dying ox of the Old Covenant strained to pull the weight of the cart it was never meant to pull—the shade trying to pull the flesh; man straining to accomplish what the God-Man had just completed.
4. In the overall story, it is the middle: the end of the beginning and the beginning of the end. In Matthew, it is again toward the end: it is the reason for the judgment that falls on Israel in the next generation. The final betrayal of Christ effectively ends the story of Israel: they are no longer those that prevail with God, but those that have nailed God to a tree. They are Israel in nothing but name, and in their desperation to grasp their birthright, they lose it irrevocably.
The account of the chief priests is probably the clearest sign of where exactly Israel was on their path to utter depravity. The priests, having just managed to set in motion the death of God, debate what to do with their unexpected refund. It was, after all, the price of blood, they say, so it isn’t lawful to be used on the temple. This while the One that sat on the mercy seat is being led out to hang on a tree overlooking their temple, their golden god. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. How much longer could such a people be allowed to endure? For Matthew, who makes this story so understated and horrifying, this seems to be one of the final blows against Israel, as the vast majority of the rest of the story is told from the perspective of the Romans or the disciples; the Jews never enter it in any significant way again. They have obviated themselves, and Matthew moves on to tell us the remainder of Christ’s life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension, as well as to pass on the final instructions that He left us with.
III. 1. These are both taken from Psalm 22, though recited in reverse order.
2-3. In the original context, they are quotations from a Psalm of absolute despair, of the kind that would get someone institutionalized today. It is full of pleas and complaints, of asking where God is, and why He isn’t saving His servant. It is, oddly enough, one of the Psalms in which David doesn’t proclaim his innocence, though he does call upon the earth to praise the Lord, as well as promising to do so himself.
The imagery was, for David, symbolic: his bones were not literally out of joint, nor his hands pierced, though he felt as if they were, and with great cause. We don’t know who played the part of the bulls of bashan or the dogs in the case of David, but with Christ, it was the Jews and Romans. This would be particularly detestable for the Jews, as the dogs are unclean, as are the lions, and, according to most myths, unicorns would be as well.
However, the particularly astonishing part is the fact that this Psalm was actually quoted: “He trusted in God, let God save him, if He will have him.” It seems that this would have been quoted by the Jews (as the Romans didn’t much care for “God” in the singular), and as the quote is verbatim. It still is odd—it would be like someone volunteering to play the part of the Japanese for the “Battle” of Nagasaki: how is that going to turn out okay? Why would a Jew be quoting from the part of a villain in the Psalms? Of course, the quotes are probably not as clean-cut as when Matthew delivers them to us, and I’m sure that we do the same thing on a fairly regular basis.
For Matthew, these verses serve to further vindicate Christ and condemn the Jews. He places Christ in the middle of a Psalm that was written about Him, and all the Jews would have noticed this placement. As they viewed Christ to be a blasphemer, this would be particularly unforgivable to them, as well as being typecast as dogs. The problem to them would be how accurate it had been: crucifixion being described so perfectly by one who had never seen it, as well as the quotations, the casting of lots for the clothing, the gall to drink and, of course, the resurrection on the third day, which is a particularly aggravating detail.
Matthew seems particularly conscious of the need to vindicate Christ in these chapters: he is the only one of the gospel writers that mentions all of the miracles that accompanied the death of Christ, as well as the conversion of the centurion. It could be that, as Matthew was the first to write his gospel, and was writing to Jews, that he was more conscious of the stigma associated with the death of a blasphemer, and went out of his way to show that Christ was vindicated by the miracles and signs. This would explain why he extends the verse “And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared to many.” I have already demonstrated a few instances of Matthew’s being concerned with the number of witnesses, and he here seems to be doing the same. John, I believe, takes something from this in his first epistle: “That which our eyes have seen and our hands handled…”
Beyond this, Matthew would of course be still somewhat amazed, and his recitation of events bears similarity to the type of narrative that a person will give when in shock. We all too often have difficulty speaking to someone that doesn’t believe in miracles, and this after two thousand years of testimony to back us up; how much more he, when he was writing of events that were this staggering, this earth-shaking, and no one else had written of them?
Here you are. Reader beware.
J. Broussard
Theology Worksheet #1
Assignment #2: Mt. 26-27
Due: 2.12.09
I. 1. What is the source of the quotation in Matthew 26:31?2. What is the passage referring to in its original context? 3. How is that context relevant to Matthew’s gospel? 4. How does it fit into Matthew’s over-all story line?
II. 2. What is the source of the quotation in Matthew 27:9-10? What did the passage refer to in its original context? How does it fit into this context in Matthew’s gospel? How does it fit into the overall storyline of Matthew’s gospel?
III. 3. What is the source for the quotation in Matthew 27:43, 46? What do these passages refer to in their original contexts? How is Matthew using them?
I. 1. The source for Matthew 26:31 is Zechariah 13:7. 2. The original context is rather surprising. It is the last burden given to Zechariah, and therefore the last theme of his book, and is in a series of blessings that will take place “in that day”: God will remove all idols, there will be no false prophets or unclean spirits, God will provide cleansing for the uncleanness of Jerusalem and the house of David, etc. The surprising things are these: first, the previous list is not quite accurate: there will be no prophet, false prophet is never specified, and second, it is the Lord that does the striking of the shepherd.
In the first case, the prophet is assumed to be false: he “speaks lies” and does not put on a rough garment “to deceive,” he shall deny that he is a prophet and claim rather to be a “husbandman,” for, “for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.”
The use of “husbandman” here is very interesting: in its seven occurrences in Scripture, it is (aside from this use) a farming term (Gen. 9:20, Jer. 51:23, Amos 5:16, John 15:1, 2 Timothy 2:6, James 5:7). In fact, one of the uses actually puts the husbandmen and the one raising cattle side by side: Jer. 51:23: “I will also break in pieces with thee the shepherd and his flock; and with thee will I break in pieces the husbandman and his yoke of oxen; and with thee will I break in pieces captains and rulers.” There is then one indefinite use of husbandman found in Amos, where he is called on to mourn, but what makes him a husbandman is not mentioned. So, the only case that we have of someone being a husbandman because he tends cattle instead of a vineyard or a field is right here.
The people of God are both equated to being a vineyard and sheep, so the reference is not essential, but it is very surprising that the meaning of a word is changed or re-interpreted in this one verse alone out of Scripture. Later in this passage, the shepherd is mentioned, so why is the person here a husbandman because he tends cattle, and later a shepherd because he tends sheep? Sheep are a subset of cattle, but it would be hard to argue that a shepherd is a subset of husbandman when every other case of husbandman is farming. Cain would have been a husbandman, Abel a farmer. To be honest, I have no idea why the terms and vocations appear to be switched here. It wouldn’t just be a slip of the tongue on the part of the prophet (that would be comparable to claiming to be a carpenter because you were taught from your youth how to milk cows), and it does seem to have some importance or relevance that is utterly beyond my grasp.
But continuing on the lack of prophets: they are driven out right alongside false spirits (verse 2); they are killed by their own parents (verse 3); they are ashamed to be prophets (verse 4), and will attempt to avoid the “charge” as if it were a crime rather than an honor.
Also, the prophet appears to be a foreshadowing of Christ due to the wounding of the hands in verse five, which is very odd indeed: portraying Christ as a false prophet as well as the fountain in which the sins of Jerusalem and the people of David have their sins removed within four verses of each other? The former would be odd enough.
The second oddity was the fact that it is God that does the striking. The verse marks the segue from the blessings to the destruction of all but a remnant, in this case one third (in a passage about the death of a member of the Trinity that’s not too surprising) as opposed to Isaiah’s tenth, which will be tried by fire as if it were silver or gold, and the remnant will eventually return.
The passage has the shepherd being struck so that the sheep will be scattered in a way reminiscent of binding the strongman before plundering his house: God wants to turn His hand against the little ones, so He first strikes the (His) shepherd and scatters the sheep. This is not necessary from the structure, but it is implied. The strangeness of two members of the Trinity working at what appear to be opposite goals is very stark and very unusual: a far cry from “if you have seen me you have seen the Father” is this “Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man [that is] my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.” However, with the end in mind, this does appear to be consistent: God protects Israel both in the letter and in the Spirit of the law.
3. So the overall context of the passage quoted is that of the judgment upon Israel and the removal of her protection (the shepherd) so that the sheep might be scattered. Ironically enough, this passage (which is so apt to the coming state of Israel just a few decades after this time) is quoted in application to Christ and the disciples.
Matthew is telling the story of the transfer of the Kingdom of God from Israel to Christ and all who would follow Him: Israel is changing into a New Israel. Depending on exactly when you place that change, this passage could have several meanings. For example, if that transfer has not yet taken place, then the reference is limited to the disciples running off at this precise moment (as the simplest reading gives, which is no less accurate for being simple), or to Israel being the nation that God raises up against…. Well, against Israel. Israel strikes her own Shepherd, and let the scattering begin. But if the transfer has already taken place, then the Shepherd is struck and the New Israel scatters and then returns after the resurrection. Or, from a bird’s eye view historically, we simply see the death, burial and resurrection of Christ leading into the sheep scattering to all nations and making new sheep in all nations, but I generally like to avoid fitting verses into my theology with a sledgehammer, so I’ll stick with the first and second views both being accurate, and the third view being true, but not defensible from this passage alone.
A very interesting point that merits further study would be looking at Israel as the shepherd of the New Israel, though there are obvious and massive limitations to this application, the first and foremost being that of the shepherd trying to kill the sheep for a century or two. But I think that there is still merit to be found in it.
4. Within the overall story line, this falls very near the end. The shepherd being struck is the first of two tremendous crescendos, the second of which lasts from the resurrection to the ascension and adds a twist that was unforeseeable to those within that chapter of the story.
II.1. The allusion is to Jeremiah 18:1-4 19:1-3 but more distinctly to Zechariah 11:12,13. Despite the fact that the text does quote Jeremiah as the source, I will be primarily using Zechariah, as I believe that his reference is the one that is intended, though the similarity between the two texts is great enough that the difference will end up being, in many respects, negligible.
Also, I believe that Zechariah may well have been familiar with Jeremiah’s account of buying the field (Jer. 18-19), and I think that he would have linked his prophecy with that of Jeremiah in his own mind, especially by the language of the siege. There are not all that many places that condemn people to cannibalism, so if Zechariah was at all familiar with Scripture, I think it very probable that he would have had Jeremiah in mind.
2. The original context was Zechariah playing the part of a shepherd and receiving his payment. The chapter is quite complex (he both feeds and is paid by “the poor of the flock”) and seems that it would lend itself to various interpretations, but I believe this to be the most straightforward of them.
Zechariah begins tending to a flock of sheep, and then declares that he will cease to feed them: “ I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.” Obviously sheep do not eat each other, so the analogy is very apparent, and appears to refer to one siege or another, but a particularly violent one in which a city is reduced to cannibalism.
He then breaks covenant (Beauty), and states that “it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it [was] the word of the LORD.” There appears to have been an event that vindicated him in his prophetic utterance, but what it was is not made clear. He then requests that if his employers see fit, that they pay him, but if they do not, don’t. They pay him thirty pieces of silver that he in turn “casts to the potter.”
He then declares that the brotherhood between Israel and Judah is broken, and the Lord declares that “I will raise up a shepherd in the land, [which] shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces.” After this declaration, God condemns the “idol shepherd that leaveth the flock,” stating that the sword will be upon his arm an his right eye, that his arm shall be dried up (withered) and his eye utterly darkened (so he will lose his strength and sight).
3. This context is really quite horrifying, and its horror is only accented by its accuracy. It is quoted just before Matthew’s account of the trial of Christ, which culminates in the sickening “His blood be on us and our children.” As Christ is being led away to Pontius Pilate, Matthew finishes the story of Judas returning the money to the faithless shepherd (chief priests) that had condemned the flock. The apathy of each account reflects the other: Zechariah’s “that that dieth, let it die” chillingly echoed by the priests’ “What is that to us? See thou to that.” Then the faithless shepherds buy the potter’s field (to bury strangers in), completely oblivious in their calm and reasoned folly (more Hellenistic than anything they fought against) to the connections between themselves and Zechariah’s shepherd, and missing out entirely on the dual accounts of Zechariah and Jeremiah acting as two witnesses that testify against them to their death.
Each account is fulfilled, and the siege followed soon after. The father’s words “on us and our children” condemned their sons to eat each other as the dying ox of the Old Covenant strained to pull the weight of the cart it was never meant to pull—the shade trying to pull the flesh; man straining to accomplish what the God-Man had just completed.
4. In the overall story, it is the middle: the end of the beginning and the beginning of the end. In Matthew, it is again toward the end: it is the reason for the judgment that falls on Israel in the next generation. The final betrayal of Christ effectively ends the story of Israel: they are no longer those that prevail with God, but those that have nailed God to a tree. They are Israel in nothing but name, and in their desperation to grasp their birthright, they lose it irrevocably.
The account of the chief priests is probably the clearest sign of where exactly Israel was on their path to utter depravity. The priests, having just managed to set in motion the death of God, debate what to do with their unexpected refund. It was, after all, the price of blood, they say, so it isn’t lawful to be used on the temple. This while the One that sat on the mercy seat is being led out to hang on a tree overlooking their temple, their golden god. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. How much longer could such a people be allowed to endure? For Matthew, who makes this story so understated and horrifying, this seems to be one of the final blows against Israel, as the vast majority of the rest of the story is told from the perspective of the Romans or the disciples; the Jews never enter it in any significant way again. They have obviated themselves, and Matthew moves on to tell us the remainder of Christ’s life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension, as well as to pass on the final instructions that He left us with.
III. 1. These are both taken from Psalm 22, though recited in reverse order.
2-3. In the original context, they are quotations from a Psalm of absolute despair, of the kind that would get someone institutionalized today. It is full of pleas and complaints, of asking where God is, and why He isn’t saving His servant. It is, oddly enough, one of the Psalms in which David doesn’t proclaim his innocence, though he does call upon the earth to praise the Lord, as well as promising to do so himself.
The imagery was, for David, symbolic: his bones were not literally out of joint, nor his hands pierced, though he felt as if they were, and with great cause. We don’t know who played the part of the bulls of bashan or the dogs in the case of David, but with Christ, it was the Jews and Romans. This would be particularly detestable for the Jews, as the dogs are unclean, as are the lions, and, according to most myths, unicorns would be as well.
However, the particularly astonishing part is the fact that this Psalm was actually quoted: “He trusted in God, let God save him, if He will have him.” It seems that this would have been quoted by the Jews (as the Romans didn’t much care for “God” in the singular), and as the quote is verbatim. It still is odd—it would be like someone volunteering to play the part of the Japanese for the “Battle” of Nagasaki: how is that going to turn out okay? Why would a Jew be quoting from the part of a villain in the Psalms? Of course, the quotes are probably not as clean-cut as when Matthew delivers them to us, and I’m sure that we do the same thing on a fairly regular basis.
For Matthew, these verses serve to further vindicate Christ and condemn the Jews. He places Christ in the middle of a Psalm that was written about Him, and all the Jews would have noticed this placement. As they viewed Christ to be a blasphemer, this would be particularly unforgivable to them, as well as being typecast as dogs. The problem to them would be how accurate it had been: crucifixion being described so perfectly by one who had never seen it, as well as the quotations, the casting of lots for the clothing, the gall to drink and, of course, the resurrection on the third day, which is a particularly aggravating detail.
Matthew seems particularly conscious of the need to vindicate Christ in these chapters: he is the only one of the gospel writers that mentions all of the miracles that accompanied the death of Christ, as well as the conversion of the centurion. It could be that, as Matthew was the first to write his gospel, and was writing to Jews, that he was more conscious of the stigma associated with the death of a blasphemer, and went out of his way to show that Christ was vindicated by the miracles and signs. This would explain why he extends the verse “And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared to many.” I have already demonstrated a few instances of Matthew’s being concerned with the number of witnesses, and he here seems to be doing the same. John, I believe, takes something from this in his first epistle: “That which our eyes have seen and our hands handled…”
Beyond this, Matthew would of course be still somewhat amazed, and his recitation of events bears similarity to the type of narrative that a person will give when in shock. We all too often have difficulty speaking to someone that doesn’t believe in miracles, and this after two thousand years of testimony to back us up; how much more he, when he was writing of events that were this staggering, this earth-shaking, and no one else had written of them?
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Finals
I have two presentations and one paper to write this week, and then next week is finals. For History, I need to know all of Thucydides as well as the tours of Alexander the Great and all of the dates and stuff. For theology, I need to be able to outline and summarize (orally and in prose) every book of the Old Testament, as well as all of our lectures and I have to be painfully detailed on the magnificent book of Song of Solomon. For Latin, I need to memorize all five declensions, all verb forms and everything from ablativus temporis et accusativus cum infinitivus to adjectival forms and whether it is masculinum, femininum or neutrum, as well as the Pater Noster et Credo. For Music, I need to know all lecture and reading material, and be able to sing all solfege patterns (major and minor 2nds, 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, 6ths, 7ths and octaves, ascending and descending. When I am given any note and told to make it Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti or Do, then told to sing a Re Fa La off of the Sol, etc, as well as reading music cold), a couple of Psalms that Dr. Erb (who is magnificent) put to music, and the songs from last term.
Then, on Friday morning I drive home for two weeks before heading to Spokane to do sales for the last part of my break. There are four books due the first week of classes, so the break will be rather full, but I hope to get to relax somewhat before next term.
I cannot wait to be home.
Then, on Friday morning I drive home for two weeks before heading to Spokane to do sales for the last part of my break. There are four books due the first week of classes, so the break will be rather full, but I hope to get to relax somewhat before next term.
I cannot wait to be home.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Declamation: Letter to Grandma
Dear Grandma, how’s the weather down there in California? I hope it’s better than it is up here, because it’s really cold and rainy. I guess for you guys cold and rainy means sixty degrees and partly cloudy. But we actually have to wear coats now. Dad really hates the cold. He says he gets really cold because he has bad circulation. He says he has bad circulation because his pipes are clogged. I’m not sure he knows exactly what that means, but it sounds pretty unhealthy. He wants to come down and spend the winters with you guys but he says that’ll only happen when his ship comes in. He also says he thinks his ship sunk. But he still keeps his eyes peeled.
School’s good. I really like my teachers and my classes and my teachers and my classmates and my teachers. Right now I’m taking a history class and a Bible class, and a music class, and a sort of kinda of speech class, and a kind of like a Spanish class but a little different. My grades are fine…I think…well, I actually don’t really know. You know how back in elementary it was fun to joke about getting a Z or a Z minus. Well, my school actually does that here, but only down to M. At the end of the week the whole student body and faculty gets together and we pray and then sing and then everybody takes naps. Usually one or two people come up and tell I guess you’d call them bedtime stories so everybody can go to sleep easier. Once, I had slept through my early morning class that day so I wasn’t very tired and the story was kinda interesting so I stayed awake the whole time. Life’s pretty good though, I was able to buy a new pencil and some paper. Christmas is coming up though so that’ll help. By the time my birthday rolls around I’ll probably be broke again. Oh how quickly that day will be here, that oh so ominous
February 28th . Big day, mkay, gotta run to class. Love, Ben.
School’s good. I really like my teachers and my classes and my teachers and my classmates and my teachers. Right now I’m taking a history class and a Bible class, and a music class, and a sort of kinda of speech class, and a kind of like a Spanish class but a little different. My grades are fine…I think…well, I actually don’t really know. You know how back in elementary it was fun to joke about getting a Z or a Z minus. Well, my school actually does that here, but only down to M. At the end of the week the whole student body and faculty gets together and we pray and then sing and then everybody takes naps. Usually one or two people come up and tell I guess you’d call them bedtime stories so everybody can go to sleep easier. Once, I had slept through my early morning class that day so I wasn’t very tired and the story was kinda interesting so I stayed awake the whole time. Life’s pretty good though, I was able to buy a new pencil and some paper. Christmas is coming up though so that’ll help. By the time my birthday rolls around I’ll probably be broke again. Oh how quickly that day will be here, that oh so ominous
February 28th . Big day, mkay, gotta run to class. Love, Ben.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
History Paper
Rough draft number one.
Philip of Macedon
And His Army: Heir to the World
J. A. Broussard
Nicea Term History Paper, 2200 Words
Alexander began his inexorable campaign in 333 B.C. Ten years later, he died of a high fever on June 11, 323 B.C, in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon. In these ten years, he overran Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, Gaza, Egypt, Bactria and Mesopotamia, remaining (we presume) undefeated in battle: we know of not even a single loss. He was 32 years old when he died, and his empire became the foundation for the Roman Empire, the largest and longest standing empire that has yet been on the earth. And he began all of this the when he was as old as an average college graduate today.
How is this even possible? The nations that he fought were not weak: many of his battles were fought tooth and nail, and he himself was seriously wounded on several occasions. His army was by no means the largest; his very first battles in foreign territory are battles in which he was severely outnumbered, despite drawing on the resources of the League of Corinth (essentially all of Greece, notably excluding the Spartans ). Yet he never lost a single battle. There is no denying that Alexander was one of the greatest military minds that ever existed, but still: to not once be overmatched to the point of defeat?
The key to Alexander’s success, outside of his own unmatched military genius, lies in the changes that his father, Philip II of Macedon began. The greatest changes were the emphasis upon training, speed, reliance upon non-hoplite troops, and devastatingly, the introduction of the sarissa (see illustration).
To emphasize these changes, you have to see the contrast between the Pre-Philip Macedonian army and the Post-Philip Macedonian army. Before Philip, the primary, almost exclusive force of the Greek world was the Hoplite (see illustration): well protected by a shield of one meter in diameter (just over three feet) called an aspis (which was primarily for the protection of the right side of the man to their left), a helmet, breastplate, and shin greaves. They were armed with a dora (a spear of between seven and nine feet in length), which had a leaf shaped blade on one end and a weighted point on the other (most likely used for planting into the ground or killing wounded enemies as the hoplites advanced over them) as well as a short sword with a concave curve (which greatly increased its efficacy for severing spear shafts and limbs alike). All told, the hoplite’s weapons and armor would combine to a hefty sixty plus pounds, not including the supplies.
The hoplites were a slow moving unit, the first three rows of which could engage an enemy, but there is great debate on how exactly a battle would be fought. Probably the leading opinion is that the strength of hoplites was in shock combat. The two phalanxes would smash into each other to break or encircle the enemy force's line. Failing that, a battle degenerated into a pushing match, with the men in the rear trying to force their front lines through those of the enemy (the othismos), battles rarely lasting more than an hour with very few casualties. Once one of the lines broke, the troops would generally flee from the field, sometimes chased by peltasts or light cavalry.
More probably, there seems to have been a greater element of individual warfare among the front ranks before the supporting ranks (usually seven supporting ranks in the typical eight-rank deep formation) would end up lending much weight to the combat, each side supported by the peltasts the entire time, with each battle lasting on average from two to four hours. Otherwise, with the “othismos” pushing match, the greater force would inevitably win, which history vehemently refutes.
Then, Philip of Macedon decided to take over Greece, and, to increase the strength of his army, he developed the phalanx, with its famous sarissa.Thesarissa wasa spear reaching a length of up to eighteen to twenty-four feet, depending upon the account. In any case, it was a great deal longer than the seven to nine foot dora, and allowed the first five rows of spears to be in contact with the enemies front line before the enemy was within four feet of reaching you, causing a five-one ratio of weapons to targets on one side, and a zero-one on the other. These spears were held with both hands, so a much smaller shield strapped to the left arm (to free their left hand to support the spear) replaced the usual “aspis.” Philip also removed the heavy breastplates to increase mobility and speed. The increased vulnerability to projectiles was somewhat compensated for by the spears of the lines behind the fifth rank deep, who would hold their spears above the first five rows, creating a literal shield of spear heads that, from all accounts, was surprisingly effective. The twenty-foot tall spears of the back rows served also to hide any ongoing activity behind the phalanx (see illustration two).
The flanks of this force would generally be supported by cavalry to prevent any attack upon the unprotected sides, and the most experienced soldiers as well as generals would as a rule take the far right file, which was least protected by the shield upon their left arm. Some accounts hold that the first several ranks wore armor, but, while this seems easily plausible, there appears to be no decisive evidence one way or the other. We do not, of course, know exactly how the sarissa was used, but it seems quite probable that they were not simply held extended as the phalanx marched upon an enemy, but that they were constantly jabbing and slashing, a wall of incessantly moving blades inexorably advancing. Hence, at the battle of Pydna, Roman shields and breastplates were transfixed, and the commander later recalled exactly how terrifying the spectacle of an advancing phalanx was.
The amount of cavalry used was itself somewhat of an innovation, though how they were armed is uncertain (we know that they carried a spear of some type and a short, heavy sword). The appellation “sarissa-bearing” is applied to them, but the sarissa is a very unsuitable weapon for a mounted person, as it needs two hands to be used effectively. It could be that they used it by bracing it against the horse (possibly lain across the neck), but this seems likely to unseat them if they strike with any impact, as stirrups were unknown. Another possibility was that they bore the sarissa in case they needed to be of use when dismounted. More probably, they carried a somewhat shorter sarissa (still longer than the seven or nine foot dora of the other hoplites, and far longer than the swords used by some other nations) for running down fleeing soldiers and breaking through shield walls (again, they also had a stout, heavy sword). They were divided into units called ilai, and became the main striking arm of the Macedonian army. The leading Macedonians primarily supplied the cavalry, and one squadron in particular was used to fight beside Alexander in Asia, reputedly saving his life at one point.
Prior to Philip, cavalry were primarily used to protect the flanks and chase fleeing troops, as they were far less stable than the heavily armed, tank-like hoplite force, however, Philip began using them more and more in the battle itself, both to protect the flanks of the phalanx and to charge the enemy in formation at the precise moment when the line was stretched too thinly or the flank exposed. Alexander perfected this tactic to a devastating extreme, and his cavalry became the most powerful portion of his army, partly due to the great levels of training that were imposed upon them, and partly due to the fact that the horses were most likely developed from Persian stock that was superior to the usual Greek stock. He also preferred to use the Persian “V” shaped formation as opposed to the rectangular Greek formation, which may or may not have made a large difference, but was used to deeply penetrate the front line, which led to the phalanx simply decimating the shield wall that was now presenting its flank to them.
Along with the cavalry, Philip began relying more and more on the “lightly armed” peltasts (some accounts say that he actually used them in the phalanx, behind the shields of the hoplites). The peltasts were lightly armed and not armored. They would have one shield, a short sword, and would generally carry several smaller javelins, which may have been equipped with a sling-like cord to increase their throwing power. They were used to cause confusion and general mayhem. Philip used them to a very great effect upon the other Greeks, who generally held them in an attitude of disdain. In fact, the Spartans would only use their slaves as peltasts, holding it to be an unfit position for a free-born Spartan. Thucydides records of peltasts in the battle of Anapus that “they put each other to flight as you would expect with lightarmed.” Philip had no such qualms. Due to the fact that his phalanx had such an increased range, any disarray in the enemies shield wall would rapidly be exploited to the utter decimation of the impotent hoplites, which were unable to retaliate against either the rapid peltasts or the out-of-reach phalanx.
Also, the level of professionalism within Philip’s army was far superior to that of most of the other Greek city-states, excepting, of course, Sparta. Spartan slaves, “helots,” supported the Spartans so that the free-born Spartan men could practice arms full-time (which was quite necessary, as the helots outnumbered them ten to one, and frequently revolted). Most hoplites were amateurs, which is one of the reasons that the Spartans were as feared as they were: warfare was mandatory up until the age of sixty. Philip saw this, exempted his military from all other vocations at the expense of the state, and began their training full-time, constantly parading them and giving them forced marches and exercises. He saw from this that their speed and mobility was hampered by the amount of equipment that needed to be carried by other, non-military units. So, he removed some of their equipment and compensated (perhaps more than compensated) by having each man carry his own rations: thirty days of rations. As a result of this, they had a vast advantage over all of their enemies in speed and mobility; they became professionals among amateurs.
The greater number of cavalry and lightly armed forces, the smaller shields and the loss of the breastplate for the phalanx (along with each person being required to carry thirty days of rations on his person) removed the need for a baggage train. This, combined with the constant training, drilling and forced marches increased the speed and mobility of the phalanx (along with the rest of the army) to unheard of rates: this was the army that Philip used to conquer nearly all of Greece, and this was the army that Alexander inherited from Philip. It was trained to beat all other Greek armies, who had already demonstrated their superiority to the Persian army, which had conquered all of the cultures surrounding it. It was, therefore, the greatest known army on the earth.
It is in the foreign campaigns of Alexander that the changes to the military become most apparently decisive. His lightning advances in Asia became the stuff of legends. In the battle of the river Granicus, it was his phalanx force that simply annihilated the Greek hoplites and Persian cavalry combined. In the battles of Issus, Pamphylia and Gordium, his cavalry was the deciding force. And in the entirety of his campaign, for ten years, it was his ability to throw his opponent’s forces into chaos while maintaining the order and formation of his own that decided battle after battle, a feat accomplished by vastly superior experience and the application of the ever Dionysian peltasts and cavalry that liberally sowed unbounded chaos.
Without his father’s innovations, Alexander would still have been great. But he would never have been able to do what he did: Philip is the one that united most of Greece into an empire that Alexander drew from; Philip is the one that created an army so fast that when Alexander appeared, armies would surrender on the spot, not having expected him for another week. Philip is the one that created the nearly indestructible phalanx (which has almost never been beaten in a head-on conflict) that Alexander swept Persia with; Philip is the one that introduced cavalry and peltasts that became so essential to Alexander’s army. Were it not for Philip II of Macedon, the great Alexander could not have made deistic claims, would not have inspired a Caesar to become a grave-robber; the great Alexandria would not have been, nor Bucephalus, the city he named after his horse. Were it not for Philip II of Macedon, Greek culture would not have swept the world and enticed, even infected Rome. Were it not for Philip II of Macedon, we would have a different world.
Philip of Macedon
And His Army: Heir to the World
J. A. Broussard
Nicea Term History Paper, 2200 Words
Alexander began his inexorable campaign in 333 B.C. Ten years later, he died of a high fever on June 11, 323 B.C, in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon. In these ten years, he overran Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, Gaza, Egypt, Bactria and Mesopotamia, remaining (we presume) undefeated in battle: we know of not even a single loss. He was 32 years old when he died, and his empire became the foundation for the Roman Empire, the largest and longest standing empire that has yet been on the earth. And he began all of this the when he was as old as an average college graduate today.
How is this even possible? The nations that he fought were not weak: many of his battles were fought tooth and nail, and he himself was seriously wounded on several occasions. His army was by no means the largest; his very first battles in foreign territory are battles in which he was severely outnumbered, despite drawing on the resources of the League of Corinth (essentially all of Greece, notably excluding the Spartans ). Yet he never lost a single battle. There is no denying that Alexander was one of the greatest military minds that ever existed, but still: to not once be overmatched to the point of defeat?
The key to Alexander’s success, outside of his own unmatched military genius, lies in the changes that his father, Philip II of Macedon began. The greatest changes were the emphasis upon training, speed, reliance upon non-hoplite troops, and devastatingly, the introduction of the sarissa (see illustration).
To emphasize these changes, you have to see the contrast between the Pre-Philip Macedonian army and the Post-Philip Macedonian army. Before Philip, the primary, almost exclusive force of the Greek world was the Hoplite (see illustration): well protected by a shield of one meter in diameter (just over three feet) called an aspis (which was primarily for the protection of the right side of the man to their left), a helmet, breastplate, and shin greaves. They were armed with a dora (a spear of between seven and nine feet in length), which had a leaf shaped blade on one end and a weighted point on the other (most likely used for planting into the ground or killing wounded enemies as the hoplites advanced over them) as well as a short sword with a concave curve (which greatly increased its efficacy for severing spear shafts and limbs alike). All told, the hoplite’s weapons and armor would combine to a hefty sixty plus pounds, not including the supplies.
The hoplites were a slow moving unit, the first three rows of which could engage an enemy, but there is great debate on how exactly a battle would be fought. Probably the leading opinion is that the strength of hoplites was in shock combat. The two phalanxes would smash into each other to break or encircle the enemy force's line. Failing that, a battle degenerated into a pushing match, with the men in the rear trying to force their front lines through those of the enemy (the othismos), battles rarely lasting more than an hour with very few casualties. Once one of the lines broke, the troops would generally flee from the field, sometimes chased by peltasts or light cavalry.
More probably, there seems to have been a greater element of individual warfare among the front ranks before the supporting ranks (usually seven supporting ranks in the typical eight-rank deep formation) would end up lending much weight to the combat, each side supported by the peltasts the entire time, with each battle lasting on average from two to four hours. Otherwise, with the “othismos” pushing match, the greater force would inevitably win, which history vehemently refutes.
Then, Philip of Macedon decided to take over Greece, and, to increase the strength of his army, he developed the phalanx, with its famous sarissa.Thesarissa wasa spear reaching a length of up to eighteen to twenty-four feet, depending upon the account. In any case, it was a great deal longer than the seven to nine foot dora, and allowed the first five rows of spears to be in contact with the enemies front line before the enemy was within four feet of reaching you, causing a five-one ratio of weapons to targets on one side, and a zero-one on the other. These spears were held with both hands, so a much smaller shield strapped to the left arm (to free their left hand to support the spear) replaced the usual “aspis.” Philip also removed the heavy breastplates to increase mobility and speed. The increased vulnerability to projectiles was somewhat compensated for by the spears of the lines behind the fifth rank deep, who would hold their spears above the first five rows, creating a literal shield of spear heads that, from all accounts, was surprisingly effective. The twenty-foot tall spears of the back rows served also to hide any ongoing activity behind the phalanx (see illustration two).
The flanks of this force would generally be supported by cavalry to prevent any attack upon the unprotected sides, and the most experienced soldiers as well as generals would as a rule take the far right file, which was least protected by the shield upon their left arm. Some accounts hold that the first several ranks wore armor, but, while this seems easily plausible, there appears to be no decisive evidence one way or the other. We do not, of course, know exactly how the sarissa was used, but it seems quite probable that they were not simply held extended as the phalanx marched upon an enemy, but that they were constantly jabbing and slashing, a wall of incessantly moving blades inexorably advancing. Hence, at the battle of Pydna, Roman shields and breastplates were transfixed, and the commander later recalled exactly how terrifying the spectacle of an advancing phalanx was.
The amount of cavalry used was itself somewhat of an innovation, though how they were armed is uncertain (we know that they carried a spear of some type and a short, heavy sword). The appellation “sarissa-bearing” is applied to them, but the sarissa is a very unsuitable weapon for a mounted person, as it needs two hands to be used effectively. It could be that they used it by bracing it against the horse (possibly lain across the neck), but this seems likely to unseat them if they strike with any impact, as stirrups were unknown. Another possibility was that they bore the sarissa in case they needed to be of use when dismounted. More probably, they carried a somewhat shorter sarissa (still longer than the seven or nine foot dora of the other hoplites, and far longer than the swords used by some other nations) for running down fleeing soldiers and breaking through shield walls (again, they also had a stout, heavy sword). They were divided into units called ilai, and became the main striking arm of the Macedonian army. The leading Macedonians primarily supplied the cavalry, and one squadron in particular was used to fight beside Alexander in Asia, reputedly saving his life at one point.
Prior to Philip, cavalry were primarily used to protect the flanks and chase fleeing troops, as they were far less stable than the heavily armed, tank-like hoplite force, however, Philip began using them more and more in the battle itself, both to protect the flanks of the phalanx and to charge the enemy in formation at the precise moment when the line was stretched too thinly or the flank exposed. Alexander perfected this tactic to a devastating extreme, and his cavalry became the most powerful portion of his army, partly due to the great levels of training that were imposed upon them, and partly due to the fact that the horses were most likely developed from Persian stock that was superior to the usual Greek stock. He also preferred to use the Persian “V” shaped formation as opposed to the rectangular Greek formation, which may or may not have made a large difference, but was used to deeply penetrate the front line, which led to the phalanx simply decimating the shield wall that was now presenting its flank to them.
Along with the cavalry, Philip began relying more and more on the “lightly armed” peltasts (some accounts say that he actually used them in the phalanx, behind the shields of the hoplites). The peltasts were lightly armed and not armored. They would have one shield, a short sword, and would generally carry several smaller javelins, which may have been equipped with a sling-like cord to increase their throwing power. They were used to cause confusion and general mayhem. Philip used them to a very great effect upon the other Greeks, who generally held them in an attitude of disdain. In fact, the Spartans would only use their slaves as peltasts, holding it to be an unfit position for a free-born Spartan. Thucydides records of peltasts in the battle of Anapus that “they put each other to flight as you would expect with lightarmed.” Philip had no such qualms. Due to the fact that his phalanx had such an increased range, any disarray in the enemies shield wall would rapidly be exploited to the utter decimation of the impotent hoplites, which were unable to retaliate against either the rapid peltasts or the out-of-reach phalanx.
Also, the level of professionalism within Philip’s army was far superior to that of most of the other Greek city-states, excepting, of course, Sparta. Spartan slaves, “helots,” supported the Spartans so that the free-born Spartan men could practice arms full-time (which was quite necessary, as the helots outnumbered them ten to one, and frequently revolted). Most hoplites were amateurs, which is one of the reasons that the Spartans were as feared as they were: warfare was mandatory up until the age of sixty. Philip saw this, exempted his military from all other vocations at the expense of the state, and began their training full-time, constantly parading them and giving them forced marches and exercises. He saw from this that their speed and mobility was hampered by the amount of equipment that needed to be carried by other, non-military units. So, he removed some of their equipment and compensated (perhaps more than compensated) by having each man carry his own rations: thirty days of rations. As a result of this, they had a vast advantage over all of their enemies in speed and mobility; they became professionals among amateurs.
The greater number of cavalry and lightly armed forces, the smaller shields and the loss of the breastplate for the phalanx (along with each person being required to carry thirty days of rations on his person) removed the need for a baggage train. This, combined with the constant training, drilling and forced marches increased the speed and mobility of the phalanx (along with the rest of the army) to unheard of rates: this was the army that Philip used to conquer nearly all of Greece, and this was the army that Alexander inherited from Philip. It was trained to beat all other Greek armies, who had already demonstrated their superiority to the Persian army, which had conquered all of the cultures surrounding it. It was, therefore, the greatest known army on the earth.
It is in the foreign campaigns of Alexander that the changes to the military become most apparently decisive. His lightning advances in Asia became the stuff of legends. In the battle of the river Granicus, it was his phalanx force that simply annihilated the Greek hoplites and Persian cavalry combined. In the battles of Issus, Pamphylia and Gordium, his cavalry was the deciding force. And in the entirety of his campaign, for ten years, it was his ability to throw his opponent’s forces into chaos while maintaining the order and formation of his own that decided battle after battle, a feat accomplished by vastly superior experience and the application of the ever Dionysian peltasts and cavalry that liberally sowed unbounded chaos.
Without his father’s innovations, Alexander would still have been great. But he would never have been able to do what he did: Philip is the one that united most of Greece into an empire that Alexander drew from; Philip is the one that created an army so fast that when Alexander appeared, armies would surrender on the spot, not having expected him for another week. Philip is the one that created the nearly indestructible phalanx (which has almost never been beaten in a head-on conflict) that Alexander swept Persia with; Philip is the one that introduced cavalry and peltasts that became so essential to Alexander’s army. Were it not for Philip II of Macedon, the great Alexander could not have made deistic claims, would not have inspired a Caesar to become a grave-robber; the great Alexandria would not have been, nor Bucephalus, the city he named after his horse. Were it not for Philip II of Macedon, Greek culture would not have swept the world and enticed, even infected Rome. Were it not for Philip II of Macedon, we would have a different world.
Bavink on Depravity
From Leithart:
Bavinck makes the interesting, Augustinian, and important point that sin can never become our essence because it is not a substance: “it does indeed inhabit and infect all of us, but it is not and cannot be the essence of our humanity. Also, after the fall, we human beings remain humans. We have retained our reason, conscience, and will, can therefore control our lower sensual drives and inclinations, and thus force them in the direction of virtue.”
Talking of “sinful nature” is thus ambiguous. Sinners have depraved, rebellious, infected, dead, but still human nature.
Bavinck makes the interesting, Augustinian, and important point that sin can never become our essence because it is not a substance: “it does indeed inhabit and infect all of us, but it is not and cannot be the essence of our humanity. Also, after the fall, we human beings remain humans. We have retained our reason, conscience, and will, can therefore control our lower sensual drives and inclinations, and thus force them in the direction of virtue.”
Talking of “sinful nature” is thus ambiguous. Sinners have depraved, rebellious, infected, dead, but still human nature.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Trovato: Aquinas on Zombies
Whether there are such thing as zombies?
Objection 1: That’s weird and dumb.
Objection 2: You’re an idiot.
Objection 3: To assert that zombies are nomologically possible would be to assert that in some world that shares all of its laws with the actual world there is a being identical to some actual or genuinely possible human being who is utterly lacking in consciousness. Of course, the existence of a real zombie would entail that zombies are nomologically as well as logically possible, but the reverse entailments do not hold. The idea of qualia and related phenomenal notions of the mind are not coherent concepts, and the zombie scenario is therefore incoherent.
On the contrary: The Bible.
2 Kings 19:35: And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they [were] all dead corpses.
I answer that: Um…well, nomologically speaking the related phenomenal notions inherent in the generic state of consciousness in the human mind and to certain qualia related platitudes…um, the Bible?
Reply to objections 1 & 2: Don’t you feel stupid now?
Reply to objection 3: Psh. Science. They don’t even know.
Objection 1: That’s weird and dumb.
Objection 2: You’re an idiot.
Objection 3: To assert that zombies are nomologically possible would be to assert that in some world that shares all of its laws with the actual world there is a being identical to some actual or genuinely possible human being who is utterly lacking in consciousness. Of course, the existence of a real zombie would entail that zombies are nomologically as well as logically possible, but the reverse entailments do not hold. The idea of qualia and related phenomenal notions of the mind are not coherent concepts, and the zombie scenario is therefore incoherent.
On the contrary: The Bible.
2 Kings 19:35: And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they [were] all dead corpses.
I answer that: Um…well, nomologically speaking the related phenomenal notions inherent in the generic state of consciousness in the human mind and to certain qualia related platitudes…um, the Bible?
Reply to objections 1 & 2: Don’t you feel stupid now?
Reply to objection 3: Psh. Science. They don’t even know.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Declamation: Aquinas on Beards
The assignment was to write in a structure imitative of Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae, so here is mine; others are forthcoming.
Blessings.
J. Broussard
Declamation:
Aquinas Summa imitation (in form)
10/22/08
1. Whether it can be demonstrated that facial hair is good?
Objection 1. It seems that the benefit of facial hair cannot be demonstrated, as it would be a matter of preference—a benefit to some, but a detriment to others.
Objection 2. Further, facial hair is not available to all manner of men, so if it is beneficial, it is a benefit that slanders the justice of God: that He would give it to some and not to others.
On the contrary: It is written that God made all things that are, and that He declared everything that He had made to be “all very good.”
I answer that: Demonstration can be made in two ways: through the state of man at creation, and through the state of man following the resurrection. Hence the benefit of facial hair, which cannot be easily ascertained from our current fallen state, can be made plain through the eternal counsel of God.
Reply to Objection 1: The Gospel clearly states that the beard of Christ was plucked out, and that this was done to shame Him. How is it then merely a matter of preference for us to daily imitate the vile heathen that crucified our Lord by severing with dull razors the beard from the Imago Dei in us (be you a man with one blade or a coward with five)? This is indeed our shame.
Reply to Objection 2: It is true that all men cannot grow facial hair; indeed, it is also true that most women cannot either. But this does not appear to have always been the case, for it is written in Leviticus, the thirteenth chapter and the twenty ninth verse, that “if a man or woman have a plague upon the head or the beard…”
Now it may be easily assumed, that if women used to be able to grow beards, so too could all manner of men, and if we are asked why this is not the case today, we may easily respond, “why do men not live past their hundredth year today?” God has changed things for His own pleasure, and it is our delight that some men, and (indeed, our great delight) that most women cannot grow beards, and this does not impute partiality to God.
However, we may all look forward to the day when there shall be neither slave nor free, male nor female, Jew nor Greek, American nor Dutch, bearded nor side-burned.
Blessings.
J. Broussard
Declamation:
Aquinas Summa imitation (in form)
10/22/08
1. Whether it can be demonstrated that facial hair is good?
Objection 1. It seems that the benefit of facial hair cannot be demonstrated, as it would be a matter of preference—a benefit to some, but a detriment to others.
Objection 2. Further, facial hair is not available to all manner of men, so if it is beneficial, it is a benefit that slanders the justice of God: that He would give it to some and not to others.
On the contrary: It is written that God made all things that are, and that He declared everything that He had made to be “all very good.”
I answer that: Demonstration can be made in two ways: through the state of man at creation, and through the state of man following the resurrection. Hence the benefit of facial hair, which cannot be easily ascertained from our current fallen state, can be made plain through the eternal counsel of God.
Reply to Objection 1: The Gospel clearly states that the beard of Christ was plucked out, and that this was done to shame Him. How is it then merely a matter of preference for us to daily imitate the vile heathen that crucified our Lord by severing with dull razors the beard from the Imago Dei in us (be you a man with one blade or a coward with five)? This is indeed our shame.
Reply to Objection 2: It is true that all men cannot grow facial hair; indeed, it is also true that most women cannot either. But this does not appear to have always been the case, for it is written in Leviticus, the thirteenth chapter and the twenty ninth verse, that “if a man or woman have a plague upon the head or the beard…”
Now it may be easily assumed, that if women used to be able to grow beards, so too could all manner of men, and if we are asked why this is not the case today, we may easily respond, “why do men not live past their hundredth year today?” God has changed things for His own pleasure, and it is our delight that some men, and (indeed, our great delight) that most women cannot grow beards, and this does not impute partiality to God.
However, we may all look forward to the day when there shall be neither slave nor free, male nor female, Jew nor Greek, American nor Dutch, bearded nor side-burned.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Commonplaces on Play vs. Work
"Play is anything you enjoy and aren't held accountable for." --Jordan (Juhr-duhn) Leithart
"Play starts when the umpire says 'Play ball' and ends when the last out is made. Everything else, like lifting weights and taking steroids, is just work." --Ben Saunders
"Dr. Stokes learned me all about letters last year. “They simply refer us,” he said, “to real world stuff.” Problem solved! What childhood activity could be more “real world” than packaging 10 dead flies into envelopes, sorted according to their kinds, and selling them to my other brothers?" --Timothy van den Broek
"Play starts when the umpire says 'Play ball' and ends when the last out is made. Everything else, like lifting weights and taking steroids, is just work." --Ben Saunders
"Dr. Stokes learned me all about letters last year. “They simply refer us,” he said, “to real world stuff.” Problem solved! What childhood activity could be more “real world” than packaging 10 dead flies into envelopes, sorted according to their kinds, and selling them to my other brothers?" --Timothy van den Broek
Thursday, September 11, 2008
History Presentation
I did my history presentation on Book III of Herodotus, and received an SCL. I'm more than just a wee bit happy.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Last and Greatest (or at least most awkward) Declamation
Oh Sweet Smell
The first week of NSA was awkward. There was a barrier within our class, and this barrier was the sexes. No one knew how to act or what to say.
The first time I met Sean, it smelled right. In my nose every nostril hair was swaying back and forth singing the Hallelujah Chorus. If Capon wrote a book on smells, Sean would be Capon’s onion, only it would take more than ten pages to unpeel all the mysteries of Sean’s smelliness. Sean smells so good, and I told him this. “Sean, you smell soooooo good.”
I do not think that this was necessarily the greatest thing to tell a guy, especially one that you just met, but I don’t regret it. Anyone so odiferous deserves a prize: a plastic cookie, a statue of a naked Greek god, coupons…anything.
Needles to say this made Sean extremely uncomfortable, which was only a small part of the joy it gave me. He stepped back, and in his eyes I could see a picture of the Antichrist. He shifted his little mouse eyes, and anxiously moved his little mouse hands in distress. Trying to help him understand, I said: “Sean, really, you are the best smelling person I know. You smell like home.” This just made things worse…
Now when I see Sean it is like the story of Abelard and Eloise. Anytime I came within a three-foot radius I say, “Abelard, I don’t want to use Herbal Essence anymore, I just want to smell like you.” And Abelard says back, “Eloise, Eloise, Eloise, live for God.”
The first week of NSA was awkward. There was a barrier within our class, and this barrier was the sexes. No one knew how to act or what to say.
The first time I met Sean, it smelled right. In my nose every nostril hair was swaying back and forth singing the Hallelujah Chorus. If Capon wrote a book on smells, Sean would be Capon’s onion, only it would take more than ten pages to unpeel all the mysteries of Sean’s smelliness. Sean smells so good, and I told him this. “Sean, you smell soooooo good.”
I do not think that this was necessarily the greatest thing to tell a guy, especially one that you just met, but I don’t regret it. Anyone so odiferous deserves a prize: a plastic cookie, a statue of a naked Greek god, coupons…anything.
Needles to say this made Sean extremely uncomfortable, which was only a small part of the joy it gave me. He stepped back, and in his eyes I could see a picture of the Antichrist. He shifted his little mouse eyes, and anxiously moved his little mouse hands in distress. Trying to help him understand, I said: “Sean, really, you are the best smelling person I know. You smell like home.” This just made things worse…
Now when I see Sean it is like the story of Abelard and Eloise. Anytime I came within a three-foot radius I say, “Abelard, I don’t want to use Herbal Essence anymore, I just want to smell like you.” And Abelard says back, “Eloise, Eloise, Eloise, live for God.”
Monday, May 5, 2008
Westminster Rhetoric Paper
In the Spirit of the Day
A Proposed Retranslation of Genesis 3:8
Jesse Broussard, Westminster Term Rhetoric, 2003 words.
Exordium: Spirit, wind and breath. In three different languages, each of these shares a single word. In Latin,anima, in Greek, pnuemos, and in Hebrew, ruah. Usually, this presents no problems; we are not often speaking Latin, Greek or Hebrew, and context will generally eliminate one or more options. But, when we come to Scripture, all of our authoritative texts are in Hebrew, Greek or Latin; the context is often less than helpful, and that is when having three possible meanings for the same word in every original copy of every authoritative text becomes a problem.
Narratio: Generally, those of us who are Orthodox Christians don’t like to mess around too much with Scripture, and that’s a good thing. There are always exceptions, such as wild exegesis—“St. John saw many strange monsters, but none so strange as one of his own commentators”—but even wild exegesis is exegetical (or isogetical, my point is that there is a longsuffering text to bleed beneath our benevolently bumbling scalpels). But what do we do when the text itself is under dispute? Should we preach off of that little section at the end of Mark? Should we try to go over it in our familial devotions? And what do we do when respected theologians are disputing different interpretations—how do we know which one to go with?
Meredith Kline’sImages of the Spirit proposes a retranslation of Genesis 3:8: “they heard the sound of Yahweh God traversing the garden as the Spirit of the day,” particularly retranslating “l’rwh hyywm” as “Spirit of the day” instead of the traditional “wind of the day,” which we changed (for the sake of clarity) to “cool of the day.” Kline states that judgment is inherent and essential to the narrative, and that the “day” (ywm) is the “day of the Lord,” the day of judgment.
Everett Fox translates this verse in his Shocken Bible in the more traditional mean: “Now they heard the sound of YHWH, God, (who was) walking about in the garden at the breezy-time of the day. And the human and his wife hid themselves from the face of YHWH, God, amid the trees of the garden.” In his footnote he clarifies: "breezy-time: Evening."
Partitio: These two translations are obviously different approaches to the text, and they offer different perspectives from which we would view the judgment of the fall of mankind. The traditional translation (Fox’s), however, does not seem to adequately capture the importance of the narrative—the comment that “it was evening” seems entirely superfluous, where reading the text in light of judgment seems to clothe the overall narrative with a far more suitable and consistent theme. Propositio: While we traditionally translate the Hebrew phrase "l'rwh hyywm” as "cool of the day," we should probably translate it as "spirit of the day."
Confirmatio: One of the reasons to translate this phrase as “spirit of the day” is that while evening is mentioned numerous times in the Old Testament, the particular phrase l’rwh hyywm is never used to indicate “evening”—in fact, through all of Scripture, that phrase is found onlyhere, in Genesis 3:8. It would seem that such an unusual phrase would bespeaka similarly unusual occurrence (such as the fall of mankind), not merely evening (which is most often denoted “le’et’ereb” ). As ruah means spirit, wind, or breath, these are our options for its translation. Since “wind of the day” leads to a very odd way of saying “evening,” and “breath of the day” makes no contextual sense whatsoever, we are left with the phrase “spirit of the day.” But what does that mean? The spirit of what day?
In his Images of the Spirit, Meredith Kline comments that the “spirit of the day” would almost undoubtedly be the spirit of the day of the Lord—the Day of Judgment. Defending this, Kline shows that the “day of the Lord” is always a day of judgment, and that judgment is the entire effect of God’s visit to man in this narrative.
To support this theory, he studied the common factors in all of the more explicit theophanies of Scripture, and narrowed them down to a foundational three: light or day, dark or obscuring, and “qol,” sound. Since all elements of the day of the Lord are present, Kline states that this Parousia “corresponds fully…to the awesome approach of the Glory met with elsewhere in Scripture, the approach with which a thunderous voice of Yahweh is regularly associated.” The qol is a great and thundering noise, and is what Adam and Eve hear traversing the garden toward them in l’rwh hyywm (spirit of the day), and it is this that causes them to hide (obscure) themselves. It is not the sound of “footsteps,” or of twigs cracking, but the sound of a great thunder, of a crushing waterfall, of earthquakes and armies and trumpets—it is the sound of approaching judgment. This day is a day of the Lord—He comes in power to judge his faithless people and those who have led them astray, and then to promise a future deliverance from these curses. He truly was coming in the Spirit of the Day—in judgment.
Because this is such a momentous event, one that bestows upon us the first Messianic prophecy, the protoevangelium, because this isthe reason for our sehnsucht, because this is the origin of all that is evil in the world, we expect the prose of the narrative to reflect that gravity and severity of judgment. But, should “ruah” mean wind, we do not find even a hint of it—the segue from Adam to God gracefully leaps from the high dive, only to encounter a dry pool floor in verse nine, where God is catching on to what has just happened, like a dad opening his daughter’s bedroom door and finding her boyfriend, “dressed” only in the loosest sense of the word. However, ifruah means “spirit,” then judgment pervades the narrative, covers it as the sky covers earth, or as skin covers muscle and bone. This seems to be the primary and crucial difference between the two viable interpretations of ruah: judgment is incidental to the “evening,” and central to the “spirit.” And which of these would we expect?
But the most definitive point, the point that converted me, is quite simple. According to the traditional translation, why is the phrase even there? What is the significance of mentioning that God was walking in the evening? It is definitely an evocative description, so if it were a peaceful scene in poetry, it would make perfect sense. But in this? In this horror and empty, desolate bereavement, this stark prose recitation of the pathetically futile, damning and abortive rebellion of mankind against severe sovereign holiness and beauty, this origin of all that is painful, evil and ugly? The sun was darkened, moon bloodied, earth undone; the stars were hurled from heaven, a seraph cursed; forgive me, butGod damned Himself: an idyllic stroll seems a touch out of place.
Refutatio:The only argument that I have yet heard that makes any sense of the jarring insertion of “evening” appeals to the poetry of the situation: a heaven on earth, where God walks in His garden with the human caretaker each eve, and then this utopia becomes literal utopia: not here, as it is laid waste by man’s sin.
But the problem with this exegesis is the same as before—why the obscure wording? Were the Author wanting us to read “evening,” why did He not simply write it? He does not hesitate to do so elsewhere. Why use a phrase so unusual that we find it nowhere else in Scripture? If it is to flag the one and only time that mankind’s innocence is utterly destroyed and the death of God Himself is, in that moment, necessitated, then I understand the use of such a singularly rare phrase. If it is to show the time of day, it’s absurd.
The single greatest argument against re-translating this passage is the weight of all of Church history. Who indeed are we to correct the mistakes of so many (and such great) men? And yes, this is a huge step—if we are retranslating a Scripture because it makes more sense to us, what is to prevent us from editing it to please ourselves? Already liberals are headed down this track with the TNIV, Episcopals can no longer play chess (is it a bishop or a queen?) and our names for God, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” are being judged by many as inferior to “Rock, Redeemer and Friend” (which will hopefully stop before it becomes “Rock, paper and scissors”). We have resisted this abominable trend to retranslate the Words of God as we see fit, and rightly so.
But for us to struggle with the translation of a verse is not anything new—the Church has defined the bounds of Orthodoxy over less: “For there are three that bear witness in heaven…and these three are one (1 John 5:7).” According to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, these three are one in their will, one in their actions. According to Christians, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are heretics, because they deny the divinity of Christ, and their translation of this verse is one of the ways in which they do so. Here, the translation of the word “one” in a highly disputed passage of Scripture divides orthodox from heterodox, possibly heaven from hell.
Nor does stating something about Scripture place us above it in any way—we are testifying to something in it, not changing it at all. John the Baptist declared Jesus to be the Lamb of God, but his declaration did not make Jesus the Lamb of God any more than my statement “it’s a hamburger” changes anything about the nature of my hamburger. Indeed, the only problem comes in when I say, “It’s a hamburger,” and it is in fact, not a hamburger. To use an absurd analogy, if I claim that it’s a hamburger when it is actually an aardvark, this will cause awkwardness for those that believe me (as well as the aardvark). If we claim that this Scripture says something that it does not say, then we are guilty of leading people astray as well as corrupting the text, which is why we should take great caution when translating Scripture. If we translate “ruah” as wind, and then have to make it “cool,” all so that it can use the most obscure way possible of saying something that is an irrelevant side note to an otherwise continuous and tremendous narrative, all while there is a perfectly cogent, meaningful, and contextual translation that could be made with no violence to the text whatsoever, then we are guilty of handling the text with great frivolity, if not plain stupidity. The sooner we correct that, the better.
Peroratio: “L’rwh hyywm” should be rendered Spirit of the day, and we should keep this in mind as this new typology further links this day in Genesis 3:8 with all other days of the Lord, including—especially including—the judgment of Christ as the second Adam. For that is the day when God darkened the sun, crushed the head of the serpent, lifted the curse from the ground, and welcomed man into His new garden-cemetery (from which man in Christ will never be expelled) to walk with the dead man, who is the living God, in the new spirit of the new day, which shall never end.
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time…
And all shall be well, and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flame are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.
Bibliography:
Kline, Meredith, Images of the Spirit (Eugene, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), 106.
Fox, Everett:Vol. I of The Schocken Bible: The Five Books of Moses (New York: Schocken Books, 1995), 22.
Free Republic, Culture and Society, “Presbyterians Consider Renaming the Trinity (“Mother, Child, Womb,” “Rock, Redeemer, Friend”), http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652271/posts, (Accessed April 18, 2008).
Peter Leithart, Leithart.com, New Testament, 1 John, http://www.leithart.com/2007/01/29/sermon-notes-fifth-sunday-after-epiphany/#more-2735, (Accessed May 1, 2008).
A Proposed Retranslation of Genesis 3:8
Jesse Broussard, Westminster Term Rhetoric, 2003 words.
Exordium: Spirit, wind and breath. In three different languages, each of these shares a single word. In Latin,anima, in Greek, pnuemos, and in Hebrew, ruah. Usually, this presents no problems; we are not often speaking Latin, Greek or Hebrew, and context will generally eliminate one or more options. But, when we come to Scripture, all of our authoritative texts are in Hebrew, Greek or Latin; the context is often less than helpful, and that is when having three possible meanings for the same word in every original copy of every authoritative text becomes a problem.
Narratio: Generally, those of us who are Orthodox Christians don’t like to mess around too much with Scripture, and that’s a good thing. There are always exceptions, such as wild exegesis—“St. John saw many strange monsters, but none so strange as one of his own commentators”—but even wild exegesis is exegetical (or isogetical, my point is that there is a longsuffering text to bleed beneath our benevolently bumbling scalpels). But what do we do when the text itself is under dispute? Should we preach off of that little section at the end of Mark? Should we try to go over it in our familial devotions? And what do we do when respected theologians are disputing different interpretations—how do we know which one to go with?
Meredith Kline’sImages of the Spirit proposes a retranslation of Genesis 3:8: “they heard the sound of Yahweh God traversing the garden as the Spirit of the day,” particularly retranslating “l’rwh hyywm” as “Spirit of the day” instead of the traditional “wind of the day,” which we changed (for the sake of clarity) to “cool of the day.” Kline states that judgment is inherent and essential to the narrative, and that the “day” (ywm) is the “day of the Lord,” the day of judgment.
Everett Fox translates this verse in his Shocken Bible in the more traditional mean: “Now they heard the sound of YHWH, God, (who was) walking about in the garden at the breezy-time of the day. And the human and his wife hid themselves from the face of YHWH, God, amid the trees of the garden.” In his footnote he clarifies: "breezy-time: Evening."
Partitio: These two translations are obviously different approaches to the text, and they offer different perspectives from which we would view the judgment of the fall of mankind. The traditional translation (Fox’s), however, does not seem to adequately capture the importance of the narrative—the comment that “it was evening” seems entirely superfluous, where reading the text in light of judgment seems to clothe the overall narrative with a far more suitable and consistent theme. Propositio: While we traditionally translate the Hebrew phrase "l'rwh hyywm” as "cool of the day," we should probably translate it as "spirit of the day."
Confirmatio: One of the reasons to translate this phrase as “spirit of the day” is that while evening is mentioned numerous times in the Old Testament, the particular phrase l’rwh hyywm is never used to indicate “evening”—in fact, through all of Scripture, that phrase is found onlyhere, in Genesis 3:8. It would seem that such an unusual phrase would bespeaka similarly unusual occurrence (such as the fall of mankind), not merely evening (which is most often denoted “le’et’ereb” ). As ruah means spirit, wind, or breath, these are our options for its translation. Since “wind of the day” leads to a very odd way of saying “evening,” and “breath of the day” makes no contextual sense whatsoever, we are left with the phrase “spirit of the day.” But what does that mean? The spirit of what day?
In his Images of the Spirit, Meredith Kline comments that the “spirit of the day” would almost undoubtedly be the spirit of the day of the Lord—the Day of Judgment. Defending this, Kline shows that the “day of the Lord” is always a day of judgment, and that judgment is the entire effect of God’s visit to man in this narrative.
To support this theory, he studied the common factors in all of the more explicit theophanies of Scripture, and narrowed them down to a foundational three: light or day, dark or obscuring, and “qol,” sound. Since all elements of the day of the Lord are present, Kline states that this Parousia “corresponds fully…to the awesome approach of the Glory met with elsewhere in Scripture, the approach with which a thunderous voice of Yahweh is regularly associated.” The qol is a great and thundering noise, and is what Adam and Eve hear traversing the garden toward them in l’rwh hyywm (spirit of the day), and it is this that causes them to hide (obscure) themselves. It is not the sound of “footsteps,” or of twigs cracking, but the sound of a great thunder, of a crushing waterfall, of earthquakes and armies and trumpets—it is the sound of approaching judgment. This day is a day of the Lord—He comes in power to judge his faithless people and those who have led them astray, and then to promise a future deliverance from these curses. He truly was coming in the Spirit of the Day—in judgment.
Because this is such a momentous event, one that bestows upon us the first Messianic prophecy, the protoevangelium, because this isthe reason for our sehnsucht, because this is the origin of all that is evil in the world, we expect the prose of the narrative to reflect that gravity and severity of judgment. But, should “ruah” mean wind, we do not find even a hint of it—the segue from Adam to God gracefully leaps from the high dive, only to encounter a dry pool floor in verse nine, where God is catching on to what has just happened, like a dad opening his daughter’s bedroom door and finding her boyfriend, “dressed” only in the loosest sense of the word. However, ifruah means “spirit,” then judgment pervades the narrative, covers it as the sky covers earth, or as skin covers muscle and bone. This seems to be the primary and crucial difference between the two viable interpretations of ruah: judgment is incidental to the “evening,” and central to the “spirit.” And which of these would we expect?
But the most definitive point, the point that converted me, is quite simple. According to the traditional translation, why is the phrase even there? What is the significance of mentioning that God was walking in the evening? It is definitely an evocative description, so if it were a peaceful scene in poetry, it would make perfect sense. But in this? In this horror and empty, desolate bereavement, this stark prose recitation of the pathetically futile, damning and abortive rebellion of mankind against severe sovereign holiness and beauty, this origin of all that is painful, evil and ugly? The sun was darkened, moon bloodied, earth undone; the stars were hurled from heaven, a seraph cursed; forgive me, butGod damned Himself: an idyllic stroll seems a touch out of place.
Refutatio:The only argument that I have yet heard that makes any sense of the jarring insertion of “evening” appeals to the poetry of the situation: a heaven on earth, where God walks in His garden with the human caretaker each eve, and then this utopia becomes literal utopia: not here, as it is laid waste by man’s sin.
But the problem with this exegesis is the same as before—why the obscure wording? Were the Author wanting us to read “evening,” why did He not simply write it? He does not hesitate to do so elsewhere. Why use a phrase so unusual that we find it nowhere else in Scripture? If it is to flag the one and only time that mankind’s innocence is utterly destroyed and the death of God Himself is, in that moment, necessitated, then I understand the use of such a singularly rare phrase. If it is to show the time of day, it’s absurd.
The single greatest argument against re-translating this passage is the weight of all of Church history. Who indeed are we to correct the mistakes of so many (and such great) men? And yes, this is a huge step—if we are retranslating a Scripture because it makes more sense to us, what is to prevent us from editing it to please ourselves? Already liberals are headed down this track with the TNIV, Episcopals can no longer play chess (is it a bishop or a queen?) and our names for God, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” are being judged by many as inferior to “Rock, Redeemer and Friend” (which will hopefully stop before it becomes “Rock, paper and scissors”). We have resisted this abominable trend to retranslate the Words of God as we see fit, and rightly so.
But for us to struggle with the translation of a verse is not anything new—the Church has defined the bounds of Orthodoxy over less: “For there are three that bear witness in heaven…and these three are one (1 John 5:7).” According to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, these three are one in their will, one in their actions. According to Christians, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are heretics, because they deny the divinity of Christ, and their translation of this verse is one of the ways in which they do so. Here, the translation of the word “one” in a highly disputed passage of Scripture divides orthodox from heterodox, possibly heaven from hell.
Nor does stating something about Scripture place us above it in any way—we are testifying to something in it, not changing it at all. John the Baptist declared Jesus to be the Lamb of God, but his declaration did not make Jesus the Lamb of God any more than my statement “it’s a hamburger” changes anything about the nature of my hamburger. Indeed, the only problem comes in when I say, “It’s a hamburger,” and it is in fact, not a hamburger. To use an absurd analogy, if I claim that it’s a hamburger when it is actually an aardvark, this will cause awkwardness for those that believe me (as well as the aardvark). If we claim that this Scripture says something that it does not say, then we are guilty of leading people astray as well as corrupting the text, which is why we should take great caution when translating Scripture. If we translate “ruah” as wind, and then have to make it “cool,” all so that it can use the most obscure way possible of saying something that is an irrelevant side note to an otherwise continuous and tremendous narrative, all while there is a perfectly cogent, meaningful, and contextual translation that could be made with no violence to the text whatsoever, then we are guilty of handling the text with great frivolity, if not plain stupidity. The sooner we correct that, the better.
Peroratio: “L’rwh hyywm” should be rendered Spirit of the day, and we should keep this in mind as this new typology further links this day in Genesis 3:8 with all other days of the Lord, including—especially including—the judgment of Christ as the second Adam. For that is the day when God darkened the sun, crushed the head of the serpent, lifted the curse from the ground, and welcomed man into His new garden-cemetery (from which man in Christ will never be expelled) to walk with the dead man, who is the living God, in the new spirit of the new day, which shall never end.
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time…
And all shall be well, and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flame are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.
Bibliography:
Kline, Meredith, Images of the Spirit (Eugene, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999), 106.
Fox, Everett:Vol. I of The Schocken Bible: The Five Books of Moses (New York: Schocken Books, 1995), 22.
Free Republic, Culture and Society, “Presbyterians Consider Renaming the Trinity (“Mother, Child, Womb,” “Rock, Redeemer, Friend”), http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1652271/posts, (Accessed April 18, 2008).
Peter Leithart, Leithart.com, New Testament, 1 John, http://www.leithart.com/2007/01/29/sermon-notes-fifth-sunday-after-epiphany/#more-2735, (Accessed May 1, 2008).
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Rhetoric: Westminster Final Written Exam
Well, this week felt like I volunteered as a crash test dummy for the new Geo-Metro. I found out at ten-thirty last night (don't ask me how I missed it before) that the Rhetoric written final was today. So, I went to bed about one, got up at five, went to the Atwood's prayer breakfast, came home and studied for nine hours.
Usually I like to study over at least a two day period, otherwise I have to wear earplugs to keep everything from dribbling out, but oh well. Somehow, I believe that I did very well, all glory to God and my roommate.
Usually I like to study over at least a two day period, otherwise I have to wear earplugs to keep everything from dribbling out, but oh well. Somehow, I believe that I did very well, all glory to God and my roommate.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
My Declamation; Written By Dunnett
Jesse Broussard
Westminster Term Rhetoric
250 Words
Excerpt From Dorothy Dunnett’s Queens Play: Wolfhound (Luadhas) Verses Cheetah
She was a noble bitch, high in heart and honest after her calling. She could overthrow a wolf, but the alien, wicked beauty slipping through the grasses ahead was of an element she had never known. She raced uphill, tail streaming, rough hair blown and parted with her speed, loping high on her long legs; and fast as the gap was closing between cheetah and hare, the gap between dog and cat began to close faster still…
There was never a doubt as to its end…the dog had no chance. Hound and cheetah rolled over and over, compacted silk hair and rough, mean, triangular head and long-nosed Byzantine; then Luadhas, lips bared, would seek a grip on the spotted spine and the sinuous snakelike fur would unroll and untwine; the heavy soft paw would flash, and on the skull of the dog the brindled hair sank, wet and dark, as the deep lifeblood welled.
She was a brave dog. As she bled she bit, her strong teeth sunk again and again in the dirty yellow-white plush. She shook her head and the cat, blood-spotted and scarred, wrenched free and staggered a pace: a dancer tripped, inelegant and baleful. There was a pause. Then, his haunches tightened, the cheetah called on the great muscles of thigh and hock and with all his power sprang quiet, curved and deadly into the sunlit air. The soft body fell and its great paws, needle-sharp and fatal, sank into the great cords and vessels of Luadhas’s neck and spine. The bitch screamed, rolling over; and on the squeaking, flattened grass her great body opened and shut, the soft fur like a woman’s twined about it, the cat’s claws deep in her back.
Westminster Term Rhetoric
250 Words
Excerpt From Dorothy Dunnett’s Queens Play: Wolfhound (Luadhas) Verses Cheetah
She was a noble bitch, high in heart and honest after her calling. She could overthrow a wolf, but the alien, wicked beauty slipping through the grasses ahead was of an element she had never known. She raced uphill, tail streaming, rough hair blown and parted with her speed, loping high on her long legs; and fast as the gap was closing between cheetah and hare, the gap between dog and cat began to close faster still…
There was never a doubt as to its end…the dog had no chance. Hound and cheetah rolled over and over, compacted silk hair and rough, mean, triangular head and long-nosed Byzantine; then Luadhas, lips bared, would seek a grip on the spotted spine and the sinuous snakelike fur would unroll and untwine; the heavy soft paw would flash, and on the skull of the dog the brindled hair sank, wet and dark, as the deep lifeblood welled.
She was a brave dog. As she bled she bit, her strong teeth sunk again and again in the dirty yellow-white plush. She shook her head and the cat, blood-spotted and scarred, wrenched free and staggered a pace: a dancer tripped, inelegant and baleful. There was a pause. Then, his haunches tightened, the cheetah called on the great muscles of thigh and hock and with all his power sprang quiet, curved and deadly into the sunlit air. The soft body fell and its great paws, needle-sharp and fatal, sank into the great cords and vessels of Luadhas’s neck and spine. The bitch screamed, rolling over; and on the squeaking, flattened grass her great body opened and shut, the soft fur like a woman’s twined about it, the cat’s claws deep in her back.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Rhetoric Declamations: Last of our Lives
I am actually seriously depressed to be done with Rhetoric. I could easily spend the rest of my life taking that class, writing and listening to things that others have written. Oh well. I think we get to do more stuff like that later.
Anyway, enjoy these. They're some of the best that we've ever done (though there are more coming, and the last of these is a touch risky).
Rhetoric - Westminster Term ’08 – Week 6
Timothy van den Broek
Word count: 260
I Am a Man
11pm. Tuesday night. Main Street. One male, three females and all very drunk. They were approaching the Third and Main St crossing from the other direction than I was.
5,000 miles is a long way to travel and set up a new home. But a long way can suddenly become very well worth the trouble. “Hello man” one of the girls said. “Yes!” I yelled inwardly. Having a beard has paid off! It is clear to women on the street that I am man! My measured “why, hello” did not even vaguely reflect my inner excitement. She retorted back “Hello man!” God is indeed playful: who would have expected Him to encourage this wandering saint by means of a girl plastered by alcohol?
Such unqualified confirmation of my manhood was what my soul needed. God is not just playful though, he is generous. Just after passing, “hello man” became no more than a shadow, a type. “He looks,” she said, “very intelligent.” And I wasn’t even wearing a tie!
Should I hug her? I’ve hugged girls at the rate of roughly one per two and a half months since arriving in America, and surely this was a significant enough event for the fourth hug. But remember the time you last tried to drink the just the “O”s from a glass of H2O? Same problem. She was so glued to the side of the one man in the group that it would have been impossible to both hug and maintain my moral scruples. So I just laughed out loud. And why not? I am, after all, a very intelligent looking man.
Gwen M. Burrow
Rhetoric/Westminster
Creative Sketch
April 23, 2008
Word Count: 252
What Shall We Do With a Drunken Roommate?
Before coming to NSA, I never knew you could get drunk overnight without stepping a foot out of bed. This particular phenomenon becomes apparent as soon as you roll out from under the covers and attempt to walk upright. Balance is an issue. However, you can still manage. It is possible, I find, to remain in a fetal position while walking across the room; your legs don’t really need to uncurl until the tenth step or so. But I never would have known this except my roommate Rosalie does it every morning.
After hitting her alarm, she lies in bed for at least fifteen minutes. I suppose this is to allow the worst of the hangover to subside. Then she sits up and peers around the room, wearing a sleep-happy smile that looks like it leapt straight off the face of the Grinch. Once she’s confirmed that the floor and walls are still there, she crawls out of bed and endeavors to walk. This is a very dangerous idea. Bent over at the waist, she tips and staggers towards the door, flailing both arms for balance and at last reaching the bathroom, which she enters at half-height. There she holds onto the counter and looks in the mirror, blinking, and gives her typical objection to the morning: “Mwah.”
Since I’ve never been able to find an empty bottle of booze under her bed, I’ve started blaming this morning ritual on all her dreams about being brainwashed and giving birth to baby pigs.
Desmond Jones
RHT-01/Westminster ‘08
Word count: 254
Creative Sketch:
The R
One time I tried to count the number of engines that my father-in-law has on the farm. There are the cars, the old farm truck, the new farm truck, the lawn mowers and weed whackers and chainsaws, the grain truck with brakes and the one without, several tractors and swathers, the quads and ski-doo, and at about that point I lost track. This time of year is when most of them shake off their dusty hibernation and cough out lungs full of carbon and spew mouse nests that were built in feasible, if not strategic locations. The cars are well behaved, especially the Hondas. They speak in graceful, urbane voices and keep the burnt-oil halitosis to a minimum. The equipment, on the other hand, makes no pretense at social graces. The grain augers will hack and sneeze right in your face, and then act as if nothing happened. The Volvo growls his complaints that his front-end loader looks like headgear. The hippie-era John Deere model 95 screams like an angry, toothless reminiscing army General who thinks his grandkids aren’t listening. And the 5010 chafes against all attempts to get him into gear. But there is one machine whose sweet voice is your pack-a-day grandma, recounting the good ol’ days while she blows smoke rings in the air. Without pomp, the ’51 John Deere R is awoken. Her confident and merry chugging echoes across the valley as her boots trod familiar fields, grinning farmer at the helm. Spring is here; dad’s on the R.
Stephen Sampson
Westminster Term Rhetoric
250 Words
This lady had one thick five o'clock shadow, the kind of thing that grows on rocks in rainforests. Post-op, pre-op, whatever op it was, I couldn't tell which side of the Y chromosome she was shooting for. A she waddled to the counter of the burrito stand that has now become my special circle of hell she sports a pink clutch purse, Coke bottle glasses, and a belly that could, if I had known the gender, have been bringing life into this world, but the fungus sprouting from her feminine face wasn't helping me.
For many, life is filled with questions: why are we here? Who put us here? What is the meaning behind all of this? These questions escaped me as the only thing I could question was, why me? And why here, with me trapped behind this counter, does God hate me this much? I mean, I know I faked being sick that one Sunday because I didn't want to deal with that old lady who used to always ask me if I was doing drugs, and sure, I used to swipe change from my brothers desk, but I was five then! I didn't know any better!
Luckily all the dude wanted was a glass of water and I never had to find out whether she-males prefer black or pinto beans. She slinked off to the bathroom and I heaved a momentary sigh of relief till my mind went to the only place it could.
This place has two bathrooms.
What is the criteria for legal she-male bathroom use?
Anyway, enjoy these. They're some of the best that we've ever done (though there are more coming, and the last of these is a touch risky).
Rhetoric - Westminster Term ’08 – Week 6
Timothy van den Broek
Word count: 260
I Am a Man
11pm. Tuesday night. Main Street. One male, three females and all very drunk. They were approaching the Third and Main St crossing from the other direction than I was.
5,000 miles is a long way to travel and set up a new home. But a long way can suddenly become very well worth the trouble. “Hello man” one of the girls said. “Yes!” I yelled inwardly. Having a beard has paid off! It is clear to women on the street that I am man! My measured “why, hello” did not even vaguely reflect my inner excitement. She retorted back “Hello man!” God is indeed playful: who would have expected Him to encourage this wandering saint by means of a girl plastered by alcohol?
Such unqualified confirmation of my manhood was what my soul needed. God is not just playful though, he is generous. Just after passing, “hello man” became no more than a shadow, a type. “He looks,” she said, “very intelligent.” And I wasn’t even wearing a tie!
Should I hug her? I’ve hugged girls at the rate of roughly one per two and a half months since arriving in America, and surely this was a significant enough event for the fourth hug. But remember the time you last tried to drink the just the “O”s from a glass of H2O? Same problem. She was so glued to the side of the one man in the group that it would have been impossible to both hug and maintain my moral scruples. So I just laughed out loud. And why not? I am, after all, a very intelligent looking man.
Gwen M. Burrow
Rhetoric/Westminster
Creative Sketch
April 23, 2008
Word Count: 252
What Shall We Do With a Drunken Roommate?
Before coming to NSA, I never knew you could get drunk overnight without stepping a foot out of bed. This particular phenomenon becomes apparent as soon as you roll out from under the covers and attempt to walk upright. Balance is an issue. However, you can still manage. It is possible, I find, to remain in a fetal position while walking across the room; your legs don’t really need to uncurl until the tenth step or so. But I never would have known this except my roommate Rosalie does it every morning.
After hitting her alarm, she lies in bed for at least fifteen minutes. I suppose this is to allow the worst of the hangover to subside. Then she sits up and peers around the room, wearing a sleep-happy smile that looks like it leapt straight off the face of the Grinch. Once she’s confirmed that the floor and walls are still there, she crawls out of bed and endeavors to walk. This is a very dangerous idea. Bent over at the waist, she tips and staggers towards the door, flailing both arms for balance and at last reaching the bathroom, which she enters at half-height. There she holds onto the counter and looks in the mirror, blinking, and gives her typical objection to the morning: “Mwah.”
Since I’ve never been able to find an empty bottle of booze under her bed, I’ve started blaming this morning ritual on all her dreams about being brainwashed and giving birth to baby pigs.
Desmond Jones
RHT-01/Westminster ‘08
Word count: 254
Creative Sketch:
The R
One time I tried to count the number of engines that my father-in-law has on the farm. There are the cars, the old farm truck, the new farm truck, the lawn mowers and weed whackers and chainsaws, the grain truck with brakes and the one without, several tractors and swathers, the quads and ski-doo, and at about that point I lost track. This time of year is when most of them shake off their dusty hibernation and cough out lungs full of carbon and spew mouse nests that were built in feasible, if not strategic locations. The cars are well behaved, especially the Hondas. They speak in graceful, urbane voices and keep the burnt-oil halitosis to a minimum. The equipment, on the other hand, makes no pretense at social graces. The grain augers will hack and sneeze right in your face, and then act as if nothing happened. The Volvo growls his complaints that his front-end loader looks like headgear. The hippie-era John Deere model 95 screams like an angry, toothless reminiscing army General who thinks his grandkids aren’t listening. And the 5010 chafes against all attempts to get him into gear. But there is one machine whose sweet voice is your pack-a-day grandma, recounting the good ol’ days while she blows smoke rings in the air. Without pomp, the ’51 John Deere R is awoken. Her confident and merry chugging echoes across the valley as her boots trod familiar fields, grinning farmer at the helm. Spring is here; dad’s on the R.
Stephen Sampson
Westminster Term Rhetoric
250 Words
This lady had one thick five o'clock shadow, the kind of thing that grows on rocks in rainforests. Post-op, pre-op, whatever op it was, I couldn't tell which side of the Y chromosome she was shooting for. A she waddled to the counter of the burrito stand that has now become my special circle of hell she sports a pink clutch purse, Coke bottle glasses, and a belly that could, if I had known the gender, have been bringing life into this world, but the fungus sprouting from her feminine face wasn't helping me.
For many, life is filled with questions: why are we here? Who put us here? What is the meaning behind all of this? These questions escaped me as the only thing I could question was, why me? And why here, with me trapped behind this counter, does God hate me this much? I mean, I know I faked being sick that one Sunday because I didn't want to deal with that old lady who used to always ask me if I was doing drugs, and sure, I used to swipe change from my brothers desk, but I was five then! I didn't know any better!
Luckily all the dude wanted was a glass of water and I never had to find out whether she-males prefer black or pinto beans. She slinked off to the bathroom and I heaved a momentary sigh of relief till my mind went to the only place it could.
This place has two bathrooms.
What is the criteria for legal she-male bathroom use?
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Safire the Leech
Here is the best of our memorized declamations, by Timothy van den Broek, one of our two friends from the far side of the great wetness (he's a Brit).
A bit of quick background: Safire's Lend Me Your Ears is a huge tome of great boredom (the "world's best speeches," except they weren't half as good as our average Rhetoric declamations), and there is a leech that "stands" on bushes waiting for people to pass by, to whom it shall form an attachment. In their sinuses. They remain blissfully unaware. No, I'm not joking, and yes, God made it too; why, I don't know.
Timothy van den Broek
Lend Me Your Noses
Frinds, Latinists, honorary countrymen, lend me your noses; I come to bury Safire, not to praise him.
No score and sixteen years ago, Safire wrote a book, and many scores before that, God made South American leeches. They shoot out of a good looking bush, and fight against the established travel conventions of your nose, slinking up past all the hair and debris into the more hospitable parts of your nasal territory. You flinch, you go "eww," but kudos to the leech, for it does at least make its intrusion pain free.
Ask not what pain Safire will withhold from you. He came out of that lovely bush that is the rhetoric reading list, and in the style of such wormy ambushes, went straight for the nose. Fat, slimy, slowly, wiggly--and with no anaesthetic.
I had a dream--and my dream was wrong. In my dream, when I bought the 1,150 page book I was paying for two things: speeches and good judgment. And don't get me wrong, there is good in Lend Me Your Ears. I am an ardent lover of nature, and I cannot help but have warm fuzzy feelings when I hear about South American leeches. I cannot but adore St. Francis' sermonette to the birdies. Yet so many bad speeches! And so many hacked up good speeches! And what made it all so dashed awful was the way the anthologist made every possible reference he could to his own wit, skill, knowledge and general splendificoriousness.
Here I stand, I can do no other. Vale, amici.
It was amazing.
Blessings,
Jesse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
