new word of tonight:
solfège [sɔl.fɛʒ] where ɛ is like "air" w/o the r-sound.
a teaching method of applying a certain syllable to a certain musical note on a scale.
That is to say, teaching someone to do the "do re mi fa so la ti do!!!" (well in most modern western contexts anyway)
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Some interesting new findings...
Canaan was part of Egypt around 1500-1200 BC, supposedly the time the Exodus and Joshua leading the Israelites into the promised land. (Exodus 480 years before Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6:1) and estimated about 1447BC)
Red Sea is a mistranslation from the Hebrew word "Yum Suph" which should have been translated as the "sea of reeds", possibly a lake but not necessarily the big Red Sea.
Egyptian population at time of Exodus is about 3-6 million. If 600,000 Israelite men were in the Exodus, then a reasonable population of the Exodus might be 2 million? (maybe more since mortality rates should be high and there should be a lot more children than adults). That takes a large chunk out of Egypt. Apparently no Egyptian records of incidents like the plagues preceding the Exodus, and no record of any mass exodus out of any people.
J-E-D-P Documentary Hypothesis. Lots of variants of it now too.
Should learn how to read stuff and figure out the date. One technique is see what they get correct up until. For example, the gospel of Mark is dated around 70AD because it seems to know about imineint trouble but doesn't know specifics, whereas the gospel of Luke knows more specifics. And that is based on the belief that Mark preceded Luke (and that Luke is derived in part from Mark).
Canaan was part of Egypt around 1500-1200 BC, supposedly the time the Exodus and Joshua leading the Israelites into the promised land. (Exodus 480 years before Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6:1) and estimated about 1447BC)
Red Sea is a mistranslation from the Hebrew word "Yum Suph" which should have been translated as the "sea of reeds", possibly a lake but not necessarily the big Red Sea.
Egyptian population at time of Exodus is about 3-6 million. If 600,000 Israelite men were in the Exodus, then a reasonable population of the Exodus might be 2 million? (maybe more since mortality rates should be high and there should be a lot more children than adults). That takes a large chunk out of Egypt. Apparently no Egyptian records of incidents like the plagues preceding the Exodus, and no record of any mass exodus out of any people.
J-E-D-P Documentary Hypothesis. Lots of variants of it now too.
Should learn how to read stuff and figure out the date. One technique is see what they get correct up until. For example, the gospel of Mark is dated around 70AD because it seems to know about imineint trouble but doesn't know specifics, whereas the gospel of Luke knows more specifics. And that is based on the belief that Mark preceded Luke (and that Luke is derived in part from Mark).
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Glossolalia.
observed properties
intonation seems same as speaker's native language.
most common vowels - [i] and [a]
common consonant? - [sh]
much smaller phoneme inventory than most (and native) languages.
lots of repetition.
use of "exotic sounds" that are known (consciously or not) to speaker - eg. changing bunched [r] to tap [r].
xenoglossa?
apparently no concrete evidence. testimonials are available, but they are often by people likely with a bias.
of god/of the devil?
glossolalia not limited to christianity. present in voodoo and other parts of the world. sounds are similar?
observed properties
intonation seems same as speaker's native language.
most common vowels - [i] and [a]
common consonant? - [sh]
much smaller phoneme inventory than most (and native) languages.
lots of repetition.
use of "exotic sounds" that are known (consciously or not) to speaker - eg. changing bunched [r] to tap [r].
xenoglossa?
apparently no concrete evidence. testimonials are available, but they are often by people likely with a bias.
of god/of the devil?
glossolalia not limited to christianity. present in voodoo and other parts of the world. sounds are similar?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Nicodemus
Nicodemus (John, chapter 3)
On Pg 154-155 of Jesus Interrupted, Bart Ehrman discusses how the story of Nicodemus in John chapter 3 is likely to be untrue because it doesn't fit the context. In the English translation that we are familiar with, Jesus says that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born again, where upon my NIV version has a footnote saying it Or born from above. Ignoring the footnote, the continuation of the story is simple. Nicodemus doesn't understand how one can be born again and Jesus gives a reply about bring born of water and the Spirit. In our common Protestant interpretation, this refers to baptism - of water and of the Holy Spirit. Under a charismatic Christian belief, I'd suspect this means both a water baptism and a baptism of the Holy Spirit in the speaking of tongues sense are necessary. Under other interpretations, perhaps just one baptism is enough, for example whereby a water baptism also brings the Spirit upon you, or where a baptism of the Holy Spirit negates the need for less abstract and probably more superficial baptism by water.
Either way, Nicodemus doesn't seem to understand. Jesus doesn't clarify his statements but seems to go on with further abstractions. This is not uncommon in Gospel texts and as a reader, I would typically have ignored this since such incidents of listeners not understand Jesus and Jesus not putting it in simpler terms is all over the place.
Let's look at the footnote. Why is born again footnoted to also be born from above? Apparently, again and from above have the same Greek word. This makes sense therefore if the manuscript of John was written in Greek. Approaching it from a less speculative angle, we can just do research into the gospel of John and find out if it, or at least the piece(s) used to construct the story of Nicodemus was in Greek. RESEARCH POINT. Now, say this account was written in Greek, why then is the interpretation of again chosen over from above? Simple, because the response of Nicodemus (verse 4) is "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!".
Ehrman provides a different interpretation of the story: Jesus spoke in Greek and meant to say from above. Nicodemus misinterprets the word as again leading to his questions about how someone can be born when old. Jesus then clarifies that he meant from above, in my opinion it being telling from verse 6 flesh gives birth to flesh, but the spirit gives birth to spirit. Ehrman says this is how the story was meant to be read, and claims that the story is likely untrue because Jesus was likely to have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek, thus making this conversation impossible.
Before we jump the gun and accuse Ehrman of cyclic argumentation (though this interpretation is probably not original to Ehrman, RESEARCH POINT), let's have a brief review. The text we derive this story from is written in Greek. What implications does this have? Seemingly irrelevant, this may point to the text not being written by the disciple John. John is supposed to be uneducated and only the elite were literate during the time. Did John learn Greek later and compose this gospel? I remember reading that this is unlikely because the Gospels actually seem to have literary structure and concepts such as recurring themes. John is arguably not going to be concerned with learning Greek but more concerned with spreading Christianity. Perhaps he learned Greek nonetheless in order to compose a written account. Once again, RESEARCH POINT.
Let's review something else. Say this event did take place and likely in Aramaic. Then so far things make sense with the ambiguity only arising when the author of the text recorded the story in Greek. The ambiguity is unimportant as the story makes original sense when again is taken instead of from above. But, before we get ahead of ourselves, what does Jesus' response in verse 5-9 mean? Is it, as I typically had read it, just an unrelated abstract response from Jesus to Nicodemus' failure to comprehend? Instead of hastily discrediting Ehrman's interpretation, this response seems to make sense if Jesus had said from above earlier rather than again. Try reading verses 5-9 as if Jesus had said from above, and try reading it as if Jesus had said again. Also, the words at the end of verse 7 would take either from above or again respectively. Too easy? Seems like again is slightly better because we can interpret "...born of water and the Spirit" as referring to baptism. But, let's take another step back and review. How do we know Jesus meant baptism? Was baptism in water ever mentioned as being "born of water" prior? Was baptism of the Holy Spirit ever mentioned before?
So in this mess of different potential interpretations, the decision to choose again or from above is crucial. If I choose the interpretation of again, then verses 5-9 are just another regular oddity in Jesus' way of conversing. If I choose from above, then either Jesus did not speak it in Greek which makes no sense of verse 6, or Jesus did speak it in Greek which makes the story probably not a real incident.
I have to conclude that Ehrman needs to give more evidence for his interpretation in order to tilt the tables in his favor. On the other hand, I must remain aware that I am making coherent sense of the story by interpreting verses 5-9 in light of modern church teachings and theologies which I am only assuming were valid modes of thought during the time of the story. In other words, yet another RESEARCH POINT.
On Pg 154-155 of Jesus Interrupted, Bart Ehrman discusses how the story of Nicodemus in John chapter 3 is likely to be untrue because it doesn't fit the context. In the English translation that we are familiar with, Jesus says that no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born again, where upon my NIV version has a footnote saying it Or born from above. Ignoring the footnote, the continuation of the story is simple. Nicodemus doesn't understand how one can be born again and Jesus gives a reply about bring born of water and the Spirit. In our common Protestant interpretation, this refers to baptism - of water and of the Holy Spirit. Under a charismatic Christian belief, I'd suspect this means both a water baptism and a baptism of the Holy Spirit in the speaking of tongues sense are necessary. Under other interpretations, perhaps just one baptism is enough, for example whereby a water baptism also brings the Spirit upon you, or where a baptism of the Holy Spirit negates the need for less abstract and probably more superficial baptism by water.
Either way, Nicodemus doesn't seem to understand. Jesus doesn't clarify his statements but seems to go on with further abstractions. This is not uncommon in Gospel texts and as a reader, I would typically have ignored this since such incidents of listeners not understand Jesus and Jesus not putting it in simpler terms is all over the place.
Let's look at the footnote. Why is born again footnoted to also be born from above? Apparently, again and from above have the same Greek word. This makes sense therefore if the manuscript of John was written in Greek. Approaching it from a less speculative angle, we can just do research into the gospel of John and find out if it, or at least the piece(s) used to construct the story of Nicodemus was in Greek. RESEARCH POINT. Now, say this account was written in Greek, why then is the interpretation of again chosen over from above? Simple, because the response of Nicodemus (verse 4) is "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!".
Ehrman provides a different interpretation of the story: Jesus spoke in Greek and meant to say from above. Nicodemus misinterprets the word as again leading to his questions about how someone can be born when old. Jesus then clarifies that he meant from above, in my opinion it being telling from verse 6 flesh gives birth to flesh, but the spirit gives birth to spirit. Ehrman says this is how the story was meant to be read, and claims that the story is likely untrue because Jesus was likely to have been speaking Aramaic, not Greek, thus making this conversation impossible.
Before we jump the gun and accuse Ehrman of cyclic argumentation (though this interpretation is probably not original to Ehrman, RESEARCH POINT), let's have a brief review. The text we derive this story from is written in Greek. What implications does this have? Seemingly irrelevant, this may point to the text not being written by the disciple John. John is supposed to be uneducated and only the elite were literate during the time. Did John learn Greek later and compose this gospel? I remember reading that this is unlikely because the Gospels actually seem to have literary structure and concepts such as recurring themes. John is arguably not going to be concerned with learning Greek but more concerned with spreading Christianity. Perhaps he learned Greek nonetheless in order to compose a written account. Once again, RESEARCH POINT.
Let's review something else. Say this event did take place and likely in Aramaic. Then so far things make sense with the ambiguity only arising when the author of the text recorded the story in Greek. The ambiguity is unimportant as the story makes original sense when again is taken instead of from above. But, before we get ahead of ourselves, what does Jesus' response in verse 5-9 mean? Is it, as I typically had read it, just an unrelated abstract response from Jesus to Nicodemus' failure to comprehend? Instead of hastily discrediting Ehrman's interpretation, this response seems to make sense if Jesus had said from above earlier rather than again. Try reading verses 5-9 as if Jesus had said from above, and try reading it as if Jesus had said again. Also, the words at the end of verse 7 would take either from above or again respectively. Too easy? Seems like again is slightly better because we can interpret "...born of water and the Spirit" as referring to baptism. But, let's take another step back and review. How do we know Jesus meant baptism? Was baptism in water ever mentioned as being "born of water" prior? Was baptism of the Holy Spirit ever mentioned before?
So in this mess of different potential interpretations, the decision to choose again or from above is crucial. If I choose the interpretation of again, then verses 5-9 are just another regular oddity in Jesus' way of conversing. If I choose from above, then either Jesus did not speak it in Greek which makes no sense of verse 6, or Jesus did speak it in Greek which makes the story probably not a real incident.
I have to conclude that Ehrman needs to give more evidence for his interpretation in order to tilt the tables in his favor. On the other hand, I must remain aware that I am making coherent sense of the story by interpreting verses 5-9 in light of modern church teachings and theologies which I am only assuming were valid modes of thought during the time of the story. In other words, yet another RESEARCH POINT.
Monday, February 15, 2010
some side effects of a world without god:
Endless science possibilities (?)
If you are a Christian, you can probably rely on time travel never actually being possible...or stem cell research that makes eternal life...or invincibility. Or, for that matter, on sudden global nuclear annihilation...or a worldwide lack of resources and food, well this could be assumed too.
Endless science!?!??!!
Scary! Imagine if suddenly you don't know how the universe is going to end. Crap.
Endless science possibilities (?)
If you are a Christian, you can probably rely on time travel never actually being possible...or stem cell research that makes eternal life...or invincibility. Or, for that matter, on sudden global nuclear annihilation...or a worldwide lack of resources and food, well this could be assumed too.
Endless science!?!??!!
Scary! Imagine if suddenly you don't know how the universe is going to end. Crap.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Catch-22
Fantastic book.
The author's vocabulary is amazing. When I started reading the novel, it was a tough read because sentences were long, occasionally complex, and contained lots of words that I didn't know. But gradually, it gets easier and the book is so enjoyable that these things don't bother much. I just read quickly to get the story and although I may be missing out on the descriptive richness, I am not stripping it down to bones.
It's also very very funny. It is intelligently funny too. Puns would be too easy. The book has many conversations that just keep hitting you with unexpected humor in the way sentences are interpreted and they just keep coming. A two page conversation can contain so much fun and absurdity, which really however makes sense, that a climatic statement at its end will just make you roar with laughter. It isn't stupid though.
And the insights are very real and deep, though portrayed in a easy-to-read manner and though comical events. Toward the end of the novel, the layers of comedy start to come apart and you get a glimpse into the reality of war, bureaucracy, greed in capitalism and more. The structure of the novel is so perfect. For example, things are tied up at the end without disappointment.
This is a book everybody has got to read!
The author's vocabulary is amazing. When I started reading the novel, it was a tough read because sentences were long, occasionally complex, and contained lots of words that I didn't know. But gradually, it gets easier and the book is so enjoyable that these things don't bother much. I just read quickly to get the story and although I may be missing out on the descriptive richness, I am not stripping it down to bones.
It's also very very funny. It is intelligently funny too. Puns would be too easy. The book has many conversations that just keep hitting you with unexpected humor in the way sentences are interpreted and they just keep coming. A two page conversation can contain so much fun and absurdity, which really however makes sense, that a climatic statement at its end will just make you roar with laughter. It isn't stupid though.
And the insights are very real and deep, though portrayed in a easy-to-read manner and though comical events. Toward the end of the novel, the layers of comedy start to come apart and you get a glimpse into the reality of war, bureaucracy, greed in capitalism and more. The structure of the novel is so perfect. For example, things are tied up at the end without disappointment.
This is a book everybody has got to read!
Friday, January 8, 2010
new testament
matthew
fulfilment of certain old testament / jewish words.
does not say old jewish laws should be done away with. what about for gentiles? well, are gentiles even mentioned?
mark
constant theme of jesus not wanting people to tell others that he is god or doing miracles. (note: but they tell anyway)
jesus declares all food clean. (but the parallel story in Matthew does not say this, and Mark is a source from which Matthew and Luke is written)
luke/acts
good jewish people do good jewish things
starting (verse 5+) parallels abraham and sarah.
end times: inserts "time of the gentiles" which is not in Mark.
a lot of parallels to old testament. mary's prayer and hannah's in 1 Samuel.
idea is that luke/acts seems to be written to emulate the old testament.
a lot of emphasis on the gentiles. (anti-jew sentiment)
theme: "prophet is rejected by his own people". gospel to be rejected by jews. then for the gentiles. see ending of Acts.
tradition, if true, says that Paul was beheaded in Rome by the Romans. But luke/acts did not include it, why? because the theme is supposed to be rejection by jews and going to (hence acceptance by?) gentiles.
also, stephen. rejected by jews. martyred. theme: prophets get martyred.
jews still have to keep their laws. gentiles don't have to keep the jewish laws. acts 15.
has no mention of jesus' death being a ransom or sins. more like a martyred prophet.
john/letters of john (1st, 2nd, 3rd)
not necessarily written by the same person, but seems to be by the same kind of persons, according to scholars.
the only gospel that has Jesus in Jerusalem more than just before his death. 3 Passovers are mentioned in John and not the other gospels. How do we derive that Jesus started ministry at 30 and died at 33? the 3 years is from John's writing of 3 passovers. the 30 comes from Luke i think, where exactly?
in john, there is no Eucharist (last supper with bread, wine, and "do this in remembrance of me"), although there is jesus dipping the bread and talking to judas. also, there is foot-washing.
crucified before Passover (the time when lambs for the Passover were being slaughtered). other gospels say on the day of Passover. Literary parallel because John also refers to Jesus as the "lamb of God" (1:29) and writes of Jesus dying when lambs for the Passover were being killed.
lots of themes of "see" and "know".
and then chapter 9, a blind man made to see, but in verse 12, he says "i don't know"
symbolic meaning? or just a literal description of an event?
verse 22 is anachronic according to scholars who claim that at the time of jesus, there was no movement like that described in "...already the Jews had decided that anone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue". such a movement may have been established later (when John was written), but not during the event being told.
Chapter 5 verse 19+ talks about the Father and Son. prior verse 18 says "the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he...but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." But, since when was being the son the same as being the father, or being the son of God equal to being God? was that already a Jewish notion? was that a commonly accepted religious idea? It seems that the author of John added these details because this was what he believed, not necessarily what the Jews were thinking.
chapter 3, verse 3. the only (practically only maybe?) place with the "born again" notion. however, the Greek word used can be also translated to "from above". likewise in verse 7. (Note: the text was in Greek, and although Jesus spoke Aramaic, this conversation might not have ever happened at all. The Greek is all we have). if "from above" was the original intention, then from where does modern "born again" movements derive meaning? but verse 4 has the reply as if verse 3 meant "born again". So that seems settled. Also, in the following verses, there is "Spirit" and "wind", but the Greek word used is the same (pneuma). So, what do we do? Is it meant to be a pun, or was one meaning intended?
Jesus doesn't seem to give straight direct answers in John. Always speaking in riddles. Chapter 8 verse 31. Jews who believe in him are with Jesus, and Jesus "argues" with them. He accuses them of wanting to kill him and of belonging to the devil (v44). Finally, he claims to be God (v58) with "...I am" probably in reference to God's (YHWH) talking to Moses at the burning bush.
lens to view John through: sectarian christology. (believing only they are the correct ones and the rest are all wrong and is unacceptable, or will be damned.)
1 John. Love God, love brothers/one another (c4,v7,v21), do not love the world (c1,v15). Also, John 3:16 "God so loved the world that..." has the same Greek verb for "love" and same Greek noun for "world". so is there a contradiction in loving the world (cosmos?) and one another? one interpretation is that one another refers to within the sect, and the world outside.
seeing from a sectarian perspective, chapter 2 verse 18+ makes new sense. chapter 4 verse 2+. chapter 5 v 8. so this sect believes in jesus being God, not just a holy man, and not just promoted to divine. argues against other christologies, such as Docetism (jesus' body not really flesh...*seemed* only to be a body and *seemed* to die at crucifixion) in 2 John verse 7+.
see relationship between 2John and 3John, noticing "Diotrephes" in verse 9. Possible that the letter in 2John did not work and so 3John needed to be written. Also, argued that 2John is metaphorically written to a lady and children, but that it means a/the church. Previous splits in christologies due to doctrinal differences, but is one in 3John coming up due to politics?
lingo
Christology(-ies): any doctrine of Jesus, divine or human.
Mark: Jesus is the son of God (not necessarily God; such a relationship might not have been established then). Messiah who has to suffer to ransom sinners.
Mathew: quite similar to Mark. Jesus is son of God, the Messiah, and the "ransom". Also important that Jesus is a teacher and lawgiver, somewhat like a new Moses. The emphasis of Jesus as son of God is weaker.
Luke: "Ransom" idea is not included. Notions of martyred prophet.
Thomas: Jesus comes across as the revealer of hidden knowledge. He always acted like he was God or something. Included are episodes of him using his power to strike people when he was a child...etc.
John: eventually gives rise to Orthodox sect which includes the Nicean creed. And this Nicean creed believes that Jesus was always divine, not a good person who was promoted to divine status.
fulfilment of certain old testament / jewish words.
does not say old jewish laws should be done away with. what about for gentiles? well, are gentiles even mentioned?
mark
constant theme of jesus not wanting people to tell others that he is god or doing miracles. (note: but they tell anyway)
jesus declares all food clean. (but the parallel story in Matthew does not say this, and Mark is a source from which Matthew and Luke is written)
luke/acts
good jewish people do good jewish things
starting (verse 5+) parallels abraham and sarah.
end times: inserts "time of the gentiles" which is not in Mark.
a lot of parallels to old testament. mary's prayer and hannah's in 1 Samuel.
idea is that luke/acts seems to be written to emulate the old testament.
a lot of emphasis on the gentiles. (anti-jew sentiment)
theme: "prophet is rejected by his own people". gospel to be rejected by jews. then for the gentiles. see ending of Acts.
tradition, if true, says that Paul was beheaded in Rome by the Romans. But luke/acts did not include it, why? because the theme is supposed to be rejection by jews and going to (hence acceptance by?) gentiles.
also, stephen. rejected by jews. martyred. theme: prophets get martyred.
jews still have to keep their laws. gentiles don't have to keep the jewish laws. acts 15.
has no mention of jesus' death being a ransom or sins. more like a martyred prophet.
john/letters of john (1st, 2nd, 3rd)
not necessarily written by the same person, but seems to be by the same kind of persons, according to scholars.
the only gospel that has Jesus in Jerusalem more than just before his death. 3 Passovers are mentioned in John and not the other gospels. How do we derive that Jesus started ministry at 30 and died at 33? the 3 years is from John's writing of 3 passovers. the 30 comes from Luke i think, where exactly?
in john, there is no Eucharist (last supper with bread, wine, and "do this in remembrance of me"), although there is jesus dipping the bread and talking to judas. also, there is foot-washing.
crucified before Passover (the time when lambs for the Passover were being slaughtered). other gospels say on the day of Passover. Literary parallel because John also refers to Jesus as the "lamb of God" (1:29) and writes of Jesus dying when lambs for the Passover were being killed.
lots of themes of "see" and "know".
and then chapter 9, a blind man made to see, but in verse 12, he says "i don't know"
symbolic meaning? or just a literal description of an event?
verse 22 is anachronic according to scholars who claim that at the time of jesus, there was no movement like that described in "...already the Jews had decided that anone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue". such a movement may have been established later (when John was written), but not during the event being told.
Chapter 5 verse 19+ talks about the Father and Son. prior verse 18 says "the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he...but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." But, since when was being the son the same as being the father, or being the son of God equal to being God? was that already a Jewish notion? was that a commonly accepted religious idea? It seems that the author of John added these details because this was what he believed, not necessarily what the Jews were thinking.
chapter 3, verse 3. the only (practically only maybe?) place with the "born again" notion. however, the Greek word used can be also translated to "from above". likewise in verse 7. (Note: the text was in Greek, and although Jesus spoke Aramaic, this conversation might not have ever happened at all. The Greek is all we have). if "from above" was the original intention, then from where does modern "born again" movements derive meaning? but verse 4 has the reply as if verse 3 meant "born again". So that seems settled. Also, in the following verses, there is "Spirit" and "wind", but the Greek word used is the same (pneuma). So, what do we do? Is it meant to be a pun, or was one meaning intended?
Jesus doesn't seem to give straight direct answers in John. Always speaking in riddles. Chapter 8 verse 31. Jews who believe in him are with Jesus, and Jesus "argues" with them. He accuses them of wanting to kill him and of belonging to the devil (v44). Finally, he claims to be God (v58) with "...I am" probably in reference to God's (YHWH) talking to Moses at the burning bush.
lens to view John through: sectarian christology. (believing only they are the correct ones and the rest are all wrong and is unacceptable, or will be damned.)
1 John. Love God, love brothers/one another (c4,v7,v21), do not love the world (c1,v15). Also, John 3:16 "God so loved the world that..." has the same Greek verb for "love" and same Greek noun for "world". so is there a contradiction in loving the world (cosmos?) and one another? one interpretation is that one another refers to within the sect, and the world outside.
seeing from a sectarian perspective, chapter 2 verse 18+ makes new sense. chapter 4 verse 2+. chapter 5 v 8. so this sect believes in jesus being God, not just a holy man, and not just promoted to divine. argues against other christologies, such as Docetism (jesus' body not really flesh...*seemed* only to be a body and *seemed* to die at crucifixion) in 2 John verse 7+.
see relationship between 2John and 3John, noticing "Diotrephes" in verse 9. Possible that the letter in 2John did not work and so 3John needed to be written. Also, argued that 2John is metaphorically written to a lady and children, but that it means a/the church. Previous splits in christologies due to doctrinal differences, but is one in 3John coming up due to politics?
lingo
Christology(-ies): any doctrine of Jesus, divine or human.
Mark: Jesus is the son of God (not necessarily God; such a relationship might not have been established then). Messiah who has to suffer to ransom sinners.
Mathew: quite similar to Mark. Jesus is son of God, the Messiah, and the "ransom". Also important that Jesus is a teacher and lawgiver, somewhat like a new Moses. The emphasis of Jesus as son of God is weaker.
Luke: "Ransom" idea is not included. Notions of martyred prophet.
Thomas: Jesus comes across as the revealer of hidden knowledge. He always acted like he was God or something. Included are episodes of him using his power to strike people when he was a child...etc.
John: eventually gives rise to Orthodox sect which includes the Nicean creed. And this Nicean creed believes that Jesus was always divine, not a good person who was promoted to divine status.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
kafka on the shore, haruki murakami
interesting and easy read. somehow, it doesn't take much effort to go through the pages and i find myself able to somewhat speed-read, skim-read, or whatever you think of it. sometimes i feel the layout of the words, line spacing, font, paragraphing, word spacing and even length and width of the book affects reading speed.
there are little gems within the book, which is what makes books good reads. however, as a collective whole, the novel seems promising all the way until you reach the end. it's not simply a classic case of bad ending or too much anticipation with the author having built a setup beyond his league to satisfy. i feel like murakami could probably tie things up in a way that gives the major incidents in the novel definite meaning. he simply doesn't as part of his intention. and it's almost expected, given the surreal like events in the novel.
it's just turns out to be a mambo of metaphors and under individual interpretation, they can amount to anything, and classicly hence to nothing. I get some of it, but i don't get a lot more. and trying to connect them isn't all i want. i want to connect them the way the author intends; at least until i come up with another favorite interpretation. who wants to watch "waiting for godot" and end up not knowing a damn thing about its meaning, to ponder over it and come up with 5 different interpretations, each having to make different assumptions and disqualify certain events, later to find out the author meant nothing at all. like a trick. but "waiting for godot" has a author unintended favorite to many including myself, and that seems to be what makes it successful - the interpretation of godot being god. perhaps this vagueness coupled with luck yields success once in a while. but that's not what i would have wanted out of "kafka on the shore". it's a pity if i have to conclude that the build up leads to nothing but the author's playing around with, not too deeply, with concepts like self and the oedipus complex. ultimately then, this novel is more literary than philosophical. more english (or japanese) than literature. more surface form than underlying meaning. that would be sad.
perhaps the best way to appreciate it without judging too much is to not ask for too much and view each incident as independent on its own. like a dream, where the second scene feels connected to the first, but doesn't have to be, and is probably not. some things remain, for example, you, being in the dream. and maybe 2 people next to you. but one moment they could be your parents, and the next 2 schoolmates who don't even know each other, but with the physical form of a stranger you remember on the bus last night.
the intriguing aspects are all not finished on in the novel - the losing consciousness incidents, nakata and all his special situations, also hoshino and his; the connection between reality and dream is too blurred, and that's why the novel makes sense as a dream and hardly anything beyond that. still, indefinite unconnected and perhaps inherently meaningless dreams can be a pleasurable experience and precious memory and this novel is worth a read for that.
interesting and easy read. somehow, it doesn't take much effort to go through the pages and i find myself able to somewhat speed-read, skim-read, or whatever you think of it. sometimes i feel the layout of the words, line spacing, font, paragraphing, word spacing and even length and width of the book affects reading speed.
there are little gems within the book, which is what makes books good reads. however, as a collective whole, the novel seems promising all the way until you reach the end. it's not simply a classic case of bad ending or too much anticipation with the author having built a setup beyond his league to satisfy. i feel like murakami could probably tie things up in a way that gives the major incidents in the novel definite meaning. he simply doesn't as part of his intention. and it's almost expected, given the surreal like events in the novel.
it's just turns out to be a mambo of metaphors and under individual interpretation, they can amount to anything, and classicly hence to nothing. I get some of it, but i don't get a lot more. and trying to connect them isn't all i want. i want to connect them the way the author intends; at least until i come up with another favorite interpretation. who wants to watch "waiting for godot" and end up not knowing a damn thing about its meaning, to ponder over it and come up with 5 different interpretations, each having to make different assumptions and disqualify certain events, later to find out the author meant nothing at all. like a trick. but "waiting for godot" has a author unintended favorite to many including myself, and that seems to be what makes it successful - the interpretation of godot being god. perhaps this vagueness coupled with luck yields success once in a while. but that's not what i would have wanted out of "kafka on the shore". it's a pity if i have to conclude that the build up leads to nothing but the author's playing around with, not too deeply, with concepts like self and the oedipus complex. ultimately then, this novel is more literary than philosophical. more english (or japanese) than literature. more surface form than underlying meaning. that would be sad.
perhaps the best way to appreciate it without judging too much is to not ask for too much and view each incident as independent on its own. like a dream, where the second scene feels connected to the first, but doesn't have to be, and is probably not. some things remain, for example, you, being in the dream. and maybe 2 people next to you. but one moment they could be your parents, and the next 2 schoolmates who don't even know each other, but with the physical form of a stranger you remember on the bus last night.
the intriguing aspects are all not finished on in the novel - the losing consciousness incidents, nakata and all his special situations, also hoshino and his; the connection between reality and dream is too blurred, and that's why the novel makes sense as a dream and hardly anything beyond that. still, indefinite unconnected and perhaps inherently meaningless dreams can be a pleasurable experience and precious memory and this novel is worth a read for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
