7:3 Why would he have sent the Jewish Elders? This does not seem to be the best way to get Jesus on your side . . .
7:6 well, it worked, I guess.
7:8 But this is the best way to get Jesus on your side: tell him a good parable.
7:22 Is this reluctance still to say, "Yes, I am he."?
7:23 What a curious response. "Blessed is he who takes no offense at me." What does that mean?
7:24 there seems to be something in this verse lost in translation. What possible meaning could "A reed shaken by the wind" have?
7:28 So, was Jesus not born of women?
7:30 So the Pharisees allowed themselves to be baptized by John, but not by Jesus.
7:32 this parable has never worked for me. The implication seems to be that there is no pleasing some people, but the person in the parable whom there is no pleasing is the one being sung to , not the one singing. Whereas in the application, Jesus seems to imply that the "generation" is addressing John and him saying "you're no fun!"
7:35 another non sequitir, ala vs.23. I wonder if these would mean something all put together?
7:40 I think Luke was quite convinced of Jesus' telepathy.
7:50 From what was this woman saved by her faith? From sin? Surely not.
8:1-3 The men followed for different reasons than the women it seems: the men were called, the women moved by gratitude. Maybe the woman in 7:50 was saved from loneliness :)
8:10 or he didn't want to say directly what he was thought about the hooey polloi.
8:11 By "The Word of God", did Jesus mean himself?
8:21 Much different than other versions. Luke's Jesus requires more from people than jsut showing up.
8:25 are they just now getting it?
8:39 here's the shift from "tell no one" to "oh, alright. You can tell people."
8:46 this remains one of the most fascinating verse. Jesus' power is A.) limited B.) passively active C.) perceptible. Certainly one of the few reputable insights into metaphysical science.
8:50 this does discredit to the idea that Jesus merely perceived that she was in a coma. He knows before he gets there that she is resurrectable.
8:51 this seems to indicate that Luke would have had to talk to one of these five for his sources; he even details that there was laughter.
I am developing a perception of Jesus as Neo from The Matrix. The secret to his power seems just to be that he doesn't see the spoon. He believes this or that and it is so.
9:1 this would seem to belie my previous statement. The power, as it is seen here, is an actual thing, something that can be given.
9:7 I seem to remember there being more to this piece of the story . ..
9:13 Jesus does not seem to have performed this type of trick before. No wonder the disciples were unable to do it.
9:21 In verse 2, he had just told them to go out an proclaim "the kingdom of God", but the details of his Messiahship seem to still be Verboten--even this late into his ministry. Perhaps he doesn't want to spoil the surprise for everybody.
9:25 not the translation I'm used to: "themselves" instead of "their souls"
9:28 So if the transfiguration is "the kingdom of Gos" from verse 27 and, presumably, vs. 2, the what is the Messiahship? The resurrection? Wasn't I asking all of these same questions in Mark?
9:30 How would they recognize Moses and Elijah?
9:34 they entered the cloud? Walked into the pillar of cloud? Not the visual I am used to associating with this scene.
9:40 One of the more troubling accounts. Whom was Jesus berating? His disciples? If so, it seems like he owes them an apology afterward.
9:42 missing from this version: the rebuke not to tell anyone who he is
9:44-45 Jesus seems very intent on them understanding this message, so what agency was concealing it from them?
9:50 I need to remember this sometimes. It's very Zen
9:51-56 This section is weird. Does "set his face" have a connotation which is lost?
9:57-62 these three accounts are uncharacteristically related. It seems as though Luke is engaging in a bit of editing here, placing them together in the narrative for thematic purposes.
10:1 By definition, these 70 should be called "apostles" too
10:4 why greet no one on the road? I thought this was an evangelizing trip.
10:11 This is "the kingdom of God" used in a different way. Before, it's reported presence has always coincided with Jesus' presence.
10:18 Is this vision the same as the vision John later has in Revelation? In which case, who was foreseeing, and who was aftseeing?
10:20 This seems to be in direct contradiction of the practice of snake handling. Jesus says not to rejoice in the ability to handle snakes and such.
10:21-24 The fact that several of the quotations in Luke are non sequitirs or even appear not to make any sense actually lends the book an air of credibility. It's as if Luke thought, "Well, I'm not sure why he said this, but I had better include it."
10:25 How does Luke know that he was testing? It sounds like a perfectly honest question to me.
10:27 But there is no mention of eternal life in the law, nor scarcely any mention of a reward at all.
10:36 This corollary doesn't quite follow. The man asks who a man's neighbor is. Jesus answers that the Samaritan was the mans neighbor. Are our neighbors those who treat us wellthen? this is nitpicky, I know. It's still a good parable.
10:42 I like this part. There truly is only need of one thing.
11:3-8 I had not put these two thoughts together in my mind heretofore. It actually gives some cachet to the practice of rote prayer, though. The Witnesses had always said that Jesus was just giving an example, not a specific prayer, and that prayers should be composed from the heart instead of repeated. Jesus clearly says otherwise here, and he says it in connection with a specific prayer, sooooo . . . why not that one?
11:9 Totally in line with Ernest Holmes' concept of affirmative prayer. Yes, you don't get a scorpion when asking for an egg, but you may well get a scorpion when asking for a scorpion.
11:16 as though he hadn't just taken someone off of mute . . .
11:17 I really should be counting these occurrences.
11:23 At first I wondered why he would even bother to answer such charges, but he turns it right around in this verse rather beautifully.
11:24 And then turns it into a teaching moment without missing a beat.
11:31 The Witnesses always considered this a prophecy, but it sure feels more like a metaphor here.
11:29 Just when I was about to wonder why he's revealing these things--after concealilng them for so long--he answers. Jesus is reading my mind too!
11:45 Wow, that's one awkward dinner party.
11:53 I suppose I would be too after that.
12:7 In context, this parable has a fairly ominous tone.
12:8 and this definitely confirms a change in tone. He feels almost vengeful here.
12:12 There are a few times in my life where my words have been given to me spontaneously. I don't know where they came from, but they changed my life each time. I'm sure that's what is meant here.
12:13 Ooh, this would piss me off if I were Jesus. Here I am trying to impart the secrets of the universe, and some brat yelss, "Daaaaad, he's touching meeeeee!"
12:14-15 But he does two great pedagogical things instead: he refuses to get sucked in, and he turns it into a teachable moment.
12:18 hehe. I used to think he pulled down his barns so he could use the wood from the barns to make bigger ones. But then how did he make bigger ones? this perplexed me as a youth.
12:24 Why repeat this parable? Is it of special significance? It is certainly of great elegance and brevity.
12:25 Possibly the most epigrammatic verse in the whole book so far.
12:31 Ah, but you have never been quite clear what you mean by "the kingdom".
12:39-40 But don't stress or anything . . . the balance that needs to be struck between being present and surrendering is one that escapes most.
12:42 This is pretty Socratic of him.
12:49 Again with this side! Not attractive.
12:50 Well, that does make it understandable. Even humanizing . . .
12:56 I feel like he's about to cry. Wow, The Buddha never had mood swings.
12:57 whoawhoawhoa. What just happened here? This has no perceptible relation to the preceding narrative.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Untitular
Ayn Rand: Anthem
I read this book in high school, but remembered nothing but the last line. The vivid memory of that line fit so poorly with my beliefs at the time that I developed a distaste for Rand, although I never read any of her longer works. Some of my students have picked it up, to my delight, as their choice for independent reading, so I decided to revisit it with a view to saying something intelligent about it. That something intelligent is to the effect that it is far better crafted than I could give it credit for when I read it 15 years ago. It's succinct, sound, fluid, transparent and engaging, all of the things a high school student appreciates in a novel. While I still don't even understand objectivism, let alone subscribe to it, I plan on recommending this to several other students, and even teaching it at some point.
Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais: The Barber of Seville
This brief number offered little surprise, so familiar am I with the opera--which was, interestingly, written in Beaumarchais' own lifetime. What was shocking to me was the terrible quality of the edition I read. I found two typos just in the introduction, and they were peppered just as liberally throughout the play. How disappointing. As much as I love the Modern Library editions of classics, with their smooth, coppery bindings, the selection leaves something to be desired. I had high hopes for the Oxford Press editions as a replacement, but this one was so terrible I have such hopes no longer. Oh yeah: it was a good play.
Henry James: The Turn of the Screw
My book club has become so saturated with English majors that I didn't really expect to be the only one with a novel (teehee) approach to this book. In fact, I was rather more surprised that anybody took it at face value, which a few did. On the surface, The Turn of the Screw is a fairly mediocre ghost story exhibiting a certain panache at creating suspense. Most of my book club compatriots and I, however, chose to see it as more of a psychological study. It is not too much of a stretch to say that James is, in his own way, doing the same thing for which his brother William is famous: analyzing the psychological roots of supernatural experience.
This is not the first thing one notices about the book, however. James has a way with sentence structure that is at best confusing, and at worst criminal. His relationship with the dash and the semicolon is not unlike Ike's relationship with Tina: abusive and opportunistic. It is not explicitly for The Turn of the Screw that he adopts this style either, as a quick look at The Lesson of the Master will reveal. Some of these sentences have to be read thrice or more to yield their significance, and even then there remains some doubt, some ambiguity. Although likely not done purposefully for the story, that ambiguity allows--even encourages--the reader to leaf through the sentences for hidden meanings.
Once so encouraged, the reader is blessed with a clue as to James' possible intent. The first hint that he is trying to do more than set the reader on edge is the constant conflation of the young governess with the phantasms she claims to see. The first time he really tips his hand at this is when the governess--the book club decided to name her Mary--see Peter Quint at the window. She rushes out to where she had seen him, and "applied my face to the pane and looked, as he had looked, into the room" (31). Not a startling structure, but signifcant to the extent that James continues doing it. Every time Mary sees a "horror", as she calls them, at some point she is found in the horror's same place and with its same perspective. She looks down on young Miles from the window, as she saw Quint look down her at first. She sees Miss Jessel across the lake, and later finds herself standing in the same spot the horror had occupied. As she sits on the stair, she starts "with a revulsion, recalling that it was exactly where more than a month before . . . I had seen the spectre of the most horrible of women" (89). The reader is thus alerted to the possibility that the connection between the ghosts and the narrator may be more than thematic, that she may in fact be imagining them.
Of course, the idea that the horrors are in the governess' head presents certain problems, most of which are resolvable. What about the other characters, for instance? Mrs. Grose is just as troubled by the spirits as Mary. But does she ever see them? She does not. At one point, Mary is driven into something resembling a hysteria by the spirit, but Grose protests, "Where on earth do you see anything?" (109). In fact, it could not be said for sure whether any other character ever sees the spirits. At the end of the narrative, Miles seems to see the image of Quint in the window, but James oblique sentence structure makes it arguable which lines are spoken by whom. The only line attributable with absolute certainty to Miles in that final scene is "Is she here?" (133). Everything else is not specifically attributed. And no matter who speaks the lines there, the spectre of Quint disappears as Miles turns toward the window, and reappears when Mary presses his face to her breast.
Although certain other of the difficulties with this reading are rather difficult to explain--Mary's description of Quint, for instance--all can be dismissed as the mistakes of an unreliable narrator, which Mary undoubtedly is. What could have driven her to such mental extremes? What little we know about her certainly lends itself to a Freudian diagnosis. We know basically two things about her: that she was "the youngest of several daughters of a poor country parson" who was of an "eccentric nature", and that she and Douglas, the metanarrator of the story, had a fondness for each other (6,77). As the story progresses, we learn a little about her character, if not her history: namely that she has a certain almost excessive fondness for Miles that mirrors, if not presages, hers for Douglas. The sentiment seems to be mutual, as seen from Miles labeling her his "dear", a rather questionable title for a governess. It is not uncommon for an Electra complex, such as it would be easy for the youngest of many daughters to develop, to evolve into something of a Jocasta complex. Seen in this light, her ascription of a terrible haunting to Miles can be seen as a metaphysical Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, by which she needs Miles to need her so much that she invents for him a reason. James' title thereby takes on a new meaning, for the "Screw" could well be Mary herself. This gives her line "It was a tighter place yet that I was turned round in" a delightful new twist (120). The usage of "screw" to refer to a crazy person is traceable as far back as 1887, so it is not a stretch to imagine that James chose his words to that effect.
What is to be thought of the ending, then? Does it represent some mental break? Does Miles actually die, or does the ambiguity allow for another conclusion to be drawn? Perhaps even that Miles lived, and had some other name? Douglas, perhaps? Such questions are enticing, but mostly unsupportable. What is clear is that James was doing more than just trying to scare his reader. His heroine, whether due to supernatural visitation or something more internal, was an unbalanced woman, and his believably inventive portrayal of her inner workings well deserves its place in the Western Canon.
BTD: 17ish
I read this book in high school, but remembered nothing but the last line. The vivid memory of that line fit so poorly with my beliefs at the time that I developed a distaste for Rand, although I never read any of her longer works. Some of my students have picked it up, to my delight, as their choice for independent reading, so I decided to revisit it with a view to saying something intelligent about it. That something intelligent is to the effect that it is far better crafted than I could give it credit for when I read it 15 years ago. It's succinct, sound, fluid, transparent and engaging, all of the things a high school student appreciates in a novel. While I still don't even understand objectivism, let alone subscribe to it, I plan on recommending this to several other students, and even teaching it at some point.
Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais: The Barber of Seville
This brief number offered little surprise, so familiar am I with the opera--which was, interestingly, written in Beaumarchais' own lifetime. What was shocking to me was the terrible quality of the edition I read. I found two typos just in the introduction, and they were peppered just as liberally throughout the play. How disappointing. As much as I love the Modern Library editions of classics, with their smooth, coppery bindings, the selection leaves something to be desired. I had high hopes for the Oxford Press editions as a replacement, but this one was so terrible I have such hopes no longer. Oh yeah: it was a good play.
Henry James: The Turn of the Screw
My book club has become so saturated with English majors that I didn't really expect to be the only one with a novel (teehee) approach to this book. In fact, I was rather more surprised that anybody took it at face value, which a few did. On the surface, The Turn of the Screw is a fairly mediocre ghost story exhibiting a certain panache at creating suspense. Most of my book club compatriots and I, however, chose to see it as more of a psychological study. It is not too much of a stretch to say that James is, in his own way, doing the same thing for which his brother William is famous: analyzing the psychological roots of supernatural experience.
This is not the first thing one notices about the book, however. James has a way with sentence structure that is at best confusing, and at worst criminal. His relationship with the dash and the semicolon is not unlike Ike's relationship with Tina: abusive and opportunistic. It is not explicitly for The Turn of the Screw that he adopts this style either, as a quick look at The Lesson of the Master will reveal. Some of these sentences have to be read thrice or more to yield their significance, and even then there remains some doubt, some ambiguity. Although likely not done purposefully for the story, that ambiguity allows--even encourages--the reader to leaf through the sentences for hidden meanings.
Once so encouraged, the reader is blessed with a clue as to James' possible intent. The first hint that he is trying to do more than set the reader on edge is the constant conflation of the young governess with the phantasms she claims to see. The first time he really tips his hand at this is when the governess--the book club decided to name her Mary--see Peter Quint at the window. She rushes out to where she had seen him, and "applied my face to the pane and looked, as he had looked, into the room" (31). Not a startling structure, but signifcant to the extent that James continues doing it. Every time Mary sees a "horror", as she calls them, at some point she is found in the horror's same place and with its same perspective. She looks down on young Miles from the window, as she saw Quint look down her at first. She sees Miss Jessel across the lake, and later finds herself standing in the same spot the horror had occupied. As she sits on the stair, she starts "with a revulsion, recalling that it was exactly where more than a month before . . . I had seen the spectre of the most horrible of women" (89). The reader is thus alerted to the possibility that the connection between the ghosts and the narrator may be more than thematic, that she may in fact be imagining them.
Of course, the idea that the horrors are in the governess' head presents certain problems, most of which are resolvable. What about the other characters, for instance? Mrs. Grose is just as troubled by the spirits as Mary. But does she ever see them? She does not. At one point, Mary is driven into something resembling a hysteria by the spirit, but Grose protests, "Where on earth do you see anything?" (109). In fact, it could not be said for sure whether any other character ever sees the spirits. At the end of the narrative, Miles seems to see the image of Quint in the window, but James oblique sentence structure makes it arguable which lines are spoken by whom. The only line attributable with absolute certainty to Miles in that final scene is "Is she here?" (133). Everything else is not specifically attributed. And no matter who speaks the lines there, the spectre of Quint disappears as Miles turns toward the window, and reappears when Mary presses his face to her breast.
Although certain other of the difficulties with this reading are rather difficult to explain--Mary's description of Quint, for instance--all can be dismissed as the mistakes of an unreliable narrator, which Mary undoubtedly is. What could have driven her to such mental extremes? What little we know about her certainly lends itself to a Freudian diagnosis. We know basically two things about her: that she was "the youngest of several daughters of a poor country parson" who was of an "eccentric nature", and that she and Douglas, the metanarrator of the story, had a fondness for each other (6,77). As the story progresses, we learn a little about her character, if not her history: namely that she has a certain almost excessive fondness for Miles that mirrors, if not presages, hers for Douglas. The sentiment seems to be mutual, as seen from Miles labeling her his "dear", a rather questionable title for a governess. It is not uncommon for an Electra complex, such as it would be easy for the youngest of many daughters to develop, to evolve into something of a Jocasta complex. Seen in this light, her ascription of a terrible haunting to Miles can be seen as a metaphysical Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome, by which she needs Miles to need her so much that she invents for him a reason. James' title thereby takes on a new meaning, for the "Screw" could well be Mary herself. This gives her line "It was a tighter place yet that I was turned round in" a delightful new twist (120). The usage of "screw" to refer to a crazy person is traceable as far back as 1887, so it is not a stretch to imagine that James chose his words to that effect.
What is to be thought of the ending, then? Does it represent some mental break? Does Miles actually die, or does the ambiguity allow for another conclusion to be drawn? Perhaps even that Miles lived, and had some other name? Douglas, perhaps? Such questions are enticing, but mostly unsupportable. What is clear is that James was doing more than just trying to scare his reader. His heroine, whether due to supernatural visitation or something more internal, was an unbalanced woman, and his believably inventive portrayal of her inner workings well deserves its place in the Western Canon.
BTD: 17ish
Friday, April 10, 2009
It never reads; it pores.
Hunter S. Thompson: Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
What a great book. While not ambitious, it set out with a clear purpose--to reproduce as entertainingly and accurately as possible the experience of a drug-induced bender--and accomplished it with brevity and indelibility. I immediately netflixed the movie, for I cannot remember reading a book that is suited so perfectly to a film adaptation, while remaining successful as a book.
David Rice: Crazy Loco
My students are creating reading journals, and this is one that several have had positive reactions to, so I decided to take a look for pedagogical purposes. I was a bit disappointed at the relative shallowness, and irritated at the editor's borderline insulting choice to gloss every other word. The final story in the book redeemed it to a large extent, however. "Last Mass" was the longest story in the book, and it was clear that the relative lack of skill in the previous stories was a function of the constraints of length rather than of the author's amateurity. In fact, I found it quite touching and, though I don't plan on teaching the whole collection, may well find an opportunity to teach just this one story.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: The Sign of Four
I found this significantly easier to read than its predecessor, A Study in Scarlet, but I'm not precisely sure why. It is possible that there are subtle touches Doyle had incorporated as a more experienced author which, though barely noticeable individually, gave the story some refinement that was lacking in Scarlet. At any rate, the structure of the story was essentially the same, and neither Doyle's nor Holmes' skills shone particularly brightly. Nonetheless, a worthy read--once.
Athene Raefiel: Getting to the Heart
Easily the worst written book of the four in this post, and at the same time the only one likely to make a lasting impression on my life. I feel like giving Athene a gift of my editing skills next time she plans to publish something; not only is the book peppered with misspellings and grammatical sins, but it lacks structure and fluency.
Yet I have revisited it at least three times since finishing it. Lately I have returned mentally to certain seemingly insignificant events in my life, and found myself stuck there. Although I would not have thought either had a psychological impact at the time, returning to them has had the effect of making me feel like a frightened little boy all over again: peculiar and unprecedented, in my life at least.
I was reminded, while troubled by these memories, of this book. "One can," she writes, "explore their [sic] own past lives and childhood . . . You can heal and readily change many of the feeling patterns stuck in your emotional and mental bodies" (20,21). So I went for it. I used some of the visualizations in the book to--I almost feel silly saying it--shift the energy around these memories and heal the patterns. For patterns they were; both events that were troubling me had to do with exactly the same behavior on my part and the shame and regret surrounding it. All I can say is that the exercises in the book worked. Those memories were coming up at this time for a reason, and I had some minor healing to do connected with them. Perhaps grammar is not that important after all.
What a great book. While not ambitious, it set out with a clear purpose--to reproduce as entertainingly and accurately as possible the experience of a drug-induced bender--and accomplished it with brevity and indelibility. I immediately netflixed the movie, for I cannot remember reading a book that is suited so perfectly to a film adaptation, while remaining successful as a book.
David Rice: Crazy Loco
My students are creating reading journals, and this is one that several have had positive reactions to, so I decided to take a look for pedagogical purposes. I was a bit disappointed at the relative shallowness, and irritated at the editor's borderline insulting choice to gloss every other word. The final story in the book redeemed it to a large extent, however. "Last Mass" was the longest story in the book, and it was clear that the relative lack of skill in the previous stories was a function of the constraints of length rather than of the author's amateurity. In fact, I found it quite touching and, though I don't plan on teaching the whole collection, may well find an opportunity to teach just this one story.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: The Sign of Four
I found this significantly easier to read than its predecessor, A Study in Scarlet, but I'm not precisely sure why. It is possible that there are subtle touches Doyle had incorporated as a more experienced author which, though barely noticeable individually, gave the story some refinement that was lacking in Scarlet. At any rate, the structure of the story was essentially the same, and neither Doyle's nor Holmes' skills shone particularly brightly. Nonetheless, a worthy read--once.
Athene Raefiel: Getting to the Heart
Easily the worst written book of the four in this post, and at the same time the only one likely to make a lasting impression on my life. I feel like giving Athene a gift of my editing skills next time she plans to publish something; not only is the book peppered with misspellings and grammatical sins, but it lacks structure and fluency.
Yet I have revisited it at least three times since finishing it. Lately I have returned mentally to certain seemingly insignificant events in my life, and found myself stuck there. Although I would not have thought either had a psychological impact at the time, returning to them has had the effect of making me feel like a frightened little boy all over again: peculiar and unprecedented, in my life at least.
I was reminded, while troubled by these memories, of this book. "One can," she writes, "explore their [sic] own past lives and childhood . . . You can heal and readily change many of the feeling patterns stuck in your emotional and mental bodies" (20,21). So I went for it. I used some of the visualizations in the book to--I almost feel silly saying it--shift the energy around these memories and heal the patterns. For patterns they were; both events that were troubling me had to do with exactly the same behavior on my part and the shame and regret surrounding it. All I can say is that the exercises in the book worked. Those memories were coming up at this time for a reason, and I had some minor healing to do connected with them. Perhaps grammar is not that important after all.
Liveblogging The Bible: Luke
1:1 The implication is clearly that there are more than just three other gospels, which would hardly qualify as "many".
1:3,4 and possibly that Luke is dissatisfied with these other accounts, considering his own more "truth"ful.
1:5 Whereas Matthew jumps right into Jesus' life, and Mark starts with a glance at John, Luke takes a step even further back to John's parents. He begins to show a regard for thoroughness at the expense of brevity.
1:23 I have always smirked at the Witnesses' avoidance of the obvious act of faith on Zechariah's part: sleeping with his old wife.
1:29 but seemingly not perplexed at the appearance of an angel in the first place. Perhaps Mary was favored with visits before this, a la Teresa of Avila.
1:35 I'm going to hell for even thinking this, but bukkake.
1:46 Luke has a bit more regard for Mary than the other two: he reveals her wisdom and creativity.
What are the chances of Luke finding out exactly what Mary said? Only she and Elizabeth were present; he--or a proxy--would have to have interviewed one or the other, each surely old by the time of this writing.
1:68 The same is surely true of this poem-song. Is this to be taken as a word for word quotation? Unlikely.
2:1,2 Luke's attention to detail in this verse is of the type that definitely lends authority to the narrative. Specific names and dates always help eliminate the flavor of myth.
2:4 with the attention he gives to detail, though, it is interesting that he does not give Jesus' exact lineage the way his fellows do.
2:5-7 The phrasing here has the feel of something added after the fact; it doesn't fit with 1:27 phrased this way. On second thought, it feels more like the previous chapter is out of place.
2:19 this is not the first time Mary is portrayed in the gospels as a contemplative person.
2:25 Luke again is giving a far more comprehensive account. Neither Matthew nor Mark seems to have this much interest in Jesus' birth and childhood.
2:26 And Luke does not seem to have Mark's compunctions about identifying Jesus as the Messiah right away.
2:29 yet for all Luke's attention to detail, he also has an eye for poetry. This gospel is both journalistically and artistically sound.
2:32 A mention of Gentiles? Matthew and Mark would never do that.
2:51 We hear so little about Mary, every bit of characterization is to be cherished.
3:1 More names and dates.
3:7 Wow. I don't remember John being so full of brimstone. I thought these expressions were Jesus' alone. This certainly paints him in a different light, but one befitting his apparel.
3:10-14 A contrast with Jesus' methods. Jesus would never just give them the answer like this. John doesn't seem to have a knack for parable, although he is moderately handy with a metaphor.
3:21 this makes it sound like there were others to witness the descent of the holy spirit.
3:23 I knew the genealogy had to be here somewhere. Interesting that Luke prefaces it with "as was thought", indicating some uncertainty about the exact lineage. Also, Luke does not take this opportunity to mention Mary, as Matthew does. Instead, he traces it all the way back through Adam, whereas Matthew stops at Abraham.
4:2 devil not capitalized in this translation (NRSV)
4:10 The devil turns Jesus' own trick on him: "It is written . . ."
4:12 An interesting change from"It is written" to "It is said".
4:21 Again, Luke's Jesus has no qualms about claiming his identity right away. It is the very first step on his quest.
4:23 I hadn't noticed before that Jesus was the one to raise this objection, not the Nazarenes.
4:30 A ninja!
4:38 Luke introduces the character of Peter rather offhandedly. It seems like Theophilus may already have known Peter, or at least of him.
4:41 Here we see that Mark's fixation was not without basis.
5:8 What could Peter have possibly done such that this was his first reaction to seeing a miracle? Many people would have this thought eventually, but he seems to have had it instinctively. Also: I wonder if there is any significance to Luke's appellation of him as Simon.
5:14 Even if Luke has no compunctions about Jesus' identity, Jesus himself clearly did.
5:20 although it does not seem to have been his faith at work, at least not entirely. Those are some swell friends.
5:39 This is an interesting addendum that I had not caught before. It seems to sap his point a little: for the old wine is clearly the Jewish system of things.
6:8 If I ever return to the other gospels, I shall have to make a point of ermembering whether they make a point of Jesus' seeming prescience, as Luke does, here for the third time.
6:13 The word disciple means one who follows. Apostle means one who is sent--a nice contrast.
6:14 This explains why Luke calls Peter Simon: he is trying to be as precise as possible, and he was not given the other name yet. Let's see if he henceforth calls him Peter.
6:17 if it was a level place, how was he seen?
6:22 Why is only the first part of the beatitudes in verse?
6:29 not the way I am used to seeing this translated. "takes away your coat" is an interesting alternative to "asks for your coat", and one that certainly gives it a different flavor.
6:35 "for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked" poops in the face of many a religous doctrine.
6:37 again an unfamiliar translation, but one that I really like: "do not judge, and you will not be judged" is more reassuring and definite somehow than "judge not, lest you be judged".
6:43 Not entirely true, of course. Tomatoes do not come from a friendly plant, nor do pineapples, but he would never have seen one of those.
1:3,4 and possibly that Luke is dissatisfied with these other accounts, considering his own more "truth"ful.
1:5 Whereas Matthew jumps right into Jesus' life, and Mark starts with a glance at John, Luke takes a step even further back to John's parents. He begins to show a regard for thoroughness at the expense of brevity.
1:23 I have always smirked at the Witnesses' avoidance of the obvious act of faith on Zechariah's part: sleeping with his old wife.
1:29 but seemingly not perplexed at the appearance of an angel in the first place. Perhaps Mary was favored with visits before this, a la Teresa of Avila.
1:35 I'm going to hell for even thinking this, but bukkake.
1:46 Luke has a bit more regard for Mary than the other two: he reveals her wisdom and creativity.
What are the chances of Luke finding out exactly what Mary said? Only she and Elizabeth were present; he--or a proxy--would have to have interviewed one or the other, each surely old by the time of this writing.
1:68 The same is surely true of this poem-song. Is this to be taken as a word for word quotation? Unlikely.
2:1,2 Luke's attention to detail in this verse is of the type that definitely lends authority to the narrative. Specific names and dates always help eliminate the flavor of myth.
2:4 with the attention he gives to detail, though, it is interesting that he does not give Jesus' exact lineage the way his fellows do.
2:5-7 The phrasing here has the feel of something added after the fact; it doesn't fit with 1:27 phrased this way. On second thought, it feels more like the previous chapter is out of place.
2:19 this is not the first time Mary is portrayed in the gospels as a contemplative person.
2:25 Luke again is giving a far more comprehensive account. Neither Matthew nor Mark seems to have this much interest in Jesus' birth and childhood.
2:26 And Luke does not seem to have Mark's compunctions about identifying Jesus as the Messiah right away.
2:29 yet for all Luke's attention to detail, he also has an eye for poetry. This gospel is both journalistically and artistically sound.
2:32 A mention of Gentiles? Matthew and Mark would never do that.
2:51 We hear so little about Mary, every bit of characterization is to be cherished.
3:1 More names and dates.
3:7 Wow. I don't remember John being so full of brimstone. I thought these expressions were Jesus' alone. This certainly paints him in a different light, but one befitting his apparel.
3:10-14 A contrast with Jesus' methods. Jesus would never just give them the answer like this. John doesn't seem to have a knack for parable, although he is moderately handy with a metaphor.
3:21 this makes it sound like there were others to witness the descent of the holy spirit.
3:23 I knew the genealogy had to be here somewhere. Interesting that Luke prefaces it with "as was thought", indicating some uncertainty about the exact lineage. Also, Luke does not take this opportunity to mention Mary, as Matthew does. Instead, he traces it all the way back through Adam, whereas Matthew stops at Abraham.
4:2 devil not capitalized in this translation (NRSV)
4:10 The devil turns Jesus' own trick on him: "It is written . . ."
4:12 An interesting change from"It is written" to "It is said".
4:21 Again, Luke's Jesus has no qualms about claiming his identity right away. It is the very first step on his quest.
4:23 I hadn't noticed before that Jesus was the one to raise this objection, not the Nazarenes.
4:30 A ninja!
4:38 Luke introduces the character of Peter rather offhandedly. It seems like Theophilus may already have known Peter, or at least of him.
4:41 Here we see that Mark's fixation was not without basis.
5:8 What could Peter have possibly done such that this was his first reaction to seeing a miracle? Many people would have this thought eventually, but he seems to have had it instinctively. Also: I wonder if there is any significance to Luke's appellation of him as Simon.
5:14 Even if Luke has no compunctions about Jesus' identity, Jesus himself clearly did.
5:20 although it does not seem to have been his faith at work, at least not entirely. Those are some swell friends.
5:39 This is an interesting addendum that I had not caught before. It seems to sap his point a little: for the old wine is clearly the Jewish system of things.
6:8 If I ever return to the other gospels, I shall have to make a point of ermembering whether they make a point of Jesus' seeming prescience, as Luke does, here for the third time.
6:13 The word disciple means one who follows. Apostle means one who is sent--a nice contrast.
6:14 This explains why Luke calls Peter Simon: he is trying to be as precise as possible, and he was not given the other name yet. Let's see if he henceforth calls him Peter.
6:17 if it was a level place, how was he seen?
6:22 Why is only the first part of the beatitudes in verse?
6:29 not the way I am used to seeing this translated. "takes away your coat" is an interesting alternative to "asks for your coat", and one that certainly gives it a different flavor.
6:35 "for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked" poops in the face of many a religous doctrine.
6:37 again an unfamiliar translation, but one that I really like: "do not judge, and you will not be judged" is more reassuring and definite somehow than "judge not, lest you be judged".
6:43 Not entirely true, of course. Tomatoes do not come from a friendly plant, nor do pineapples, but he would never have seen one of those.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)