Reading

Currently reading Is 57, Matt 7, Epist Cic, Wright's New Testament and the People of God, and some Thomas Hardy short stories. There is something truly glorious is the Latin "promise" passages of Isaiah that I've never heard in the English. I've still no idea how it would run in Hebrew, but

quia haec dicit Excelsus et Sublimis habitans aeternitatem et sanctum nomen eius in excelso et in sancto habitans et cum contrito et humili spiritu ut vivificet spiritum humilium et vivificet cor contritorum

For the High and Lofty one says this, dwelling in eternity and whose name is holy, "In the hights and in holiness dwelling and with the contrite and lowly spirit that the lowly spirit might be made lively and the contrite heart made be made lively."

My past few posts have largely centered around the practice of Christian dialectic, partly resulting from a Bible Study passage in Matthew:

ἦλθον γὰρ διχάσαι ἄνθρωπον “κατὰ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ θυγατέρα κατὰ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς καὶ νύμφην κατὰ τῆς πενθερᾶς αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐχθροὶ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οἱ οἰκιακοὶ αὐτοῦ.

For I am come to turn a man "against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a bride against her mother in law, and a man's enemies [shall be] his own house."

This led to an interesting topic of whether it would be more accurate to regard ἐχθροὶ as what we mean by enemies, or whether the intended meaning would be "those with whom we are at enmity." The possibly mistaken application of "enemy" to the rest of the world has burnt many bridges, and at its worst has resulted in some very dirty warfare. If there's one thing the Christian civilization has insisted upon, we discussed, it was a fair fight when the fighting had to be done. Some principle of chivalrous dialectic ought to be developed in an unscrupulous age, and this has been recently on my mind. This Sunday we'll be traveling to J's home church, my highly-anticipated first week away from Cranford Presbyterian since I took the job. The pastor (a man for whom we have great respect, and not respectful enmity) always closes the Sunday service with an altar call, no matter what the focus of the service. This, to me, is the perfect example of a practice that ought to fall victim to a principle of chivalrous dialectic. Even in the brighter moments of Wesleyanism, the emotional altar-call has always seemed rather a cheap trick. It shows a lack of respect for both the hearer and for the message; for the hearer, because it presumes they lack the rational capacity to come in any state other than humiliation, and for the message, because it reduces the power of the good news to a cheap thrill, easily replicated by any well-timed swell of music. If anyone wishes to differ on this point (for it is a very controversial one, and what I've written here, as usual, seems much more the beginning of a discussion than the end of one) please post in the comments.

Troilus

Read Troilus and Cressida over the weekend, and today read Aen 6, Il 3, Is 47, Rev. 21, and a book of Wilde short stories, particularly enjoying The Canterville Ghost. Troilus was a very good read. If I tried to read it as Greek it would have been nightmarish, but if you can think of it as a dream in which you know you’re dreaming, then the anachronisms and the awkward bits seem almost fun. I had no idea it was the origin of the CSL quote from Malcolm,

“tis mad idolatry

To make the service greater than the god;” (This v. much out of context in Malcolm!)

Other interesting bits:

“Nay, if we talk of reason,

Let’s shut our gates and sleep. Manhood and honour

Should have hare-hearts, would they but fat their thoughts

With this crammed reason; reason and respect

Make livers pale and lustihood deject.”

“Is that a wonder?

The providence that’s in a watchful state

Knows almost every grain of Pluto’s gold,

Finds bottom in th’uncomprehensive deeps,

Keeps place with thought, and almost, like the gods,

Does thoughts unveil in their dumb cradles.

There is a mystery—with whom relation

Durst never meddle—in the soul of state

Which hath an operation more divine

Than breath or pen can give expressure to.”

AENEAS
    Health to you, valiant sir,
    During all question of the gentle truce;
    But when I meet you arm'd, as black defiance
    As heart can think or courage execute.
DIOMEDES
    The one and other Diomed embraces.
    Our bloods are now in calm; and, so long, health!
    But when contention and occasion meet,
    By Jove, I'll play the hunter for thy life
    With all my force, pursuit and policy.
AENEAS
    And thou shalt hunt a lion, that will fly
    With his face backward. In humane gentleness,
    Welcome to Troy! now, by Anchises' life,
    Welcome, indeed! By Venus' hand I swear,
    No man alive can love in such a sort
    The thing he means to kill more excellently.
DIOMEDES
    We sympathize: Jove, let Aeneas live,
    If to my sword his fate be not the glory,
    A thousand complete courses of the sun!
    But, in mine emulous honour, let him die,
    With every joint a wound, and that to-morrow!
AENEAS
    We know each other well.
DIOMEDES
    We do; and long to know each other worse.

“Thou, trumpet, there’s my purse

Now crack thy lungs, and split thy brazen pipe;

Blow, villain, till thy sphered bias cheek

Outswell the colic of puffed Aquilon.

Come, stretch thy chest, and thy eyes spout blood;

Thou blowest for Hector.”

(Hopefully the O.E. sense of “villain”)

We had an interesting discussion at Bill’s on Sat. night, following a talk with Calvus & Beka attempting to reconcile this passage in Matthew

Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας: οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

With this one in Ephesians:

ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας, ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὑτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ποιῶν εἰρήνην,

in his flesh, the law of the the commands in dogmas abolishing, that those two he might make one new man in himself creating peace.

There turns out to be an enormous difference between καταλύω and καταργέω though I think that Jesus and Paul are talking about to completely different conceptions of νόμος. (The Matthew passage referring to the Tao and/or some sense of covenant, the second referring to compulsory circumcision, as is made clear in the context.)

Reading List

Reading today:
Revelation ch.8, Isaiah ch.40
Iliad II, Aeneid VI
Cicero
Comparative Grammar (Buck)
The Mysteries of Udolpho (Radcliffe)

I wonder if this line
Καὶ οἱ ἑπτὰ ἄγγελοι οἱ ἔχοντες τὰς ἑπτὰ σάλπιγγας ἡτοίμασαν αὑτοὺς ἵνα σαλπίσωσιν.
(And the seven angels holding the seven trumpets made them ready that they might sound)
means that they were emptying the water keys on a little mat before the throne, and if this
Μηριόνης τ᾽ ἀτάλαντος Ἐνυαλίῳ ἀνδρειφόντῃ:
is a bawdy joke.

Talked on Thurs. about Matt. 9 and the differences between the accounts of the paralytic. St. Matthew is called in the verses which immediately follow, and we will all look to see whether his accounts are closer to the other gospel writers once he is present in ministry. Future posts will include whether this proves to be true and whether this says anything about authority or inspiration. Two other questions: 1) Was it through the faith of the paralytic or the faith of his friends that he was forgiven and healed? 2) Why are the Pharisees abused every Thurs? More on this too...