Reading the text as is

I regard this discrepancy between what YHWH would do and what Israel should do a typical characteristic of the mutuality of their relationship. Even though these differences may be explained by pointing to different textual sources, I see theological value in trying to understand them as saying something complementary about the relationship between God and his people.—The Unfavored, page 158 n. 40

<idle musing>
I like that. The whole "canonical approach" can be an excuse to not look at the back-history of the text, but so also the historical-critical approach can miss the theological nuggets hiding in plain sight in the received text. One or the other? No, both and.
</idle musing>

Read this!

Read the latest post by Roger Olson. You owe it to yourself and those you know. And if it doesn't scare you, as he says, you aren't paying attention.

Sound like anyone you know?

Furthermore, because Amalek assaulted the weakest of Israel, he is labeled in Deut 25:18 as one who “does not fear God.” According to Moberly, the phrase “fear of God” in the Old Testament signifies “moral restraint out of respect for God, a moral restraint specifically that refuses to take advantage of a weaker party when it would be possible to do so with apparent impunity.” This fundamental respect for life the Amalekites, at least according to Deut 25:17–19, did not embody. Moberly’s conclusion describes the logic of the ban well: “Its logic appears to be that the attack on defenseless people constitutes such a fundamental denial of God that those who do such things thereby deny their own humanity and so lay themselves open to a treatment not otherwise given to other human beings.” It was the malicious attack upon the most vulnerable of Israel that was behind Israel’s animosity towards Amalek and YHWH’s order of the ban in 1 Sam 15:32 They respected neither human conventions nor God, and therefore became liable to be subjected to this horrifying ordeal.—The Unfavored, page 156

<idle musing>
That sounds amazingly like the current policies of the United States, doesn't it?
</idle musing>

Word-play in Numbers 14?

In Num 14:39–45 the Israelites, despite Moses’s warning, go to Canaan and are attacked by the Amalekites and the Canaanites, who pursue them in battle as far as Hormah (Num 14:45). The last word of the chapter is ָחְרָמה with the definite article attached to it. It likely stands for a place, but given our present discussion, it is worth noting that it comes from the verbal root חרם. Is it possible that Israel was pursued, among others by Amalek, almost to destruction?—The Unfavored, pages 155–56 n. 26

Where are they now?

This piece by John Fea in the Washington Post is definitely worth reading. Here's a snippet of the last three paragraphs:

Like the Old Testament prophet Nathan who confronted King David for committing adultery with Bathsheba, Campolo and MacDonald entered the president’s “court” as pastors — Christian leaders charged with the task of calling out sin and facilitating spiritual healing.

It's hard to imagine something similar happening should Congress impeach Trump. The evangelical leaders he surrounds himself with are flatterers who are not likely to confront the president’s sin. They need Trump to continue to deliver on their agenda. I imagine most of them will affirm Trump’s belief that he has “done nothing wrong” and perhaps offer a lesson about the demonic forces seeking to undermine his presidency.

But even if the court evangelicals speak truth to power by confronting Trump for his failures of character, their words would probably fall on deaf ears. Unlike Clinton, who acknowledged his life was a mess and cried out for spiritual help, Trump, for all the lip service he pays to God, has denied any need of forgiveness in his life.

That says it all. And that's one of the main reasons I haven't called myself evangelical since the early 2000s.

Remember, judgment begins in the house of God. I don't often agree with Al Mohler (I think this is the second time), but he was right when he warned that judgment was coming on the evangelical movement because of hypocrisy (he was specifically addressing the case of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, but he also knew it ranged further than that.)

Listen to the voice of the words of YHWH...

In the Hebrew text Samuel says: “and now listen to the voice of the words of YHWH” (1 Sam 15:1).8 This seems to be a peculiar way of constructing the phrase, since the command “listen to the words of YHWH” would seem sufficient. The inclusion of “voice,” however, may be important in terms of evoking resonances later in the chapter, when Samuel hears the voice of sheep among the Israelites (15:14), when he accuses Saul of disobeying YHWH’s voice (15:22–23), and when Saul confesses that he yielded to the people’s voice (15:24). Furthermore, the catchwords “voice” (קוֺל [qôl]) and “listen/obey” (שׁמע [šm']) connect the instruction to destroy the Amalekites with the emphasis, prevalent in ch. 12, placed upon listening to God’s voice as a prerequisite for a successful monarchy under God (esp. 1 Sam 12:14–15). Israel and its leader should live in obedience to YHWH and his voice—a fundamental feature of Israel’s life, exemplified most concisely in the book of Deuteronomy (e.g. Deut 13:5; 15:4–5; 26:17),11 and seemingly finding its way also into the construal of Israel’s kingship in 1 Sam 15.—The Unfavored, pages 152–53

Whom do you trust?

OK, aside from God. You thought this was going to be a devotional post, didn't you? Well, since all truth is God's truth, in a way it is. But, I'm thinking more specifically about medical research reporting. In case you haven't noticed, a lot of it seems contradictory. One week you should eat lots of this or that, the next week eating too much of this or that will kill you! Whom do you trust?

There's a website called NutritionFacts.org that is not funded by the big Pharma companies or by big medicine; instead it is funded through donations. Check it out! And lest you think the media intentionally mislead you (as some high-raking political figures would have you think), read this post from today. Seems the problem begins a lot closer to the source—the researchers themselves and the sources of their funding. But ultimately, it's also what gets published. This final paragraph of the cited article sums it up:

I think the biggest problem with the way the media reports on medicine, though, is the choice of which stories are covered. In 2003, for instance, SARS and bioterrorism killed less than a dozen people, yet generated over a hundred thousand media reports, which is far more than those covering the actual greatest threats to our lives and health. In fact, ironically, “the more commonplace the cause of death, the less likely it is to be covered by the mass media.” Our leading killer is heart disease, yet it can be prevented, treated, and even reversed with diet and lifestyle changes—now that’s what should be front page news.

You will make a fool of yourself

The study of any language—Greek, Latin, Hebrew, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Taino—opens the mind, gives you a window onto another culture, and reminds you that there is a larger world out there and different ways of saying things, hearing things, seeing things. It always distresses me to hear someone say, “I’m no good at foreign languages,” or demand “English for me, dear.” In learning a foreign language, you have to humble yourself, admit your ignorance, be willing to look stupid. We learn a language by making mistakes. Or anyway I do.—Mary Norris, Greek to Me Adventures of the Comma Queen, 68

<idle musing>
I always told my students that I was going to make mistakes, just as they would. In some ways is was a game to see if they could catch my mistakes. More than once, they did. Learning in general, and languages especially, means you are going to make mistakes. Admit them, learn from them, and move on.
</idle musing>

The battle belongs to the LORD

The section 1 Sam 14:6–15 thus reveals Jonathan’s rationale for his courageous action and its outcome. He relies on YHWH, for whom the smallness and ill-equipped nature of Israel’s army presents no problem. Accompanied by his faithful armor-bearer, Jonathan devises a sign that assures him of God’s favor and as a result he attacks the Philistines. While Jonathan’s attack was a blow to the Philistine camp, the panic created by God is what provided the key difference in the ensuing battle.—The Unfavored, page 138

Nothing new under the sun

Indeed, rural abandonment has often been a serious and significant consequence of urban agglomeration throughout human history.… This decline in rural lifeways may have critically affected agricultural production, diminishing returns, placing further stress on an inflexible multitiered settlement system, which then ultimately collapsed under its own overmilitarized weight and a deteriorating natural environment.—Melissa Kennedy, "Horizons of Cultural Connectivity: North-South Interactions During the Early Bronze Age IV," in New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant, edited by Suzanne Richard (Eisenbrauns, forthcoming).

<idle musing>
Nope. It's not describing Rome, although it could be. And it's not describing the Hittite Empire, although it could be. And, it's not a prophecy about the United States, although it could be. It's describing the decline of urban life in the southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age—wich predates all of those by at least a thousand years.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. And those of us who do, are doomed to watch others repeat it while we watch on, trying vainly to warn others of their folly. No wonder Qohelet (the preacher in Ecclesiastes) said all is vanity. : (
</idle musing>

A Good Beginning

Saul is a suitable candidate for Israel’s throne not only from a human point of view, but he is also chosen by God. Samuel, having been instructed by YHWH, anoints Saul and sends him on a peculiar journey full of unusual signs—an excursion which also places the newly anointed leader under Samuel’s tutelage. These signs gradually locate Saul within the sphere of divine activity and in the end seem to transform him into a different kind of man (1 Sam 10:6, 9). The Spirit’s empowerment he experiences among a circle of prophets in 10:10–13 seems to be a foretaste of his Spirit-prompted action in ch. 11, where he rescues the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead from their Ammonite oppressors (11:6).—The Unfavored, page 120

Is this the one?

Saul’s name (שָאוּל [šāʾûl) means “asked for,” which may immediately raise the reader’s expectation that Saul could be the person for whom the elders had asked in 1 Sam 8:10, in terms of their plea for a king. The verb also occurs seven times in chs. 1 and 2, during the episode in which the barren Hannah asks for a child—then receives, and later gives up again, Samuel (1:17 [×2], 20, 27, 28 [×2]; 2:20).—The Unfavored, page 120 n. 5

Conditional chosenness

There are a number of parallels between the rejection of the Elides in 1 Sam 2–3 and Saul’s rejection in 1 Sam 13–15. Both Saul’s and Eli’s family are initially chosen, yet they are rejected by YHWH through the prophetic word because of an issue involving sacrifice. Their rejection is final, which in turn brings severe consequences for both their families and Israel as a whole. Simultaneously, a person better suited for the task is appointed in their place.—The Unfavored, page 117 n. 4

<idle musing>
Reminds me of Rev 2:5:

5 So remember the high point from which you have fallen. Change your hearts and lives and do the things you did at first. If you don’t, I’m coming to you. I will move your lampstand from its place if you don’t change your hearts and lives.

</idle musing>

The evolving nature of being chosen

Unchosenness, at least when it occurs within the elect group, may be dynamic rather than static, and the Joseph story, with the rivalry between these two brothers pointing beyond its horizon, may testify to this dynamic, unseen elsewhere in the Genesis material. As far as the Joseph story is concerned, Joseph does not lose his favored status, yet Judah seems to achieve a place that goes well beyond his unfavored position at the beginning of the narrative, which is later actualized in the stories of Judah’s descendants. If the topic of election in the closing chapters of Genesis also revolves around the notion of kingship, then the situation in subsequent Old Testament narratives changes even more. Although Gen 48 may suggest that the future monarch will be an Ephraimite, Israel’s most enduring dynasty will come from Judah.—The Unfavored, page 114

Thought for the day

²⁷ Like a cage full of birds,

so their houses are full of loot.

No wonder they are rich and powerful

²⁸ and have grown fat and sleek!

To be sure, their evil deeds

exceed all limits,

and yet they prosper.

They are indifferent

to the plight of the orphan,

reluctant to defend the rights of the poor.

²⁹ Shouldn’t I punish such acts?

declares the LORD.

Shouldn’t I repay that nation

for its deeds?

³⁰ An awful, a terrible thing

has happened in the land:

³¹ The prophets prophesy falsely,

the priests rule at their sides,^u

and my people love it this way!

But what will you do when the end comes? (Jer 5:27–31 CEB)

<idle musing>
Sure sounds like the rich and powerful of the US today, doesn't it?

Let those who have ears to hear, hear and repent of their ways!
</idle musing>

Beyond explanation

Perhaps it must be that a story [the Joseph cycle] containing such a rich texture of themes associated with the idea of chosenness will also include elements that remain unexplained, and thus will continue to provoke one’s understanding and imagination. The nature of election itself defies rationalization. If one could find satisfying reasons for God’s choice in a person’s motives, words, or deeds, the choice would perhaps cease to be divine. The tendency to rationalize and to find possible reasons for chosenness is understandable, but it must be complemented, or perhaps preceded, by an acknowledgment that God’s reasons for his choices may remain beyond human reach.—The Unfavored, pages 109–10

We're just as religious as ever, maybe more so...

Here's a long read on the increase of the number of women exploring the possibility of becoming Catholic nuns, or so the title says. Actually it's as much about the increase of angst among the younger generation as it is about anything else. What I found fascinating is the acknowledgment that there's something we're missing as a culture as we grab for everything. Here's a snippet, but set aside the time to read it all and ponder what it means for the church:

America started with a religious narrative—the city on a hill—and once you conceive of it, still, as a society grasping for religion, you see it everywhere. The free-floating moral rage, which affixes itself to targets like cucks or Aziz Ansari or libtards or MAGA bigots. The conviction, in the way we now talk about the climate or the loss of our “values,” that the world will inevitably be ruined because of our sins. Things like Goop and the gluten-free movement are basically straight-up religions, promising spiritual renewal and healing from all sickness, only with a jade yoni egg as the Eucharist. We’re fixated on minimalism and self-purification, be it by the methods of Marie Kondo or “inbox zero” or Jordan Peterson, whose popularity rests less on his insights about Carl Jung or lobster biology than on his idea that life can be boiled down to 12 rules—commandments.

Remember when?

The most controversial thing a president did was reveal his reading list? OK, I'm being a bit ironic, but it always was fun to see what he was reading. Anyway, the former president has revealed his summer reading list. You can see it here. I have to confess that I've never read any of them. But I'm sure they're good. And it's alway's fun to see what people are reading. Me, I'm buried in editing books and haven't had a chance to read much else this summer. Every summer I swear I won't take on so many projects—and every summer too many tantalizing projects get offered to me. How can I say no?

This looks like an interesting book

Just saw a review of Shadows of Doubt: Stereotypes, Crime, and the Pursuit of Justice on Crooked Timers. Here's how the review begins

America is very good at some things and very bad at others. We produce a steady flow of scientific, cultural, and engineering successes—in the past five years we can lay claim to a drug that cures hepatitis C, Hamilton: The Musical, and self-driving cars. And yet, we perform just this side of miserable at addressing core social and economic challenges. We are among the world’s leaders in income inequality, obesity rates, drug overdose deaths, and per capita greenhouse gas emissions. And, we rank first, that is worst, in the proportion of citizens in jail at about seven people per thousand. Even more troubling, blacks are six times as likely as whites to be behind bars.

Why is this so? And what is to be done? In their exceptional book, Shadows of Doubt: Stereotypes, Crime, and the Pursuit of Justice, economists Brendan O’ Flaherty and Rajiv Sethi examine our troubled, racist criminal justice system with depth, maturity, pragmatism, and focus.

Sounds interesting, doesn't it? The review gets into more detail; go read it and then read the book! And then, hopefully, change your paradigms. . .

An archaeological tidbit

Since most people are right-handed with shields held by the left hand, making a right-hand turn into the city from the central gate axis created an initial contact moment in which the nonshielded side of the body was exposed.—Steven Collins, footnote in ch. 15 in New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant, edited by Suzanne Richard, Eisenbrauns, forthcoming.

Learning from his mistakes

When one attempts to envisage the influence of [Genesis] ch. 38 on the rest of the Joseph story, this subplot may be viewed as having a bearing upon the situation endangering Benjamin in chs. 43–45. It is possible that Judah’s emphasis on the continuation of Israel’s family line and his understanding that the life of the youngest might need to be risked in order to ensure the future (Gen 43:8) might be seen as stemming from Judah’s own experience in ch. 38. His willingness to be a surety for Benjamin (Gen 43:9) may further show that he wanted to prevent a similar scenario happening again.—The Unfavored, page 75

Wrong priorities are nothing new

Judah seems to care more about his reputation within the Cannanite culture where he lives, than about the continuation of his clan, which at this point is in the immediate danger. Judah’s lax attitude towards his own family and his preoccupation with his good reputation thus stand in contrast to the unconventional action of Tamar, who risked her own reputation in order to acquire a son who would carry on Judah’s family line.—The Unfavored, pages 72–73

thought for the day

“Rest is not idleness, and to lie sometimes on the grass under trees on a summer’s day, listening to the murmur of the water, or watching the clouds float across the sky, is by no means a waste of time.”—John Lubbock, The Use Of Life (1894) (from the Gorgias July newsletter)

A word to the wise

Is. 10:1    Doom to those

who pronounce wicked decrees,

and keep writing harmful laws

² to deprive the needy of their rights

and to rob the poor among my people

of justice;

to make widows their loot;

to steal from orphans!

³ What will you do

on the day of punishment

when disaster comes from far away?

To whom will you flee for help;

where will you stash your wealth?

⁴ How will you avoid

crouching among the prisoners

and falling among the slain?

Even so, God’s anger

hasn’t turned away;

God’s hand is still extended. (CEB)

<idle musing>
Let those who have ears understand!
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

Is. 5:20    Doom to those who call evil good

and good evil,

who present darkness as light

and light as darkness,

who make bitterness sweet

and sweetness bitter.

Is. 5:21    Doom to those

who consider themselves wise,

who think of themselves as clever.

Is. 5:22    Doom to the wine-swigging warriors,

mighty at mixing drinks,

²³ who spare the guilty for bribes,

and rob the innocent of their rights.

²⁴ Therefore, as a tongue of fire

devours stubble,

and as hay shrivels in a flame,

so their roots will rot,

and their blossoms turn to dust,

for they have rejected the teaching of

the LORD of heavenly forces,

and have despised the word

of Israel’s holy one. (Common English Bible)

So many books—but that's a good thing

Ran across this quotation from Dr. Ruth J. Simmons, president Prairie View A&M University in Texas and a comparative literature scholar today in Shelf Awareness:

I'm much less convinced than many others that there is a prescriptive list of books that you must read. I'm more convinced that it is the reading widely that matters more than anything else. . . . I know a lot of people today like to do things on the fly. You can't read on the fly, thank goodness, right? Because forced meditation is probably a good thing. . . . The busyness does not make our lives meaningful. It is the interior life that makes the greatest difference to us in the end.

Steps to reconciliation

Yet Joseph does not accept their [his brothers'] servantship, refusing to exercise dominion over them. He sees himself as subservient to God (Gen 50:19), and his power not as a means to rule over his siblings but as God’s way of providing for them in a time of crisis. He is able to perceive God’s hand even in his brothers’ merciless act towards him, an act which eventually resulted in much good for many (50:20). He does not speak harshly to his brothers any more (42:7) but reassures and comforts them (50:21), which further rectifies the hostile relationship which began in 37:4.—The Unfavored, page 62

Submission?

Joseph’s journey through Potiphar’s house, the prison, and the Egyptian court have demonstrated that the favored one needs to learn a certain sort of submission in order to be blessed. The actions of the mature Joseph appear to fulfill the dreams in a way that is life-giving, because they respect the authorities given into his life.—The Unfavored, page 56

Unchosen, but favored?

The story never explains why Judah succeeds and Reuben does not, but Gen 43 shows that Judah focuses on saving the life of Israel’s children, and acts with both responsibility and urgency. When he and his brothers go to Egypt the second time, Jacob’s family is close to death. Surprisingly, it is the unchosen Judah who alters the family’s future and brings life out of death, precisely because he is willing to risk his own life. He values the bond between Jacob and his beloved Benjamin, and hence offers himself in substitution for the brother more loved than himself. In addition to this, Judah’s wise and persuasive words show Joseph that he is, in effect, now doing the very same thing his brothers did to him. Joseph might have brought his father down to Sheol in sorrow by his plan to enslave Benjamin. Judah’s speech thus prompted Joseph to reveal himself to his brothers and moved the whole family towards reconciliation. Judah represents a kind of climax in the line of unchosen brothers in the book of Genesis. He is instrumental in effecting a fuller reconciliation than that which occurred between Esau and Jacob, and accomplishes something that Cain failed to do—be his brother’s keeper (4:9).—The Unfavored, pages 46–47

Showing emotion

Joseph’s willingness to weep in front of the members of his family continues throughout the narrative (45:14; 46:29; 50:1, 17) and thus seems to play an important role in the reconciliation of the brothers. Ebach, for example, suggests that Joseph’s self-control is connected with his control over his brothers. If this is the case, then it is possible that a capacity to come to terms with emotions connected to the past pain seems to be a significant element in one’s ability to cope with previous hurts. Joseph is defenseless and more vulnerable, which seems to feature positively in his dealing with those who have previously harmed him.—The Unfavored, pages 44–45

Daddy's favorite

Judah has somehow learned that protecting this special relationship between father and the chosen son is to the benefit of the whole family. The attempt to get rid of the favored one did not help the situation, as none of the unfavored brothers was elevated to this privileged position, and so now Judah is ready to accept his unfavored status and do whatever he can to save the chosen son and thus also protect the father.—The Unfavored, page 43

Recently read

Over the weekend, I read Women and Power by Mary Beard. I saw it at the local used bookstore (Fair Trade Books) and grabbed it on Friday. It's a short little book, barely 100 pages with the appendix. Unfortunately, it's not one that you can easily extract short little thoughts from, so you won't see any snippets here. But, do take the time to read it. Highly recommended!

Going back to last month, on the way to the atla conference in Vancouver, I read The Battle for Bonhoeffer. I saw it a the AAR/SBL conference last November and begged a copy from Andrew Knapp, the acquisitions editor (and former Eisenbrauns employee). Again, it doesn't lend itself to extracts—or maybe the fact that I was on a plane made me less willing to extract! At any rate, here's what I told Andrew about the book in an email thanking him for it:

It’s a great book! Very balanced. I guess I must have been living in a bubble, because I wasn’t aware of the pre-Metaxus use of Bonhoeffer by the right-wing. I just remember that when I first became a Christian back in 1972, I was warned to stay away from him—which of course means I read him and loved him. I assumed that was the default position of most conservative Evangelicals.

Those of you who have followed this blog over the years might remember that I extracted from Ethics as I was reading it. You can see all the posts here.

Speaking of Bonhoeffer, I finally completed my set last month, taking advantage of the atla conference discount. So now I have a complete set of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Works in English, even the index volume! Now, to find the time to read them all. . .

On the return flight from atla, I read Christians in Caesar’s Household: The Emperors’ Slaves in the Makings of Christianity, the first book in the series Inventing Christianity. It's a good book, but I think he's a bit pessimistic about the number of Christian convert's in the imperial household. That being said, it is a healthy corrective to the habit of too many in finding converts on every grave marker. He looks at the grave inscriptions that are considered "Christian" and points out the flawed logic behind that identification. A must-read if you are specializing in early Christian history.

Right now, as you know from the recent posts, I'm working my way through The Unfavored. And I'm also reading New Testament Christological Hymns, another book I picked up at AAR/SBL last year. You will (hopefully) see extracts here after I finish The Unfavored. I have other books at various stages of being read, but those the two I'm really reading. Well, the books I'm editing, too, of course. Some of those end up being extracted on this site, too.

Unintended (and unexpected) side effects

Von Rad and Arnold argue that Joseph’s long procedure, which is certainly open to various interpretations, could have served two concerns—to see whether the brothers have truly changed and to reveal the fate of those who were dear to Joseph’s heart: Benjamin and Jacob. On an existential level it could also testify to the complexities of forgiveness and reconciliation. Such situations are not resolved lightly, and they are not cheap. They require a certain change, which at least on the part of a perpetrator often requires the ability to see things from the perspective of the wronged party.

It should be noted, however, that one cannot be sure about Joseph’s attitudes with respect to the trial that he initiated. In the end, the procedure which the brothers undergo impacts also Joseph himself. Even he is caught in the interwoven web of actions that test one’s relationship to the chosen.—The Unfavored, page 38

Watch the boundaries!

[T]hese final words of Joseph do not seem to be adding a new reason for his self-control. Rather, they seem to be summing up what he has already said and what is in line with the characterization of the narrator in Gen 39:1–6—that is, Joseph’s success in Potiphar’s house is directly related to YHWH’s blessing. Joseph’s sin against God can be seen, then, as a move in the same direction as a betrayal of Potiphar: overstepping Potiphar’s instructions would transgress also God’s commands.

This insight is both in line with Joseph’s own deference to God as the sole source of dreams and their interpretation, and more embedded in the story as such—both of which might hint at something that Joseph’s attitude displays in these chapters about the topic of chosenness. They signify that an important part in the life of the chosen is to recognize that in order to rule, one needs to accept a certain level of subordination. Joseph is the second-in-command both in Potiphar’s house and in Pharaoh’s court, and in both cases a few things are excluded from his oversight. The power of the chosen is thus not limitless. It has certain boundaries, which should be respected.—The Unfavored, pages 35–36

A tendency toward evil?

One extension of this topic might be the unlikely occurrence involving the Ishmaelites in the course of [Genesis] ch. 37. It is interesting that both Esau’s and Joseph’s brothers’ moment of hatred and murderous intent is accompanied in the story by the appearance of Ishmael’s descendants (Gen 28:9; 37:25, 28; 39:1). At the time that they contemplate getting rid of the favored one, the unchosen brothers unite with the unchosen descendants, emphasizing perhaps the negative tendency that unchosenness entails.—The Unfavored, page 18 n. 7

A psalm for today

Psa. 94:4    They spew arrogant words;

all the evildoers are bragging.

⁵ They crush your own people, LORD!

They abuse your very own possession.

⁶ They kill widows and immigrants;

they murder orphans,

⁷ saying all the while,

“The LORD can’t see it;

Jacob’s God doesn’t know

what’s going on!”

Psa. 94:8    You ignorant people better learn quickly.

You fools—

when will you get some sense?

⁹ The one who made the ear,

can’t he hear?

The one who formed the eye,

can’t he see?

¹⁰ The one who disciplines nations,

can’t he punish?

The one who teaches humans,

doesn’t he know?^f

¹¹ The LORD does indeed

know human thoughts,

knows that they are nothing

but a puff of air.

Psa. 94:16    Who will stand up for me

against the wicked?

Who will help me against evildoers?

Psa. 94:20    Can a wicked ruler be your ally;

one who wreaks havoc

by means of the law?

²¹ The wicked gang up

against the lives of the righteous.

They condemn innocent blood.

²² But the LORD is my fortress;

my God is my rock of refuge.

²³ He will repay them

for their wickedness,

completely destroy them

because of their evil.

Yes, the LORD our God

will completely destroy them.

<idle musing>
Let those who have ears to hear. . .
</idle musing>

On its head

The one [Joseph] to whom the siblings were not able to speak a peaceful word (Gen 37:4) was later sent to inquire about their peace (Gen 37:14).—The Unfavored, page 17 n. 3

For those who have ears to hear!

Finally, for James, several things characterize those whose behavior is not consistent with that of someone who is a disciple of Jesus. They let themselves be seduced by and conform themselves to the values of a society that is not compatible with the values proclaimed by the royal law (that is, of the kingdom), the prophets, and Jesus; they neither enter into solidarity with the needy nor control their tongue. For James, their faith is empty, therefore it does not save them (2:14).—"Don’t Conform Yourselves to the Values of the Empire," by Elsa Tamez (trans. Kevin Johnson) in Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Darian R. Lockett, forthcoming

Mercy triumphs!

The story of salvation begins entirely with God and his gracious action. But then the assumption is that, given this rebirth and empowerment, a person shall live wholeheartedly according to God’s will. Sanctification is inseparable from salvation. When people instead choose the idols of worldly power and wealth, or even nation or family over God, they reveal their doubleminded hesitation, and for that they receive judgment. In this economy, judgment is not the shock. Rather, God’s responsiveness to his people’s attempts at single-minded worship, mercy, and repentance is astounding. Perfection is not expected, but the letter depicts deep frustration over the audience’s willful lack of growth. Their covenant adultery has James upset and concerned, because the only outcome for such duplicity is judgment and destruction. But praise be to God, “mercy triumphs over judgment.”—"Salvation in James: Saved by Gift to Become Merciful," by Mariam Kamell Kovalishyn in Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Darian R. Lockett, forthcoming

You gotta serve somebody

If there truly are two ways of being as James depicts in 1:13–18, then one obeys either the law of sin and death or the word of truth that gives freedom. Obedience is a given; James only questions what one obeys; and so, like a forgetful person who fails to realize her nature has been gifted a transformation but continues in her prior patterns, those who continue to act according to their natural desires deceive themselves about the law they obey, and thereby bring forth death in themselves.—"Salvation in James: Saved by Gift to Become Merciful," by Mariam Kamell Kovalishyn in Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Darian R. Lockett, forthcoming

It ought not to be so!

The Epistle of James, like the synoptic Jesus, sets out to unmask the strategies of those who claim to be religious and yet act out of narrow self-interest (Jas 1:26–27). In so doing, the author exposes the exploitive strategies of the rich and powerful and reveals the plight of the poor. The world, now as then, is divided sharply into rich and poor nations, and all nations are also divided into rich and poor. In the poor nations, the poverty is pitiful, and in the struggle for survival the poor, wherever they are, cannot win. Meanwhile the rich live in wasteful luxury, obscuring reality while justifying the inequality into which people are born and from which they cannot escape. In this situation the James of the epistle says, “My brothers and sisters, it ought not to be so!”—John Painter in Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Darian R. Lockett, forthcoming

It's in our nature

Just read a very interesting post on the pervasiveness of smart phones and why we are so easily addicted to them. Here's an extract, but do read the whole thing here (HT: Galli Report).

The technology has now become ubiquitous, and students are no different from anyone else in their addiction to smartphones. The underlying question is, why were we all so vulnerable to smartphone addiction when the gadgets arrived on the scene? The answer lies in our nature.

College students are a symbol of the larger society. This is so because, contrary to what some of the evidence suggests, college students are human, and, as such, share our basic moral and spiritual make-up. It might be tempting to think technology has changed this basic human nature. It has not.

Technology amplifies, but does not alter, who we are. We are creatures with a deep and abiding desire to avoid the real. We seek to escape awareness of ourselves and of God through distraction and denial, a point Pascal made centuries ago when he famously pointed out that all the trouble in the world stems from people’s inability to sit quietly in their rooms alone. Not much has changed.

.&thinsp. .

The common root of every instance of denial and pernicious distraction is not technology, but the inner fear of seeing ourselves as we actually are. We much prefer to see ourselves as we imagine we are. When others refuse to play along, that fear can easily become anger at them for exposing our game. The quest to leave our vices behind and achieve the peace that can only come from living with integrity demands that we do the opposite, that we face our shortcomings squarely, even if that means enduring some temporary discomfort. Too many of us remain stuck in the grip of our vices simply because we have developed the reflexive and automatic habit of avoiding knowledge of them. A quick reach into the pocket or a quick scroll with the thumb is all that is required.

<idle musing>
Ouch! But he's correct. Our society's drug of choice right now the smart phone, which is becoming smarter all the time (while we become dumber!). As a small voice of protest, I changed my email signature on my phone from "Sent from my [insert name of brand here]" to "Sent from my not-so-smart phone." Ok, it's a dumb protest, but maybe, just maybe I'm protesting because I know I'm more addicted than I'd like to admit.

What about you?

Just an
<idle musing>

Is it just a symbol?

For the majority, one suspects, of ‘practising’ Christians — and what does ‘practising’ entail in this context? — the Crucifixion remains an unexamined inheritance, a symbolic marker, of familiar but vestigial recognitions. This marker is revered and invoked in conventional idiom and gestures. Its concrete status, the enormity of suffering and injustice it incarnates, would appear to have faded from felt immediacy.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 381

Drink the hemlock

Every time a community attempts, by censorship, ostracism or killing to silence a moral-intellectual outsider within its walls, to gag or efface his intolerable queries, it lives a Socratic hour. But concomitantly, the thinker, the scientist, the artist, the ironist or satirist who presses in extremis his deconstructive doubts, who sets his addiction to what he takes to be the truth above the inherited beliefs and compromises essential to the continuance of the city, repeats the Socratic provocation. Consciously or not, whether on a secular level (that of a Karl Kraus) or on a religious-philosophic level (that of a Simone Weil), the ‘No-sayer’ to injustice, to human greed and stupidity, is not only risking but soliciting a Socratic destiny.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 378

A higher loyalty

The ‘patriotism’ of the truth—seeker is antithetical to Rousseau’s civic option. The sole citizenship of the cleric is that of a critical humanism. He knows not only that nationalism is a sort of madness, a virulent infection edging the species towards mutual massacre. He knows that it signifies an abstention from free and clear thought and from the disinterested pursuit of justice. The man or woman at home in the text is, by definition, a conscientious objector to the vulgar mystique of the flag and the anthem, to the sleep of reason which proclaims ‘my country, right or wrong’, to the pathos and eloquence of collective mendacities on which the nation- state - be it a mass-consumer mercantile technocracy or a totalitarian oligarchy — builds its power and aggressions. The locus of truth is always extraterritorial; its diffusion is made clandestine by the barbed wire and watch-towers of national dogma.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 322

Moribund

The choice is not a comfortable one. But perhaps the concept of choice is itself a fallacy. As I have implied throughout, the intellectual, the inebriate of thought is, like the artist or philosopher, though to a lesser degree, born and not made (nascitur non fit, as every schoolboy used to know). He has no choice except to be himself or to betray himself. If ‘happiness’ in the definitions central to the theory and practice of ‘the American way of life’ seems to him the greater good, if he does not suspect ‘happiness’ in almost any guise of being the despotism of the ordinary, he is in the wrong business. They order these matters better in the world of the despot, Artists, thinkers, writers receive the unwavering tribute of political scrutiny and repression. The KGB and the serious writer are in total accord when both know, when both act on the knowledge that a sonnet (Pasternak simply citing the first line of a Shakespeare sonnet in the venomous presence of Zhdanov), a novel, a scene from a play can be the power-house of human affairs, that there is nothing more charged with the detonators of dreams and action than the word, particularly the word known by heart. (It is striking and perfectly consequent that America, the final archive, should also be the land whose schooling has all but eradicated memorization. In the microfiche, the poem lies embalmed; recited inwardly, it is terribly alive.) The scholar in the Soviet Union understands precisely what the KGB censor is after when he seizes and minutely scans his article on Hegel. It is in such articles, in the debates they unleash, that lie the motor forces of social crisis.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 302

Spotless worship

The immediately preceding theme is pure and spotless worship (H, 1:27). At first sight, due to the terminology a modern reader might think that the perfection of worship is the correct praise of God through song and the sincerity of heart in dedicating worship to God, and perhaps we could also add the absence of evil thoughts, especially at the moral level. The author, however, sees that part as one side of the coin, an incomplete part that loses its significance without the other part: the concrete proof of love to the needier neighbor.—Elsa Tamez in Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Darian R. Lockett, forthcoming

The giving God

The epistle [of James] begins with the vision of how a believer’s life should progress: The audience members should rejoice as they face trials because of what they know, which is that God is at work in perfecting them through these times. In order to gain this perspective, however, the believer is cautioned to turn in faith to God, because God will give what is needed for one to have that correct perspective. Here James’s utter trust in God’s good and generous nature makes its first appearance: “ask of the giving God [tou didontos theou]” who gives “to all generously and without finding fault, and it will be given to him/her” (Jas 1:5). James places the present participle between the article and noun rather than after the pair, placing the emphasis on the participle (“giving”) as God’s nature, not merely an action that God does. It becomes, as it were, almost a title describing God’s character: “the giving God” rather than simply “the God who gives,” although translationally the latter works better. It is God’s character to give—and to give to all (pasin)—as James counters any preconceived notion that God gives only to those who have some special reason for receiving (Vlachos 2013, 25). To drive this point home, James then uses both a positive and negative description, “singly” or “generously” (aplōs) and “without finding fault” (mē oneidizontos); the repetition provides rhetorical emphasis. God’s inherent nature as generous should not be questioned: he is unstinting in his very nature.—"Salvation in James: Saved by Gift to Become Merciful," by Mariam Kamell Kovalishyn in Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Darian R. Lockett, forthcoming

Surprising reversal!

What one has, then [in James], is a description of Jesus as the reigning Lord, who is glorious. He is the one who is coming, and his coming is as eschatological Judge. This contrasts with the Father who is described more mildly. The Father is jealous, indeed, but ready to receive the repentant and always prepared to send good and only good to his people. This is not an absolute contrast, but it is a surprising reversal of what one might expect from typical readings of the Christian Scriptures.—Peter H. Davids in Reading the Epistle of James: A Resource for Students, ed. Eric F. Mason and Darian R. Lockett, forthcoming

Conference!

I'm at the atla conference in Vancouver through Saturday AM. I may or may not be posting until then... meanwhile, I have a few hours to walk around. Seems like a beautiful town!

Our national myth

The American Adam is not an innocent — far from it. But he is a corrector of errors. He has, after its brief and creative role in the New England temper, all but abandoned even the metaphor of original sin. The notion that the human condition is, ontologically, one of ‘dis-grace’, that cruelty and social injustice are not mechanical defects but ‘primaries’ or ‘elementals’ in history, will seem to him defeatist mysticism. No less so the hunch that there are between tragic historicism, between the concept of ‘fallen man’ and the generation of the unageing monuments of intellect and of art, instrumental affinities. It may be that these monuments, born of autistic vision, are counterstatements to a world felt, known to be ‘fallen’. There is in eminent art and thought a manichaean rebellion. ‘A truth,’ taught Alain, the French maitre de pensée (itself a phrase significantly untranslatable), ‘is the refusal of a body.’ There can be no didactic sophistry more un-American, no ideal more alien to the pragmatic immanence of ‘the pursuit of happiness’.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 298

Is the price too high?

Civilization, in the elevated and formal sense, does not guarantee civility, does not inhibit social violence and waste. No mob, no storm-troop has ever hesitated to come down the Rue Descartes. It is from exquisite Renaissance loggias that totalitarian hooligans proclaim their will. Great metaphysicians can become rectors of ancient universities in, at least, the early days of the Reich. Indeed, the relations between evaluative appreciation of serious music, the fine arts, serious literature on the one hand and political behaviour on the other are so oblique that they invite the suspicion that high culture, far from arresting barbarism, can give to barbarism a peculiar zest and veneer. American thinkers on the theory and practice of culture have long sensed this paradox. The price which the Athenian oligarchy, the Florentine city-regime, the France of Louis XIV or the Germany of Heidegger and Furtwangler have paid for their aesthetic-intellectual brilliance is too steep. The sacrifice of social justice, of distributive equity of sheer decency of political usage implicit in this price is simply too great. If a choice must be made, let humane mediocrity prevail. Feeling the manifest force of this line of insight, having articulated this force within its own expressive means, the American cultural establishment is sceptical of itself and apologetic towards the community at large. This self-doubt and defensiveness have produced a subtle range of attitudes all the way from mandarin withdrawal to public penitence.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, pages 295–96

Pseudo-literacy and the U.S. school

One cannot, beyond a severely limited and superficial degree, inject sensibility and intellectual rigour into the mass of society. One can, instead, trivialize, water down, package mundanely, the cultural values and products towards which the common man is being directed. The specific result is the disaster of pseudo-literacy and pseudo-numeracy in the American high school and in much of what passes for so-called ‘higher education’. The scale and reach of this disaster have become a commonplace of desperate or resigned commentary. The predigested trivia, the prolix and pompous didacticism, the sheer dishonesty of presentation which characterize the curriculum, the teaching, the administrative politics of daily life in the high school, in the junior college, in the open—admission ‘university’ (how drastically America has devalued this proud term), constitute the fundamental scandal in American culture. A fair measure of what is taught, be it in mathematics, be it in history, be it in foreign languages, indeed with regard to native speech, is, in the words of the President of Johns Hopkins, ‘worse than nothing’. It has produced what he calls ‘America’s international illiteracy’ or what Quentin Anderson entitles ‘the awful state of intellectual affairs in this country’.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, pages 293–94

Living a lie

The adoption, on a continental scale, of an eschatology of monetary-material success represents a radical cut in regard to the Periclean—Florentine typology of social meaning. The central and categorical imperative that to make money is not only the customary and socially most useful way in which a man can spend his earthly life — an imperative for which there is, certainly, precedent in the European mercantile and pre—capitalist ethos — is one thing. The eloquent conviction that to make money is also the most interesting thing he can do, is quite another. And it is precisely this conviction which is singularly American (the only culture, correlatively, in which the beggar carries no aura of sanctity or prophecy). The consequences are, literally, incommensurable. The ascription of monetary worth defines and democratizes every aspect of professional status. The lower-paid — the teacher, the artist out of the limelight, the scholar — are the object of subtle courtesies of condescension not, or not primarily, because of their failure to earn well, but because this failure makes them less interesting to the body politic. They are more or less massively, more or less consciously patronized, because the ‘claims of the ideal’ (Ibsen’s expression) are, in the American grain, those of material progress and recompense. Fortuna is fortune. That there should be Halls of Fame for baseball-players but few complete editions of classic American authors; that an American university of accredited standing should, very recently, have dismissed thirty tenured teachers on the grounds of utmost fiscal crisis while flying its football squads to Hawaii for a single game; that the athlete and the broker, the plumber and the pop-star, should earn far more than the pedagogue — these are facts of life for which we can cite parallels in other societies, even in Pericleian Athens or the Florence of Galileo. What we cannot parallel is the American resolve to proclaim and to institutionalize the valuations which underlie such facts. It is the sovereign candour of American philistinism which numbs a European sensibility; it is the frank and sometimes sophisticated articulation of a fundamentally, of an ontologically immanent economy of human purpose. That just this ‘immanence’ and ravenous appetite for material reward is inherent in the vast majority of the human species; that we are a poor beast compounded of banality and greed; that it is not the spiky fruits of the spirit but creature comforts we lunge for — all this looks more than likely. The current ‘Americanization’ of much of the globe, the modulation from the sacramental to the cargo-cult whether it be in the jungles of New Guinea or the hamburger—joints, laundromats and supermarkets of Europe, points to this conclusion. It may be that America has quite simply been more truthful about human nature than any previous society. If this is so, it will have been the evasion of such truth, the imposition of arbitrary dreams and ideals from above, which has made possible the high places and moments of civilization. Civilization will have endured after Pericles by virtue, to quote Ibsen again, of a ‘life-lie’. Russian or European power relations and institutions have laboured to enforce this ‘lie’. America has exposed it or, pragmatically, passed it by. The difference is profound.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, pages 289–90

Is there such a thing as American culture?

This, then, is my surmise: the dominant apparatus of American high culture is that of custody. The institutions of learning and of the arts constitute the great archive, inventory, catalogue, storehouse, rummage-room of western civilization. American curators purchase, restore, exhibit the arts of Europe. American editors and bibliographers annotate, emend, collate, the European classics and the moderns. American musicians perform, Often incomparably, the music which has poured out of Europe from Guillaume de Machaut to Mahler and Stravinsky. Together, curators, restorers, librarians, thesis writers, performing artists in America underwrite, reinsure the imperiled products of the ancient Mediterranean and the European spirit. America is, on a scale of unprecedented energy and munificence, the Alexandria, the Byzantium of the ‘middle kingdom’ (that proud Chinese term) of thought and of art which was Europe, and which may be Europe still.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, pages 281–82

<idle musing>
Fascinating idea—and probably true. I can't think of a single original (nontechnology) idea that has sprung from the United States.
</idle musing>

The U.S. and self-perception

In short: the Puritan programme of a break with the ‘corrupt ancientness’ and hereditary taint of European history, the great hunger of successive waves of immigrants for a new dispensation free of the terrors and injustice which had marked their communal past, have played a central role in the American imagination and in the rhetoric of American identity. But they do not afford the actual products of American culture a calendar of Arcadian youth, a time of special grace. On the contrary. American culture has stood, from its outset, on giant shoulders. Behind Puritan style lay the sinew of English Tudor, Elizabethan and Jacobean prose. Behind the foundation of American universities lay the experience of Oxford and Cambridge, Aristotelian logic and the mathematics of Galileo and Newton. British empiricism and the world of the philosophes underwrite the Jeffersonian vision of an American enlightenment. Goethe stands behind Emerson as Shakespeare and Milton do behind Melville. It may be, as D. H. Lawrence found, that American culture is ‘very old’ precisely because it has been heir to so much. The New England divines would concur. By the early eighteenth century, William Cowper testified to ‘God’s withdrawal’ from a new world whose conditions of spirit and civil practice were no better than in the old. The idiom of his testimony was that of Jeremiah and the Cataline orations, of Juvenal and the Aesopian satirists of the European reformation.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 270

Veneer

I was cleaning up some files on my computer today and ran across this. I discovered I had originally posted it in November 2006, but it bears reposting, even though I might word it differently in places if I wrote it today:

<idle musing>
Veneer is a handy thing. You overlay a thin layer of an expensive wood over cheap wood and it looks good. Nobody suspects that the underlying wood is just particle board. No one that is, until you try to put a load on the shelf and it breaks.

It can be the same with people.

Recently I had the opportunity to spend time with someone I hadn’t seen for a while. Others had told me how much this person had changed and how much they had grown in Christ. I was excited to see it; I always like to see what God does in a person.

At first it seemed that it was true. The person acted the part of a Christian; the vocabulary was Evangelical, God was part of the discussion. But, then came a time of pressure. Pop! The shelf cracked and the particle board of old unredeemed self shown through.

Does it have to be that way? Do we have to go through life play-acting? Recent events raise this question even more starkly. Is Christianity just a sop thrown to give us hope after death, while we struggle and fail here on earth? Is there no victory over sin? Does the enemy of our souls have the upper hand?

Scripture says, “No!” Emphatically. Jesus, on the night of his betrayal, was able to say, “I have overcome the world!” Note the tense, not I will, not I am, but I have (perfect, active, indicative in the Greek). Paul was able to say, in Romans 8, “we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (present active indicative in the Greek). John, in I John says, “Greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world.”

So, why the disconnect? Why don’t people seem to be experiencing this in their daily lives?

Well, there can be any number of reasons, but I submit that the main one is that most Christians have never really died to self. Evangelical Christianity is big on justification, but short on sanctification. We want big numbers, and frankly, death isn’t a good calling card if you are looking for a large following: “Hi, Jesus loves you and wants to put you to death!” But, that is exactly what Jesus calls us to, “Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” Matthew 16.24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, 14.27 (RSV)

Paul develops the theme even more in Romans 6. According to Paul, we died with Christ in baptism and now we are alive in Christ. But, it is in Christ, not in self. As long as we function in self, we function in sin. As long as we seek what we want, when we want it, we are dead to Christ and alive to the world. As long as we live in Christ, we are dead to self and the world. It’s too simple—maybe that’s the problem. We want to make it harder; we want to do it.

The reformation happened almost 500 hundred years ago. Its basic truth was sola gratia, all God and not man. Why is it that we are now trying to do it ourselves? Sola Gratia means just that, by grace alone, or does Galatians 3 not ring true anymore?

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? Did you experience so many things in vain? —if it really is in vain. Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?

</idle musing>

The source of the law

If, in the Judaic perception, the language of the Adamic was that of love, the grammars of fallen man are those of the legal code. It is the modulation from one to the other, as commentary and commentary on commentary seek to hammer it out, which is one of the centres of The Trial (kabbalistic geometries know of ordered constructs with several centres). Set beside Kafka’s readings of Kafka, ours are, unavoidably, feeble.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 241

Live as guests

To be a guest among other men is a possibility. All of us, I firmly believe are guests of the planet, of its ecology. We did not make our world, we were thrown into it. We are born without knowing why. We haven’t planned it. We are trustees of a dwindling space for survival. We had better learn very quickly that we are guests, or there will be not much left to live in.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 237

Textuality

Those who have produced canonic texts and textualities by which they organize their politics — be they the Koran, the Scriptures, the Kapital — are not everywhere. And there are many cultures that have, until now, refused textuality, and which are now paying a bitter price for what may be a perfectly natural condition of their being.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 236

In praise of the liberal arts

There's a marvelous blog called Bob on Books that I read regularly. Normally he reviews books—a wide variety of books, but mainly Christian ones. But sometimes he offers musings on other things. Today is one of those days. Here's an excerpt, but please take the extra couple of minutes to read the whole thing—and maybe even add him to your daily reading!

A good liberal education helps people explore all these questions, and consider whether the answers of others address the questions of the day. I wonder sometimes whether the effort to eradicate what was once a staple of education is a recognition of the dangerous character of such an education. It fosters the asking of hard questions of oneself and one’s society. Questions people ask. Questions cogs do not ask.

I asked the question of how long it would take for people to wake up to what they’ve missed or lost. I suspect some never do, the amusements and distractions of life precluding such awakenings. Others get twenty years into a career only to discover that they have no clue why they are doing what they do other than that it pays well.

It ain't easy!

It would be fantastically arrogant to suppose that we know that we have evolved into a kind of creature that likes living with those that smell different, look different, sound different. Sit in a railway carriage or bus in a land where you don’t speak a single word of the language. Have you ever noticed the panic that starts growing in your civilized soul, the sense that something is hideously wrong, that your very identity may soon be torn apart? It could be that autonomy is the natural form of the social unit, and that those who would thrust others together may be doing so in the name of a transcendent vision of justice, hope, human fairness, but that they may also be hurrying something very complicated. We don’t know. Human beings do tend to be with their own. Not all. Not the exceptional. But most human beings.

We’re speaking across a statistical mean, but it is a very massive one. Environment is heredity, and heredity is environment. That which you are born into — the privileges, the luck or the misfortune — is both heredity and environment. They cannot be separated. Cautionary rhetoric occludes this complicated recognition of interaction. The dialectic, the osmotic, which relate the mutations conceivable or feasible in this interaction, are radically beyond our understanding.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 235

And Freud comes crashing down

First published in 1966, Das Dritte Reich des Traums is a neglected classic. In it, Charlotte Beradt summarizes her analyses of some three hundred dreams recounted to her in Berlin 1933–34, That the images, symbols, fantasms which crowd these dreams should so obviously mirror the political changes taking place in Berlin at the time, is not surprising. What is of the very first importance, however, is the degree of depth to which external history penetrates into the subconscious and unconscious. It does not take long to discover that patients dreaming of the loss of limbs or of the atrophy of arms or legs are not displaying symptoms of a Freudian castration—complex but, more simply and terribly, revealing the terrors inflicted on them by the new rules demanding the Hitler-salute in public, professional and even familial usage.

Am I mistaken in feeling that this finding, even by itself, presents a fundamental challenge to the psychoanalytic model of dreams and their interpretation?—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, pages 222–23

On Dreams

Our knowledge of dreams and of dreaming, the material which constitutes the history of human dreams, are wholly inseparable from the linguistic medium. (I leave to one side the epistemologically teasing possibility that a mute or deaf-mute dreamer can somehow provide a pictorial or gestural mimesis of his dreams.) Dreams are told, recorded, interpreted in language. The phenomenology of dreaming is imbedded in the evolution and structures of language. A theory of dreams is also a linguistics or, at the very least, a poetics. No account of any human dream, whether provided by the dreamer himself, by a secondary source or by the dream-interpreter, is linguistically innocent or value-free. The account of the dream, which is the sum total of our evidence, will be subject to exactly the same constraints and historical determinants in respect of style, narrative convention, idiom, syntax, connotation, as any other speech act in the relevant language, historical epoch and milieu. Dreams were no less splintered at Babel than were the tongues of men.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 217

Do you?

It is a confident guess that despite the Enlightenment and positivism, that despite modern agnosticism and Freud, a great majority of mankind—even in so-called ‘advanced’ and technological societies—continues to attach prophetic, oracular values to its dreams.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 214

A change in dream interpretation

In psychoanalysis, on the contrary, dreams feed not on prophecy but on remembrance. The semiological vector points not to the future but to the past. The dynamics of opacity are not those of the unknown but of the suppressed.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 214

Tread carefully!

Any poetic, philosophic, rhetorical pronouncement worth taking seriously will compact its executive means and meanings. It will resist, it will frustrate to the greatest possible degree, the dissociative, the deconstructive agencies of paraphrase and translation. A major text exposes pitilessly the necessary innocence and arbitrariness of the translator’s assumption that meaning is some sort of ‘packageable content’ and not an energy irreducible to any other medium. Language is, therefore, the adversary of translation. Thus there is more than cautionary allegory in the prohibition which numerous cultures have set against the translation of their sacred texts.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 195

Good news

Ted Gossard over at Jesus Community has a good exhortation that I needed to hear today. After quoting Phil 4:4–9 and some comments, he closes with this:

Sometimes Christians along with others see it as their moral duty to focus on all that’s wrong, the mess of the world with the goal of exposing and rooting it out, or at least taking a stand against it. There is surely a time to speak and a time to keep silent (Ecclesiastes 3:7b). But one can become completely absorbed in that, totally occupied with it, so that there’s no time to do what we’re called to do in the passage above. I liked what I heard Dallas Willard say online in a talk, that only after one has worked hard all day, and is collapsing should they turn their attention to the news. That might be an overstatement to make a point. It’s not like we’re to ignore what’s unpleasant. But neither should that be our focus. Instead we’re to concentrate on what’s uplifting and helpful to us. Then hopefully that same spirit and practice can help others as we continue to be helped. In and through Jesus.

Do read the whole thing, though.

A matter of perspective

The extinction of a language however remote, however immune to historical-material success or diffusion, is the death of a unique world—view, of a genre of remembrance, of present being and of futurity. A truly dead language is irreplaceable. It closes that which Kierkegaard bade us keep open if our humanity was to evolve: ‘the wounds of possibility’. Such closure may, for late twentieth-century mass-media and mass-market technocracy, be a triumph. It may facilitate the imperium of the fast-food chain and the news-satellite. For the lessening chances of the human spirit, it is destructive.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, pages 150–51

The tragedy of the tragic

Absolute tragedy is very rare. It is a piece of dramatic literature (or art or music) founded rigorously on the postulate that human life is a fatality. It proclaims axiomatically that it is best not to be born or, failing that, to die young. An absolutely tragic model of the condition of men and women views these men and women as unwanted intruders on creation, as beings destined to undergo unmerited, incomprehensible, arbitrary suffering and defeat. Original sin, be it Adamic or Promethean, is not a tragic category. It is charged with possibilities both of motivation and of eventual redemption. In the absolutely tragic, it is the crime of man that he is, that he exists. His naked presence and identity are transgressions. The absolutely tragic is, therefore, a negative ontology. Our century has given to this abstract paradox a tangible enactment. During the Holocaust, the Gypsy or the Jew had very precisely committed the crime of being. That crime attached by definition to the fact of birth. Thus even the unborn had to be hounded to extinction. To come into the world was to come into torture and death.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 129

The strains of translation

For it is in and through the process of translation that a language is made eminently self-aware. Translation constrains it to formal and diachronic introspection, to an explicit investment and enlargement of its historical, colloquial and metaphorical instruments. Simultaneously, translation puts a language under pressure of its limitation. It will solicit modes of perception and designation which that language had left underdeveloped, or had altogether discarded. An act of translation draws up a balance-sheet, as it were, for the target-language.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 94

Were you there?

‘Who is it that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?’ I am unable to account wholly rationally for the ways of the man or woman who put the question and who asks me where I was when ‘the morning stars sang together’ or whether ‘the rain hath a father?’

Perhaps this is as it should be. It is the Hebrew Bible, of all books, which most questions man.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 87

The pervasiveness of biblical themes

How naked would be the walls of our museums stripped of the works of art which illustrate, interpret or refer to biblical themes. How much silence there would be in our western music, from Gregorian chant to Bach, from Handel to Stravinsky and Britten if we excised settings of biblical texts, dramatizations and motifs. The same is true of western literature. Our poetry, drama, fiction would be unrecognizable if we omitted the continuous presence of the Bible. Nor is there any categorical way of delineating that presence. It extends from the immense volume of biblical paraphrase to the most tangential or covert of allusions.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 82

Let the mystery remain!

But the possible confusion and, in our present climate of approved sentiment, the inevitable embarrassment which must accompany any public avowal of mystery, seems to me preferable to the slippery evasions and conceptual deficits in contemporary hermeneutics and criticism.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 38

Sitz im leben matters

We must read as if the temporal and executive setting of a text does matter. The historical surroundings, the cultural and formal circumstances, the biological stratum, what we can construe or conjecture of an author’s intentions, constitute vulnerable aids. We know that they ought to be stringently ironized and examined for what there is in them of subjective hazard. They matter none the less. They enrich the levels of awareness and enjoyment; they generate constraints on the complacencies and licence of interpretative anarchy.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 34

Complexity of meaning

We must read as if the text before us had meaning. This will be a single meaning if the text is a serious one, if it makes us answerable to its force of life. It will not be a meaning or figura (structure, complex) of meanings isolated from the transformative and reinterpretative pressures of historical and cultural change. It will not be a meaning arrived at by any determinant or automatic process of cumulation and consensus. The true understanding(s) of the text or music or painting may, during a briefer or longer time-spell, be in the custody of a few, indeed of one witness and respondent. Above all, the meaning striven towards will never be one which exegesis, commentary, translation, paraphrase, psycho-analytic or sociological decoding, can ever exhaust, can ever define as total. Only weak poems can be exhaustively interpreted of understood. Only in trivial or opportunistic texts is the sum of significance that of the parts.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 34

The Ontology of Literary Criticism

The poem comes before the commentary. The poem is first not only temporally. It is not a pre-text, an occasion for subsequent exegetic or metamorphic treatment. Its priority is one of essence, of ontological need and self-sufficiency. Even the greatest critique or commentary, be it that of a writer or painter or composer on his own work, is accidental (the cardinal Aristotelian distinction). It is dependent, secondary, contingent. The poem embodies and bodies forth through a singular enactment its own raison d’étre. The secondary text does not contain an imperative of being. Again the Aristotelian and Thomist differentiations between essence and accident are clarifying. The poem is; the commentary signifies.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 32

The hermeneutic circle

Unlike criticism and aesthetic valuation, which are always synchronic (Aristotle’s ‘Oedipus’ is not negated or made obsolete by Holderlin’s, Hoderlin’s is neither improved nor cancelled out by Freud’s), the process of textual interpretation is cumulative. Our readings become better informed, evidence progresses, substantiation grows. Ideally—though not, to be sure, in actual practice—the corpus of lexical knowledge, of grammatical analysis, of semantic and contextual matter, of historical and biographical fact, will finally suffice to arrive at a demonstrable determination of what the passage means. This determination need not claim exhaustiveness; it will know itself to be susceptible to amendment, to revision, even to rejection as fresh knowledge becomes available, as linguistic or stylistic insights are sharpened. But at any given point in the long history of disciplined understanding, a decision as to the better reading, as to the more plausible paraphrase, as to the more reasonable grasp of the author’s purpose, will be a rational and demonstrable one. At the end of the philological road, now or tomorrow, there is a best reading, there is a meaning or constellation of meanings to be perceived, analysed and chosen over others. In its authentic sense, philology is, indeed, the working passage, via the arts of scrupulous observance and trust (philein) from the uncertainties of the Word to the stability of the Logos.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, pages 27–28

Willful blindness

We realize, more or less clearly, the degree to which literate ‘common sense’, the acceptable limits of debate, the transmission of the generally agreed syllabus of major texts and works of art and of music, is an ideological process, a reflection of power-relations within a culture and society. The literate person is one who concurs with the reflexes of approval and aesthetic enjoyment which have been suggested and exemplified to him by the dominant legacy. But we dismiss such worries. We accept as inevitable and as adequate the merely statistical weight of ‘institutional consensus’, of common-sense authority. How else could we marshal our cultural choices and be at home in our pleasures?—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 26

Hermeneutics of reading

The act and art of serious reading comport two principal motions of spirit: that of interpretation (hermeneutics) and that of valuation (criticism, aesthetic judgement). The two are strictly inseparable. To interpret is to judge. No decipherment, however philological, however textual in the most technical sense, is value-free. Correspondingly, no critical assessment, no aesthetic commentary is not, at the same time, interpretative. The very word ‘interpretation’, encompassing as it does concepts of explication, of translation and of enactment (as in the interpretation of a dramatic part or musical score), tells us of this manifold interplay.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 25

A great emptiness

The alternatives are not reassuring: vulgarization and loud vacancies of intellect on the one hand, and the retreat of literature into museum cabinets on the other. The tawdry ‘plot outline’ or ‘predigested and trivialized version of the classic on the one hand, and the illegible variorum on the other. Literacy must strive to regain the middle ground. If it fails to do so, if une lecture bien faite becomes a dated artifice, a great emptiness will enter our lives.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 19

Schools

Schooling today, notably in the United States, is planned amnesia.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 15

Remember when?

The atrophy of memory is the commanding trait in mid and later twientieth-century education and culture. The great majority of us can no longer identify, let alone quote, even the central biblical or classical passages which not only are the underlying script of western literature (from Caxton to Robert Lowell, poetry in English has carried inside it the implicit echo of previous poetry), but have been the alphabet of our laws and public institutions. The most elementary allusions to Greek mythology, to the Old and the New Testament, to the classics, to ancient and to European history, have become hermetic. Short bits of text now lead precarious lives on great stilts of footnotes.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, pages 14–15

The primacy of experience—or is it bankruptcy?

Current literacies are diffuse and irreverent. It is no longer a natural motion to turn to a book for oracular guidance. We distrust auctoritas—the commanding script or scripture, the core of the authoritarian in classical authorship—precisely because of immutability. We did not write the book. Even in our most intense penetrative encounter with it is experience at second hand. This is the crux. The legacy of romanticism is one of strenuous solipsism of the development of self out of immediacy. A single credo of vitalist spontaneity leads from Wordsworth’s assertion that ‘one impulse from a vernal wood’ outweighs the dusty sum of libraries to the slogan of radical students at the University of Frankfurt in 1968: ‘Let there be no more quotations.’ In both cases the polemic is that of the ‘life of life’ against the ‘life of the letter’, of the primacy of personal experience against the derivativeness of even the most deeply felt of literary emotions. To us, the phrase ‘the book of life’ is a sophistic antinomy or cliché. To Luther, who used it at a decisive point in his version of Revelation and, one suspects, to Chardin’s reader, it was a concrete verity.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, pages 11–12

<idle musing>
And we are the poorer for it. We cast aside thousands of years of aggregate experience as recorded, however imperfectly and stumblingly, in books, scrolls, or tablets for the sake of our tiny little microsecond of experience. And then we wonder why things go awry? Fools we are! Why reinvent the wheel all the time; we might just as well be illiterate. Ah, but we are! We may know how to read, but we haven't a clue on what to read or how to read well. We skim and call it reading. We rarely actually read, but when we do, we call it "close reading" or "deep reading" so that people will think some amazing thing is happening. Our predecessors would laugh at us. Hopefully, if we have successors (which is looking less and less likely with each rise in temperature), they too will laugh at us. Heaven knows we deserve it!
</idle musing>

Do you read with a pencil in hand?

But the principal truth is this: latent in every act of complete reading is the compulsion to write a book in reply. The intellectual is, quite simply, a human being who has a pencil in his or her hand when reading a book.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 8

<idle musing>
The person who loaned me this book always has a pencil behind his ear. Me, I always have a pen attached to the collar of my t-shirt—yes, always.
</idle musing>

Printing errors!

He who passes over printing errors without correcting them is no mere philistine: he is a perjurer of spirit and sense. It may well be that in a secular culture the best way to define a condition of grace is to say that it is one in which one leaves uncorrected neither literal nor substantive errata in the texts one reads and hands on to those who come after us.—George Steiner, No Passion Spent, page 7