Everyone's An Expert...

 

Blessed is the man who having nothing to say abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact. —George Eliot

It is a mark of the current age that everyone is an expert... in all possible fields of study. Everyone has an opinion and all opinions are considered equally valid. This particularly pains me when someone has a misunderstanding  of biblical truth, yet assumes his opinion is as equally likely as that of someone who is carefully dividing the Word. A careful exegete is always open to clarification and correction, but requires it be based on careful biblical analysis and follow the primary rules of interpretation, not on mere opinion or wishful thinking, wrenching verses out their context and assigning a meaning that was never intended. The primary emphasis needs to be on God's main point, not ours. Engaging in real discourse is always welcome. 

Perhaps nowhere is an uneducated opinion more painfully displayed than in the comments section on amazon. It's not the possession of an uninformed opinion that is the problem, it's the automatic assumption that your uninformed opinion carries any valid weight. Certainly opinions can be held at various levels of understanding. We should all be teachable and open in that respect. We're all learning and the real experts are not always right. But at the minimum, a person should ask themselves the simple question, "Do I know enough about this subject to set myself up as an authority on its analysis?" 

I've started to save some of the worst examples as I peruse through amazon. I'd love to privately take these folks aside and get them thinking about what they have written for all to see. Discretion is an art we all need to learn. Here are a few examples reviewing a classic work of Homer, the Iliad ....

"All the zombies kept telling me to purchase the Iliad and were raving about how intellectual it was. The age of it should have been a first clue. Really a rather boring read that is tripe with inept ideals. Homer Simpson was named after this guy but I believe that he has more insight into the subject matter than the original home boy they call Homer. Good for using to set your coffee mug on and start a fire with in the fireplace, but beyond that it is really a lot of rubbish. I wish Penguin Classics would actually publish classic reading material instead of a lot of blah blah." [Comment on The Iliad] (It would be interesting to hear his definition of "classic"!)

"Seriously. Homer wasn't all that, and I'm so thankful to amazon.com to allow me to give it only two stars. Homer's boring, and he's totally overrated. He's always using the same lines- "bit the dust", "rosy-fingered dawn", "the wine-dark sea", "night filled his eyes", "Achilles swift of foot"- Homer needs to be more original. And what's with the one name- "Homer"- who does he think he is, Madonna?"  [Comment on The Iliad]

The teacher in me yearns to introduce them to Bronze Age history, culture and literary forms, to  the progression in oral storytelling, to the peek we're allowed to have into one of the earliest surviving written story forms. If nothing else, I'd love to help them become aware that time did not begin when they were born, nor is culture exclusively 21st century American. Give me an honest, but humble student any time, one who recognizes they have a lack of information, that life is full of things they can learn. I'd love to meet the young man who wrote this next review. Oh, the discussions we could have! May we all have such teachable spirits!

"ill put my $.02 in here i guess... honestly i didnt like this book much the first time i read it (over this past summer for a 10th grade reading list) i found it boring and at times gory. but then we started reading it again in class and something strange happened, i started to actually understand what was going on and i started to analyze the characters more deeply and i started to almost like it. im not going to go as far as saying id read it again on my own free will cause i definitely wont, but if you read this book read the odyssey as well i liked it better"

.

Another Look at "O Holy Night"

“O Holy Night” is rooted in the French poem, “Minuit, chrétiens” (“Midnight, Christians”), by Placide Cappeau (1808-1877).  Sometimes we gain greater insight if we move away from the overly familiar lyrics of a Christmas carol. Below is a direct English translation of Cappeau's poem...

“Minuit chrétiens” (“Midnight, Christians”)

Midnight, Christians, it is the solemn hour,
When God-man descended to us
To erase the stain of original sin
And to end the wrath of His Father.
The entire world thrills with hope
On this night that gives it a Savior.

People kneel down, wait for your deliverance.
Christmas, Christmas, here is the Redeemer,
Christmas, Christmas, here is the Redeemer!

May the ardent light of our Faith
Guide us all to the cradle of the infant,
As in ancient times a brilliant star
Guided the Oriental kings there.
The King of Kings was born in a humble manger;
O mighty ones of today, proud of your greatness,

It is to your pride that God preaches.
Bow your heads before the Redeemer!
Bow your heads before the Redeemer!

The Redeemer has overcome every obstacle:
The Earth is free, and Heaven is open.
He sees a brother where there was only a slave,
Love unites those that iron had chained.
Who will tell Him of our gratitude,
For all of us He is born, He suffers and dies.
People stand up! Sing of your deliverance,
Christmas, Christmas, sing of the Redeemer,
Christmas, Christmas, sing of the Redeemer!

[via Raw Christianity ("Gunner" Gundersen's blog)]
[Poem & translation found here.]

On the Pilgrim's Path

I appreciate the in-your-face kind of allegory John Bunyan offers in "The Pilgrim's Progress." With names like Christian, Faithful, Fearful and Mistrust, battle weapons called All-Prayer, and places named "The Valley of the Shadow of Death," one need not expend too much effort decoding this allegory! 

No wonder I found this book such an encouragement when I first started out on my Christian walk! It made me aware that I, too, was a pilgrim passing through this world, that this was not my home and that I now served a new King. Though the path was narrow and fraught with danger, the one who remained alert and steadfast would reach his eternal home and enter the presence of his King.

... at the bottom of the hill ... he saw three men with shackles on their feet. They were fast asleep a little distance off the pathway. The name of one was Simple, another was Sloth, and the third was named Presumption.

Upon seeing them lie in this state, Christian went to them (if by chance he might awaken them) and cried, "You're like those who sleep on the top of the rigging, for the Dead Sea is under you, a gulf that has no bottom. Wake up, then, and leave here! If you desire, I'll help you rid yourselves of your shackles." He also told them, "If he who prowls around like a roaring lion comes by, he will certainly devour you."

With that, they looked up at him and began to reply in this manner:

                        "I see no danger," said Simple.

                        "Just a little more sleep," replied Sloth.

                        Presumption ended with, "Every tub must stand upon its own bottom."

       

          So they lay down to sleep again, and Christian continued on his way.

What good it did me to understand that I was on no easy pathway, that there would be struggles, fears, temptations, failures, as well as encouragements and God's daily provision during my own walk to the Celestial City. It set my heart to perseverance & reliance upon God along the way. I recommend the book to every new believer, lest they become lulled into the expectation of an easy journey, one without trials, without fears, without deprivations, without attack by the Enemy's forces.

Reading it again all these years later, different things capture my notice. I pine for the family that is left behind.

I told them what God had shown me concerning the destruction of our city. But I appeared to them to be like a mocker, and they didn't believe me... my wife was afraid of losing this world, and my children were carried away with the foolish delights of youth.

 And I grieve for the companions who start out on the walk with Christian, but turn back when the way becomes difficult and not to their liking...

Pliable began to be offended and angrily said to his companion, "Is this the happiness you've been telling me about all this time? If we make such poor progress at the beginning of our travel, what can we expect between here and our journey's end? If I get out (of the Swamp of Despond) alive, you will enter the fine country without me!

Whether newly saved or down the road a pace, I highly recommend spending time in this classic. L. Edward Hazelbaker's translation into modern English leaves you without excuse! Immerse yourself in the book Christians have read and profited from since it was first published in 1678.

... they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking a country of their own. And indeed if they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them.  [Hebrews 11:13-16]

Truth in Advertising. . . and Love

In poetry there is a particular style which intimately itemizes a lover's beauty by using hyperbole and simile. It's called "blazon" or "blason". We certainly find a bit of this in Song of Solomon, but it develops into a particular style in the "romances" of the Middle Ages and on into the Renaissance.

Many of you are probably quite familiar with Shakespeare's marvelous sonnets. . . sigh. . . BUT chances are you never came across Sonnet 130, which parodies this "blazon" form of love poetry. I wouldn't recommend sending this to your "beloved", but enjoy the chuckle. . .

"My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red, than her lips red:
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound:
I grant I never saw a goddess go,
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:

And yet by heaven, I think my love as rare,
As any she belied with false compare.

Preparing for a "Literary Vacation"

Beth, Nehemiah and I are about to take a little "literary vacation" to the Berkshires this weekend. This kind of trip has become a tradition with my family and friends. The last two summers I have dragged numerous friends to Concord, Mass. to visit Hawthorne's home and his grave on Authors' Ridge, after forcing them to read some of his work first, of course. [Hey... the lunch at the Concord Inn makes it all worthwhile!] Hawthorne has become a favorite of mine in recent years and I marvel at how I am now able to understand and thoroughly enjoy his writing... which seemed so cold and distant to me when in I was in HS. I heard Beth recently voice one of my own observations - great literature is often wasted on the young. Partly I think a good teacher can make a huge difference in learning to understand and appreciate a work. What a difference Tim's prof in a Milton course made in his enjoyment of "Paradise Lost", a work few would willingly choose to read. Ah... if only we ALL had such teachers introduce us to great works!

But I also think we are better able to appreciate really great writing the more we are exposed to it, and the LESS we expose ourselves to bad writing. I'm always amazed at the depth of my friend Heather's knowledge in literature. She was raised in a home that enjoyed poetry and good literature, particularly English lit. I wish I could have had as much of an influence on my own children, but I didn't really begin to enjoy classic books until they were grown and gone.

One thing I like to do on "Literary" trips is buy a classic work at the author's home. They usually give out a nice bookplate to paste in the front, saying where the book was purchased. Some of my favorites include copies of "Little Women" from Louisa May Alcott's house in Concord, Mass., "The Old Man and the Sea" from Hemingway's house in Key West and Hawthorne's "Tales and Sketches" [which includes: "Mosses from an Old Manse", "Twice-Told Tales", "The Wonder Book for Boys and Girls" and "Tanglewood Tales"] from his home in Concord. I also cherish two books I got at the Huntington Library while visiting Tim in Cali - A replica of "The Ellesmere Manuscript of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales" and "Shakespeare at the Huntington".

In preparation for our trip, Beth and I are reading "Moby Dick", as we're planning to go to Melville's House, and I'm also reading Edith Wharton's "A Backward Glance", her autobiography, in preparation for visiting her home, The Mount. I plan to buy a copy of "The Age of Innocence" at The Mount and two of Melville's early books based upon his own experiences as a South Seas sailor, "Typee" and "Omoo". After avoiding "Moby Dick" all these years, I have to say it's a surprisingly easy book to read. I am even enjoying his digressions into history and descriptions of whales and sailing. I've been quite surprised to find so much humor. I never would have expected that from Melville, but he makes me chuckle quite often. The book IS quite long, but who's in a hurry?

Wharton's autobiography has been so much fun I'm considering reconvening a Literary Luncheon Group just so we can enjoy discussing it. This summer I'm also determined to host my "Paddington Bear Tea" for several little girls who are friends of mine... before they are too old to appreciate it. I dragged a stuffed Paddington all the way home from London on one trip, holding him on my lap on the plane so his hat wouldn't be crushed. I've bought them all copies of the first Paddington Bear book. My idea is to have a "Tea" with my stuffed Paddington as our honored guest and then read a few chapters of the book to them, before giving them copies to bring home. Summer is meant for fun... and what could be MORE fun than reading?!

Truth and Theory

I've been reading C.S. Lewis' "The Discarded Image", an introduction to Medieval and Renaissance literature. Now don't glaze over on me here... stay with me. Lewis does a wonderful job explaining the Medieval World View. They especially had a love for the written word...ANY written word. If something was written in a book, it was considered to be true. At the same time, they believed that ALL this disparate information must somehow fit coherently into one, complex and harmonious mental "Model of the Universe". Any apparent contradictions, therefore, must be harmonized.

In constructing a theory for such a "Model", a few basic rules became established:
1) It was necessary "to save the phenomena/appearance", which meant that a Scientific Theory must "save" or "preserve" the appearances, the phenomena, it deals with - in the sense of getting them all in, doing justice to them.

2) Occam's Law/Occam's Razor added a 2nd Rule - Any theory of the "Model" should be able to do so with the fewest possible assumptions. The simplest theory is the most likely. For example, reading Shakespeare we discover that some plays are not written as well as other plays. Two possible "theories" might arise to explain this. Either (a) the bad plays were all put in by later adapters, or (b) Shakespeare wrote them when he was not at his best. Both Theories "save the phenomena/appearance", but Occam's Law would make us choose the one with the fewest possible assumptions. We know that there really was a writer named Shakespeare and that writers are not always at their best. We must, therefore, provisionally accept the 2nd Theory. If we can explain the bad plays without the assumption of a later adapter, then that is the better theory. [By contrast, today the "newness" of a theory often carries intrinsic weight!]

3) The third point is that any Theory is just that, a theory- which COULD be replaced in the future by a better theory. So, on the highest level, then, any theory concerning the "Model" was recognized as provisional.

Why am I bothering to go into all this? Because I can't help but compare it to the modern World View. Lewis writes, "In our age...the ease with which a scientific theory assumes the dignity and rigidity of fact varies inversely with the individual's scientific education." Ouch! How true! [Ever listened to talk radio? Read about "science" on the Internet?]

Two of Lewis' points particularly strike me:
(1) In our age people easily mistake "theory" with "fact"... and do so rigidly! [Ever heard of the theory of evolution?]

(2) Those with the least scientific knowledge are often the most dogmatic concerning what is true. [Ever consider the inadmissibility of "experiential evidence"?] And I certainly wouldn't limit this phenomenon to the field of science! [Consider Bible interpretation!]

Lewis brings out one further point. "The mass media which have in our time created a popular scientism, a caricature of the true sciences, did not then exist. The ignorant were more aware of their ignorance then than now." Ouch! How true!

We've actually institutionalized the notion that all opinions are equally valid. The idea of an "informed opinion" is archaic. Some of you may recall my mentioning the HS girl who critiqued Homer on amazon.com. I kid you not...this young lady felt fully qualified to tell Homer how "The Illiad" could have been improved! She knew absolutely nothing about Bronze Age Greek culture, she knew absolutely nothing about the literary structure, and she had read the book ONCE ... but she felt completely qualified to offer her criticism. As the ancient Greeks would have said..."What hubris!"

And we thought we had advanced since the Middle Ages?! Observations? Comments?

Theories of "Myth"

Doug brought out a good point in his comment on the first "myth" post. He mentioned just ONE proposed theory about myth. Several theories have developed over time, with the earlier theories now judged to be greatly flawed, and one POPULAR theory so disdained that it's not even worth consideration by anyone in the field! So I thought it might be helpful to give a little background in Theory of Myth. All societies have myth, but they were MOST important in preliterate cultures.

1) Myths are a form of ALLEGORY: Max Muller (1823-1900) Also known as "Solar Mythology Theory" - myths are misunderstood statements about the battle b/w sunlight and darkness. Mythology is a "disease of language", as terms changed meanings people misinterpreted them. Thus, "maiden dawn" came to be seen later as a female deity. Too narrow a theory!

2) Myths are basically AETIOLOGICAL: Andrew Lang (1844-1912) Myth was driven by the same impulse that would later develop into science; myth is basically "primitive" science.

3) Myth is an explanation for RITUAL: Sir James Frazer (1854-1941) [his landmark work was "The Golden Bough"] and The Cambridge School. Myth originiated in primordial religious beliefs common to most human societies. Narratives of myth remain long after the rituals they are based on have disappeared. His methodology collecting world-wide myths was proven to be badly flawed & few scholars today accept his premises...except maybe Scully in X-files! "Mulder, I'm sure it's ritualistic..." ;)

4) The defining character of myth is FUNCTIONALITY: Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) Myth contributes to society by helping to maintain the social system. Its origin is less important than its functionality. He called them "CHARTER MYTHS" - they provided validation for social institutions.

5) Myths tell us the WHY: Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) and Carl Jung (1875-1961) said myths are reflections of the human "collective unconscious" and contain archetypes such as the "Earth Mother" or the "Wise Old Man". 

5) The popular myth theorist no one but the public takes seriously: Joseph Campbell (1904-1987) Often considered a Jungian, his approach might be better described as METAPHYSICAL. His method depends on gathering examples of narrative similarities in different cultures. The problem is that he is "selective" in choosing the myths that fit his theory and ignoring those that don't... something frowned upon by academics actually trained in the field!

There are lots more, of course, but most today would agree that there is no mono-theory. Personally, I believe there is often a thread of truth buried in myths. There have certainly been plenty of instances, for example, where characters in ancient Near Eastern myths who were thought to be purely fictional actually turned out to have been real people! Corroborating evidence is found, like a "King List", or a treaty between them and another king. Obviously all the fabulous exploits in the myth are accretions and make for a good "story", but it started with a real person, a hero or king. That kind of experience would be true to a particular culture, but I also believe there are cross-cultural myths related to a shared actual event or previous knowledge. [Romans 1] Creation myths and Flood myths would fall into this category. That's MY working theory, anyway, and I find many, many examples the more I study ancient civilizations.

There are some, of course, who would place the Bible in the category of myth. But it seems clear to me that they don't know much about the Bible, literature in general or archaeology at all if they can come to such a conclusion! I would certainly be happy to argue that point with anyone!