2017-09-07T00:10:12+06:00

More notes, taken from or inspired by Michael Dahood’s Anchor Bible commentary. 1) Dahood makes good sense of the entire Psalm by assuming that it moves from a place of battle and victory (vv. 5-14), to the victory celebration in the tents of the war camp (vv. 15-18), and then the army returns to the city (v. 19) and the temple (vv. 26-27). This also makes sense of the connection of this Psalm with Palm Sunday: Jesus has been in... Read more

2017-09-06T22:46:40+06:00

With his usual critical insight, Auden captured Austen’s knowingness in a poem about Byron: You could not shock her more than she shocks me; Beside her Joyce seems innocent as grass. It makes me most uncomfortable to see An English spinster of the middle class Describe the amorous effects of ‘brass,’ Reveal so frankly and with such sobriety The economic basis of society. Read more

2017-09-06T22:47:51+06:00

Gregory the Great again: “he that treats of sacred writ should follow the way of a river, for if a river, as it flows along its channel, meets with open valleys on its side, into these it immediately turns the course of its current, and when they are copiously supplised, presently it pours itself back into its bed. Thus unquestionably, thus should it be with everyone that treats of the Divine Word, that if, in discussing any subject, he chance... Read more

2007-03-28T10:43:38+06:00

Ephesians 5 of course draws an analogy between marriage and Christ’s relation to His church: Husband:wife::Christ:Church Verse 29, though, puts it differently. With Genesis 2’s phrase “one flesh” in view, Paul says that “no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church.” Here the analogy works this way: Man:flesh::Christ:church These are equivalent comparisons because a man’s wife is husband of his bride. What’s striking here, however, are the Christo-ecclesiological implications.... Read more

2017-09-06T23:45:23+06:00

Ephesians 5 of course draws an analogy between marriage and Christ’s relation to His church: Husband:wife::Christ:Church Verse 29, though, puts it differently. With Genesis 2’s phrase “one flesh” in view, Paul says that “no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church.” Here the analogy works this way: Man:flesh::Christ:church These are equivalent comparisons because a man’s wife is husband of his bride. What’s striking here, however, are the Christo-ecclesiological implications.... Read more

2017-09-06T23:45:12+06:00

In his homilies on Ezekiel, Gregory the Great admitted that he frequently learned as he taught: “I know that very often I understand things in the sacred writings when I am with my brethren, which, when alone, I could not understand . . . .Clearly, as this understanding is given me in their presence, it must be given me for their sakes. Hence God grants that understanding increases and pride decreases, while I learn, on your behalf, that which I... Read more

2017-09-07T00:00:24+06:00

In a letter to Pope Damasus, Jerome writes, “In your eyes to read without also writing is to sleep.” Read more

2017-09-07T00:09:19+06:00

More or less random notes on Psalm 118. 1) The Psalm has an interesting, clumpy, arrangement. It begins and ends with the identical exhortation to “give thanks to Yahweh, for He is good, for everlasting his lovingkindness” (vv. 1, 29). The opening four verses are linked with the repetition of the refrain “everlasting His lovingkindness.” Verses 5-7 are linked wtih the repetition of “Yahweh is for me,” and verses 8-9 are identical apart from the final word (v. 8: ADAM;... Read more

2017-09-06T22:49:19+06:00

William Deresiewicz of Columbia wrote a 1997 article in an issue of English Literary History that illuminates the issues in Pride and Prejudice very nicely. He starts at the beginning: Unlike other novels, Austen opens Pride and Prejudice not with the name and circumstances of the heroine, but with an aphorism. (more…) Read more

2017-09-06T22:46:43+06:00

Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is often interpreted by linking the principal characters with the two flaws of the title. Darcy is “pride” and Elizabeth “prejudice.” This way of reading the book gets at some important themes, but it doesn’t quite get at the crux of the issues raised by the book. It’s true that Elizabeth is associated with prejudice, but trying to discern exactly how she is guilty of prejudice is helpful for getting us into an overall interpretation of... Read more


Browse Our Archives