The Three Test Questions For Group 2(1 and 2 Samuel)

1. Q:Who does the Lord promise an eternal house in Jerusalem(ie. a dynasty)?
A: David

2.Who is the traitorous son of David who met his end by getting his hair caught in a tree?
A: Absalom

3.Q: David succumbed to lust for _____ when he saw her bathing from his roof, and arranged for the death of her husband Uriah the Hittite.
A:Bathsheba


*I shall also take this opportunity to say that I have absolutely no plan or desire to post my paper on my blogsite*

In terms of what I know now that I did not know before, I can say that I know now that Vladimir Nabokov was the first to translate Alice in Wonderland into Russian. I didn't know it before, although this isn't a very suprising fact, given Nabokov's penchant for playing with words and the structure of things. And also the new notion of literality. That is, to take something literally is to take it on it's own terms(how you apply the thing you have taken is a different matter).

And also Yeats' saying about how you can refute Hegel but not the Song of Sixpence(as quoted in the final chapter of Frye) will be on the final exam. Good to know.

Joab's Monologue

I am Joab, chief general to King David. I have served him loyally and with devotion for many years. Naturally, in the course of my duty to him, it has been necessary to go against his wishes, but only in certain instances. Such as with Abner, commander of the army of Saul. David said we were not to harm him, but killing him was for our king's benefit. Besides, the dog killed my brother Asahel-his death was justified! And so was the death of that young traitor Absalom! Much as it pains me, I must say that King David was too lenient with his son. I mean, he rebels against his own father, and what are we told? "You must not harm the young man Absalom." Sorry, but I couldn't just let him get away with treason. Which is why I ran three spears through him when he got caught in a tree by that long *beautiful* hair of his. It was all for David's own good-and that's all I have to say about that. Oh and for the record I was against that amoral census too! That ought to count for something!

We provivded test questions for the next quiz in class today, but before this we touched again on how the book of Revealation is to be looked upon(NOT literally; dear God not literally). It fits into the genre of Apocalyptic literature, and fits certain confines of said genre by being a first person narrative(courtesy of crazy John on Patmos) and in its description of an evil present age and vision of a new age of Blessing. Frye argues that Revelation is steeped through with the notion of kairos, a Greek word for time which doesn't mean time in the sense of the little hands on the clock--that word is cronos(sp?)-- but in the sense of the decisive moment in time that obliterates time. The eschatalogical moment in time is always now, to quote the great theologian mentioned in class who's name I was unable to catch.

We also defined hagiography, which means "holy writing" in literal definition but which over time has come to refer specifically to writings about the life of a saint which only show their subjects' saintly nature. Something which modern biographers consciously try not to do. But then again this deals more with questions of faith and belief then in specific historical meaning. At least it seems so to me.

I also haven't been able to decide what my term paper for the class is going to be on. Simply because I can't make up my mind.

*Just a few thoughts, put down belatedly since I didn't blog yesterday*

So "parable" comes from "parabola", a mathematical concept which is better explained drawn then talked about. Despite my being mathematically dyslexic, this actually helps me understand the idea of the parable better. What you expect to happen does not, and what you don't expect to happen does. Hence the officers of piety(the priest and Levite) walk on by, and the Samaritan(a half-breed heretic)stops and is kind.

And if someone bitches to me about how "people always have to read into things blah blah blah" then I can counter with this: what else can we do but read into things? I do believe what was mentioned yesterday, about how there is no way of communicating truths without stories.

And what the hell IS with that naked man in Mark 51-52? Perhaps it simply falls into the category that Harold Bloom apparently classifies the original ending of Mark, that of genuine enigma. Because there are such things as genuine enigmas.

And now I know that the Doors took their name from a book by Aldous Huxley, who took the name of his book(The Doors of Perception) from William Blake. I did not know that.