#the allusions the symbolism so on and so forth etc etc

[fallen2003]

society if kingdom hearts was a work of comparable literary merit

#i just finished my ap lit exam. #or crisis c0re im literally obsessed w that game #the allusions the symbolism so on and so forth etc etc #💬

[butterflies-dragons]

Sansa feeling bat wings inside her tummy ? Could that mean kids with some Targ heritage in her belly ? Sansa carrying the child of a Targ ?

Are you talking about my tags on this post Cracking / Breaking a Gigantic Egg?

It’s an old idea that is in my drafts since 2017.  Let me elaborate:

Sansa's Wedding:  

"A bride at her wedding should be more than well." His voice was not unkind. "You seemed close to tears."

"Tears of joy, ser."

"Your eyes give the lie to your tongue." Ser Garlan turned her, drew her close to his side. "My lady, I have seen how you look at my brother. Loras is valiant and handsome, and we all love him dearly . . . but your Imp will make a better husband. He is a bigger man than he seems, I think."

The music spun them apart before Sansa could think of a reply. It was Mace Tyrell opposite her, red-faced and sweaty, and then Lord Merryweather, and then Prince Tommen. "I want to be married too," said the plump little princeling, who was all of nine. "I'm taller than my uncle!"

"I know you are," said Sansa, before the partners changed again. Ser Kevan told her she was beautiful, Jalabhar Xho said something she did not understand in the Summer Tongue, and Lord Redwyne wished her many fat children and long years of joy. And then the dance brought her face-to-face with Joffrey.

Sansa stiffened as his hand touched hers, but the king tightened his grip and drew her closer. "You shouldn't look so sad. My uncle is an ugly little thing, but you'll still have me."

"You're to marry Margaery!"

"A king can have other women. Whores. My father did. One of the Aegons did too. The third one, or the fourth. He had lots of whores and lots of bastards." As they whirled to the music, Joff gave her a moist kiss. "My uncle will bring you to my bed whenever I command it."

Sansa shook her head. "He won't."

"He will, or I'll have his head. That King Aegon, he had any woman he wanted, whether they were married or no."

Thankfully, it was time to change again. Her legs had turned to wood, though, and Lord Rowan, Ser Tallad, and Elinor's squire all must have thought her a very clumsy dancer. And then she was back with Ser Garlan once more, and soon, blessedly, the dance was over.

—A Storm of Swords - Sansa III

In summary,

That time when Joffrey said to Sansa: “I will put a bastard on you just like that King Aegon". 

This is yet one more JoJo thing, JoJo is what I call all the things that make Jon and Joffrey foils. The main one being: Jon is a Prince disguised as a Bastard while Joffrey is a Bastard disguised as a Prince.

So, while Jon is all: “Jon trembled. "I will never father a bastard," he said carefully. "Never!" He spat it out like venom”. —A Game of Thrones - Jon I

Here is Joffrey comparing himself with Aegon IV “the Unworthy”, the King that fathered numerous bastards...    

And this is the second time Joffrey is compared with ‘an Aegon’.  The first time was this:

The morning of King Joffrey's name day dawned bright and windy, with the long tail of the great comet visible through the high scuttling clouds. Sansa was watching it from her tower window when Ser Arys Oakheart arrived to escort her down to the tourney grounds. "What do you think it means?" she asked him.

"Glory to your betrothed," Ser Arys answered at once. "See how it flames across the sky today on His Grace's name day, as if the gods themselves had raised a banner in his honor. The smallfolk have named it King Joffrey's Comet."

Doubtless that was what they told Joffrey; Sansa was not so sure. "I've heard servants calling it the Dragon's Tail."

"King Joffrey sits where Aegon the Dragon once sat, in the castle built by his son," Ser Arys said. "He is the dragon's heir—and crimson is the color of House Lannister, another sign. This comet is sent to herald Joffrey's ascent to the throne, I have no doubt. It means that he will triumph over his enemies."

—A Clash of Kings - Sansa I

And who is the real “dragon’s heir”??? In the Show Jon’s Targaryen name was Aegon but I still hope it will be Aemon...

So every time that Joffrey is compared with ‘an Aegon’ in Sansa’s Chapters we can find allusions to Jon Snow??? Uhmmm.......... Curiouser and curiouser!  

Onto the next Sansa's chapter:

Joffrey's Wedding:

Tyrion scarce touched his food, Sansa noticed, though he drank several cups of the wine. For herself, she tried a little of the Dornish eggs, but the peppers burned her mouth. Otherwise she only nibbled at the fruit and fish and honeycakes. Every time Joffrey looked at her, her tummy got so fluttery that she felt as though she'd swallowed a bat.

—A Storm of Swords - Sansa IV

In summary, 

That time when Sansa felt very uncomfortable imagining Joffrey putting a bastard on her and she felt like a bat was inside her tummy.

It’s interesting that Sansa describes the idea of carrying Joffrey's bastard as though she'd swallowed a bat.

Sansa usually says that her tummy flutters when she feels uncomfortable, distressed, scared, etc, but this is the only time that she links that “fluttering” feeling with bat wings. 

One of the meanings of the verb flutter is the “beating of wings.” And George has used the image of bat wings as a symbol of dragon wings several times in the Books.

“Tell me how my child died.”

“He never lived, my princess. The women say …”

(…)

“They say the child was …”

(…)

“Monstrous,” Mirri Maz Duur finished for him. The knight was a powerful man, yet Dany understood in that moment that the maegi was stronger, and crueler, and infinitely more dangerous. “Twisted. I drew him forth myself. He was scaled like a lizard, blind, with the stub of a tail and small leather wings like the wings of a bat. When I touched him, the flesh sloughed off the bone, and inside he was full of graveworms and the stink of corruption. He had been dead for years.

—A Game of Thrones - Daenerys IX

In the center of the Plaza of Pride stood a red brick fountain whose waters smelled of brimstone, and in the center of the fountain a monstrous harpy made of hammered bronze. Twenty feet tall she reared. She had a woman’s face, with gilded hair, ivory eyes, and pointed ivory teeth. Water gushed yellow from her heavy breasts. But in place of arms she had the wings of a bat or a dragon, her legs were the legs of an eagle, and behind she wore a scorpion’s curled and venomous tail.

—A Storm of Swords - Daenerys II

Viserion launched himself from the ceiling, pale leather wings unfolding, spreading wide. The broken chain dangling from his neck swung wildly. His flame lit the pit, pale gold shot through with red and orange, and the stale air exploded in a cloud of hot ash and sulfur as the white wings beat and beat again.

—A Dance with Dragons - The Dragontamer

As you can see, dragon wings are usually described similar to bat wings or leather wings, as it also happens in this passage in reference to Sansa:

“What wife?”

“I forgot, you’ve been hiding under a rock. The northern girl. Winterfell’s daughter. We heard she killed the king with a spell, and afterward changed into a wolf with big leather wings like a bat, and flew out a tower window. But she left the dwarf behind and Cersei means to have his head.”

That’s stupid, Arya thought. Sansa only knows songs, not spells, and she’d never marry the Imp.

—A Storm of Swords - Arya XIII

As I said before, the fascinating image of Sansa as a wolf with big leather wings makes me think of Sansa wearing a Targaryen Cloak/ Marrying a Targaryen in the future.  

And there are even more Targaryen allusions in the Joffrey’s wedding passage: 

FIRE: For herself, she tried a little of the Dornish eggs, but the peppers burned her mouth = Eggs (dragon eggs) + Burned her mouth (dragon fire). 

BLOOD: Every time Joffrey looked at her, her tummy got so fluttery that she felt as though she'd swallowed a bat = Carrying Joffrey’s bastard / carrying Aegon’s IV bastard / carrying a dragon’s heir (the blood of the dragon). 

This two events happened in two consecutive Sansa’s Chapters from the same Book (ASOS), during two weddings, the couples that married didn’t love each other, the marriages were unconsummated, the discussion of bastards was involved, Targaryen allusions were present... there is a pattern: Weddings / Aegons / Bastards / dragon's heirs / Kings / Joffrey / Sansa / Jon / Fire & Blood... 

So maybe in Sansa's future she will wed, for love, to a real Aegon descendant, and due her fertility, during her wedding night she will conceived a baby dragon, a king; just like Cat conceived a king during her wedding night.

And that’s all.......... I never wrote properly about it until this summarized version here.

#Sansa Stark #Jon Snow #jonsa #Joffrey Baratheon #joffrey is truly a little shit #JoJo #bat wings #dragon wings #the dragon's heir #bastards

[allywrites360]

Red Shoes - Analysis/Review

“You’re the most beautiful woman in the world… whether my eyes are open… or closed.” - Merlin

““But I’m still that Merlin inside.” - The one who grew. The one who changed, and learned to love himself and others for more than what’s on the outside. I know Snow is the main example of self love in this film, but Merlin provides a great example of this; something we don’t often see in male characters.”

--

So this film just released in North America, and I thought I’d share some thoughts and overall themes/metaphors from this film. But first, I’d just like to encourage you (if you haven't already) to go and support this film. It pretty inexpensive, and was made by an independent animation studio, which I think is absolutely amazing. Now onto the analysis!!

Love the concept of everyone being an adaptation of a fairytale character; adds to the society being shallow and appearance focus as a whole, as fairytales were traditionally focused on dichotomy and physical beauty.

The lighting, and really animation as a whole, is phenomenal for a film made by an independent studio. The shading and colour grading is a real standout, though. And the landscapes!! They feel really three dimensional, and gorgeous.

[ID - A shot of a sunrise, beautifully lit behind a belltower - End ID].

Scoring/motif for the main villain is amazing.

Introduction to the protagonist is really not setup well. Did she actually get sent away from the palace? How long was she gone? How desperate is she to save her father? All of these questions are left unanswered, and no prominent character traits are shown through her first scene. She could be clever? All she did was change her hiding spot, so even that’s a stretch.

I hate the king’s narration. The dialogue is choppy, and repetitive in a completely irrelevant way.

The lore around the tree is really unclear. Why haven’t the shoes worked for Regina? Why do they work for Snow? Will they not regrow?

Love the transition scene to the dwarfs; makes it feel as though they’re just been walking listlessly since the spell was cast. Which, y’know, more or less true.

[ID - A shot of the seven dwarfs walking together through the centre of a forest in midday, looking slightly dejected - End ID].

Love the fact the mirror points out that ‘wisdom’ and ‘kingdom’ don’t rhyme; I paused to point that out.

I will say that the action scenes are really well directed/choreographed. The camera flows really nicely, and always follows our protagonists (ooh, tying into the dichotomous nature of fairytales overall?), which makes the stakes and emotions feel higher/more personal.

The villain’s voice acting and dialogue is really sharp and entertaining. She feels like a real threat (and also uncannily similar to Gothel but).

Love the wooden front on their house disguised as a castle. Really nicely done metaphor for them clinging on to a cheap version of their pasts; refusing to move on, which is torn down when she arrives. Also ties in to the “what’s on the inside outweighs what’s one the outside” moral.

[ID - The seven dwarfs’ house, which is a cave, with a wooden cutout shaped and painted like a castle sitting in front of it to give the illusion of a grander living space - End ID].

Can I also say I love that her first reaction isn’t insanely positive to her new appearance? In general, she just notes there’s been a change, which is a really nice subversion of the ‘overweight people have to be unhappy at the outset’ trope.

Her facial expressions are also really animated, which is something I’ve always loved (see Ariel, Anastasia, etc.), especially her eyes. Really well designed. Actually, all the expressions suit the characters’ personalities really well. Great job, animation department!

The fact that all seven dwarfs are names after popular mythical characters is really inventive (much more so than simply naming them after a character trait), as well as having their diverse fighting style be built from that, which I loved. Could even be allusions, but I don’t know enough about the original stories to say.

Hate the electric guitar of Prince Average. Highlights how much he doesn’t belong in this movie. His name is horribly uncreative, and his pop culture references break the forth wall, and aren’t funny, as they aren’t used properly. With him as the involved antagonist for most of the film, I can’t take the threat seriously. Other comic villains have been done so much better, such as Prince Charming from Shrek. The only valid line he has is about ‘dwarfs’ vs. ‘dwarves’; I never know which to use. “Finally, the big guns, thank you!” One more fourth wall break from this man I swear.

Love the added detail of the shoes not being able to be removed once you place value on the beauty they give. It’s hard to let go of that temptation; and if you don’t, you won’t be seen as your true self. It also highlights how she loves herself at the outbreak of the movie, and is therefore able to remove them freely. Also gets rid of the the deus ex machina of her shoes coming off freely in the water.

Wish we could’ve seen her doubt grow as she realizes they wouldn’t have helped her in her original form. Feels like we were a bit disconnected from her emotions. Which might not be a bad thing… if we assume Merlin in the protagonist.

Nice foreshadowing to her father being the bunny; if you know to look for it.

References such as ‘#blessed’, or ‘Pablo Picasso’, don’t work in the slightest. They serve no purpose, and aren’t funny simply because most would recognize them.

Normally I would make a note about Merlin and Snow having really standard, basic designs, but one, this animation studio is small, and on limited resources, and two, it, again, relates back to the shallow, uninteresting societal expectation of beauty that refuses to be unique.

Ahh, nice that apples are what trip the guards up in the chase scene through the market. Symbolic.

Love that she’s willing to defend the dwarfs even when she realizes they won’t help her in her original form. Again, wish we could’ve seen her emotions pertaining to that a bit more, although the reflection shot in the mirror (reflected from the shot at the start of the scene) was nice. Speaking of that, the broken, fragment reflection of her ‘fake’ self, is beautiful, because it isn’t a representation of herself, however at the end of the scene, we see the reflection in the same manner, but with her original self, but due to newly inflicted self doubt, we get a split second of that reality being fragmented too.

[ID - Snow White frowning as she looks into a shattered mirror leaning against the wall of an alleyway in her society-dictated “beautiful” - End ID].

[ID - Snow White looking into the same mirror, frowning, and having removed the shoes, restoring her to her original appearance - End ID].

The three bears (I’m assuming an allusion to the Goldilocks mythos) don’t really serve any plot relevance… however they are cute, so make of their inclusion what you will.

Again, the scene where she exits the dwarfs’ home; it would’ve been great to see a shot of her internal conflict before she submits herself to giving up her freedom for Merlin and Arthur’s. Relating to that, I have noticed that the hostage situations have shockingly low stakes in this film. For instance, at the end, Merlin is simply held in a branch, and a second later, Snow is willing to give up her life to set him free.

The movie didn’t end up using this (which was a nice subversion of expectations), but if Merlin had used all his spells in the final battle, and needed just one more shot, it wouldn’t have been a deus ex machina, because we establish previously he has the one Snow gave him for luck. I assumed it’d comeback again, but turns out they just used it as a symbol (for having the flower, a symbol of outside beauty, float out of his hand), for him letting go of his shallow mindset.

[ID - Snow White (wearing the shoes which change her appearance) smiles at Merlin, in his dwarf form. In his hand there’s a paper flower she folded from one of his spells - End ID].

Really love the joke about the mirror being hurt by smoke. Get it? Smoke and mirrors? Now that reference is funny; and also ties into the theme of false fronts/illusions. But not gonna lie, all that was an afterthought. It genuinely made me laugh.

Love that they rebuild the house too. It’s not beautiful, at least in a traditional sense. It’s cracked, uneven, but personal to them; they did it as a family. I’ll give the writers credit for so fully entrenching the theme into every frame and action. Nothing is meaningless in this film. Well, at least surrounding the protagonists.

Ooh, ooh, I could forgive the use of pop as their love motif if at the end, when there are no facades, it’s replaced by original scoring. I don’t remember that scene in all that much detail though.

The tree thing is… strange, I’ll admit, but considering Regina puts all her stock in the beauty which comes from the magic tree, it makes sense it’d be rooted into her magic in some way. The apple details are cool (notches shaped like seeds on the trunks), if nothing else, considering the scene with the three attacking is not investing the slightest, beyond some inventive attacks from Merlin (the action and attacks surrounding him aren’t executed all that poorly).

The directing in general is phenomenal in this movie; which is something I’ve been trying to put a bit more attention on lately.

Love small details like Merlin holding his back after the fight, circling back once again to the fact these characters are more similar than they realize (if you remember, that’s what she used as a cover when she first woke up).

[ID - A shot of Merlin running, pressing a hand against his back as he does so - End ID].

Okay, I can suspend my disbelief for a lot of things in this movie, but when Snow dives into the lake, that surface tension would’ve seriously hurt her. If even some waves would’ve been added, it would’ve not only added suspense to the scene, but made it a bit more grounded as well.

“Who do you like more, Snow White or Red Shoes?” “Easy, it’s Red Shoes.” “Who does Red Shoes love more?” “Easy, it’s me. Wait… no. It’s you.” That line is by far my favourite from the film. I love that it shows his guilt. She’s chosen to love him despite his appearance, but he won’t do the same for her. And now he has to look in the mirror at that ugly part of his personality.

[ID - At night, Merlin in his dwarf form stands beside Merlin in his human form. The dwarf version of him looks irritated as he looks up - End ID].

(Assuming Merlin named the rabbit, and if I’m being honest I didn’t pay attention to that) It’s sorta fitting to his character that he named it ‘Long Ears’ - a notably physical attribute.

While I do like that, just because the climax called for it, the sword didn’t suddenly lift from the stone, I really dislike that it was broken out by sheer force; which goes goes against the entire magic system/point of the sword and who gets to hold it.

Kronk as the magic mirror is hilarious. I want to credit the screenwriters for his lines… but I have a strong feeling it was mostly improv. Well done whoever is to credit for that.

Now this action scene, with Merlin being attacked by the tree roots, is insanely well done. For maybe the first time in this movie, I feel the suspense I’m intended to, and the setup and just character movement in general is really inventive. You feel his emotions and breath in this scene, which takes serious talent.

“How could she possibly want to save you more than she wants to be beautiful? Did you cast a spell?” - On a related note, I’m proud of this movie for not falling into the traditional ‘misunderstanding breaks up characters before the final battle’ (they technically do split up, but it’s the fault of Merlin’s unresolved selfish intentions rather than a petty matter) through Snow seeing the love spell, and assuming the worst even though Merlin never uses it.

The vines could be a metaphor as well; in this battle, they’re the shallow desires holding him back, while he, with the assistance of others, has to break his own way out (as shown by him using his lighting to crack a small hole in the doors (or exit) of the room.

[ID - Merlin is running towards the “camera”, however, he looks surprised as a vine grabs his waist, and attempts to drag him back into the castle - End ID].

“I’m sorry, Snow White.” That’s the first time he uses her name; and he does it mentally; in a voiceover. It isn’t to impress her, or win a competition. It’s how he truly sees her now. Also, so beautiful how his motives go from being self centred, to focused on her; he changed because of her influence. It’s been done before, but that doesn’t make it any less meaningful here.

“You’re the most beautiful woman in the world… whether my eyes are open… or closed.” That wasn’t his final line (he survives), but if it was… that would’ve been so powerful. Still is, just in a different way.

“I kinda liked the short and green Merlin.” “But I’m still that Merlin inside.” - The one who grew. The one who changed, and learned to love himself and others for more than what’s on the outside. I know Snow is the main example of self love in this film, but Merlin provides a great example of this; something we don’t often see in male characters.

And I loved that it was a hug immediately after his spell is broken. He isn’t trying to gain anything, he’s just happy to be with her, which is super romantic. 

[ID - Both now restored to their original forms, Merlin and Snow White sit on the ground just outside the palace hugging each other, both smiling with their eyes shut. The king, and a few of the dwarfs stand in the background - End ID].

Onto a few of my favourite lines;

“I was worried about you!” “I was worried about me too. But- but mostly you!”

“If you could see the real me…” “I think I can see the real you… eyes open or closed, I still see Merlin.” What a great line. What a great theme. You don’t need to know the facts about someone, or see their original appearance, to know who they are. And I think that’s beautiful.

“Someone you’l be proud to be seen with.” “I think you’re right.”

“I thought that we were both under the same spell… but I was wrong.”

“He likes you more than he likes me,” as she looks down at the shoes.

“Who do you like more, Snow White or Red Shoes?” “Easy, it’s Red Shoes.” “Who does Red Shoes love more?” “Easy, it’s me. Wait… no. It’s you.”

“How could she possibly want to save you more than she wants to be beautiful? Did you cast a spell?”

“I’ve never been so glad to be chubby and green again.” - Because it means he’s not alone.

“I’m sorry, Snow White.” 

“You’re the most beautiful woman in the world… whether my eyes are open… or closed.”

“I kinda liked the short and green Merlin.” “But I’m still that Merlin inside.” 

I’ll just say, as an ending thought, that the 2D animation of their wedding is adorable.

Overall, I’d give it 8/10. Nothing phenomenal that was entirely groundbreaking, but there’s a lot of heart to be shown here, with some truly amazing characters, even if some of their universe isn’t all that intriguing. Would highly recommend.

#red shoes and the seven dwarfs #red shoes and the 7 dwarfs #film analysis #animation #animation analysis

[kingedmundsroyalmurder]

Brickclub: 3.7.1

God I love this chapter. I think if I ever had to compile a list of 'most Victor Hugo chapters ever,' this would rank pretty high. It's beautiful and complex and profound and just a little bit obscure. It's got light symbolism and hints at drowning and some serious Dante vibes and historical references and, just, everything. I have so many things I want to talk about, and I don't think there's a way to make it not scattered, so have some section headers instead!

Hugo's philosophy and overall point:

Breaking it down, the general thrust of Hugo's argument here is that ideas run through society like mine tunnels run through the ground. They're there, twisting atop each other, intersecting with each other, drawing from each other, all there for those with the knowledge and the inclination to find them. (And, I would argue, that we can take this one step further, and say that it is entirely possible to accidentally step too hard on a piece of ground and punch through into a mine shaft you didn't even know existed, and that this is what happened to Marius.) The tunnels closest to the surface of society are made up of good ideas and philosophies, and the further down you dig the more shadowy and nefarious the ideas and their diggers become, until you hit the bottom, where there is no darkness at all, only Abyss.

I'm really intrigued by the stratigraphy Hugo draws up, the one that goes Jan Hus, Martin Luther, Descartes, Voltaire, Condorcet, Robespierre, Marat, Babeuf. I was hoping Donougher would have a helpful footnote, but she does not, and I don't really have time to do enough of my own research into it to really get what Hugo was going for. But I feel like, for his readers at the time, this list would have been a very, very clear philosophical statement about what Hugo values. (She does say that Hus was a priest who challenged the authority of the pope and the church during the middle ages, which fits well with Hugo's general opinions about the church and its hierarchy.) I'll get more into the Dante vibes in a sec, but this is definitely part of what pinged that for me -- this method of using very real people with very real ideas as a way to explain and illustrate Hugo's social values and priorities.

The unknowable vastness of nature:

Hugo talks about the earth here the way he usually talks about the ocean. It's actually kind of notable to me that this is not an extended ocean metaphor, because that's usually his go-to for this kind of thing. But I guess he wanted to emphasize that, unlike the ocean and its vastness and uncaring, alien nature, the tunnels beneath society are manmade and, to a degree, under man's control. It's a metaphor of Progress, linking intellectual and social movements (religion, philosophy, Revolution, etc) with technological progress (mining and drilling and digging). He's got a light touch with it, which is actually less unusual for him than we usually give him credit for, but that link is definitely there. Progress means both the progression of ideas and the progression of technologies and, for Hugo, you really cannot separate the two. (Also, this chapter could honestly be a Combeferre speech? I don't know if he would have used the exact same stratigraphy of philosophies or not, but the overall tone and message is so, so Combeferre.)

But here's the thing. Yes, the tunnels are made by men, but they are still deep in the earth, and the earth is ultimately more powerful than man. And, like the ocean, the deeper down you get the darker and more crushing the earth becomes. I really love this quote, which really sums up the dangers in trying to master nature too much: "There is a point where depth is tantamount to burial, and where light becomes extinct." And this doesn't even seem to be a warning about digging too deeply, more just a statement of fact about what happens if you sever your connection to the sky too strongly. It reminds me of the last time we were completely buried, during Jean Valjean's nightmare. The lack of light is not itself evil, but men without access to light will almost inevitably feel evil growing inside of them. Which brings us to our next point:

Light symbolism

So honestly the light symbolism here is pretty straightforward and we don't really need to break it down. We're reinforcing the idea that light is good and darkness is bad, and continuing to directly tie light to the heavens. We also have people and ideas who generate their own light and bring it with them, but they don't seem to be entirely capable of transmitting their light to others. We get this really intriguing bit: "Surely, although a divine and invisible chain unknown to themselves, binds together all these subterranean pioneers who, almost always, think themselves isolated, and who are not so, their works vary greatly, and the light of some contrasts with the blaze of others. The first are paradisiacal, the last are tragic." I'm not entirely sure what Hugo means by 'first' and 'last' here, because the obvious implication is that those who emit light are paradisiacal and those who blaze are tragic, and that feels very odd. I think, given the rest of the paragraph, that he may be referring more to those closer to the sky and those farthest away from it, but it's oddly unclear which means that I think he's working on levels that I do not understand.

We get even more explicit about this when we get into this business of men with starry eyes and men with shadowy eyes. It's a pretty straightforward concept, and a phenomenal piece of worldbuilding for some kind of specfic, either an LM AU or something wholly original. Honestly, this whole chapter is great worldbuilding for a specfic piece, and I'm honestly kind of tempted to poke at it.

Dante

This isn't explicit, but I'm getting a lot of Inferno vibes, with this whole underground society that gets darker and deeper and more malicious the further you get from the surface. Because this is Hugo, I'm actually inclined to suggest that the Dante vibes are part of why he chose this particular metaphor, rather than sticking to the ocean or the forest or something. Like I said, I don't think it's his only reason for reaching for something manmade, but Hugo is fully capable of working on multiple levels, and allusions to classic literature is one of those levels.

Words:

This is also, just, a beautiful chapter. I'm pulling from Hapgood right now, because I'm at work, but I wanted to share some of the quotes that made me go, "oh."

-The Encyclopedia, in the last century, was a mine that was almost open to the sky.

-For in the sacred shadows there lies latent light. Volcanoes are full of a shadow that is capable of flashing forth. Every form begins by being night.

-Jean-Jacques lends his pick to Diogenes, who lends him his lantern.

-Utopias travel about underground, in the pipes.

-This communicates with the abyss.

#brickclub #3.7.1 #this fcking book though

[bonearenaofmyskull]

How does one write meta? I am someone who is terrible at critical analyses and has trouble even finding themes in books (eng lit was hell for me!!) but I would love write meta for shows/movies. I just don't know what to look for and how to break it down. Please help me, if you don't mind! I want to be able to articulate/explain why I like or don't like and what I think about the work, character, relationship or topic. I feel like I need a guideline. Also how do you know if a work has substance?

Uh…….

Welp, if all your years of education including, evidently, college hasn’t taught you how to critically read a text (written or media) and write about it in a way that you feel confident in, then I seriously doubt there’s anything I can say in a single post to instill that confidence. That said, I can say what and how I do it, more or less. 

1. Watch the thing. A lot. And then some more. 

My typical schedule for when Hannibal aired in S2 (I wasn’t posting regularly in S1 and S3 was over summer so my schedule got shot all to hell) was to watch the episode the night it aired (Friday), read the questions I’d get about it in my inbox, watch it again right after, get up in the morning on Saturday and read the next set of questions, watch it AGAIN, start drafting answers, and watch it again at least once more that day and two or three times on Sunday. I would get an Amazon copy of the episode so when I wrote anything about any detail in it, I would go find that spot and rewatch it again, maybe two or three times. So my meta responses, unless it was something super quick and easy, typically had no less than five viewings. After the end of a week, no less than ten or twelve. 

At this point, I’ve watched “Aperitif” 27 times just for my job. Overall I think it’s around 70. Meta is time-consuming.

(A small tangent: This–along with the fact that each ask I answered tended to spawn two or three more asks–is something that informed my occasional testiness when someone would come along, say something inaccurate that would mislead or confuse people, and then, when I would say something to them about it, would say, “This is only my opinion!” or “I’m not writing for school!” or “I’ve only watched it once and I just wanted to share my feelings!” or “All interpretations are valid and equal!” Well, some of us are putting in a lot of time and effort into our interpretations and into helping people understand things before and in the process of publishing meta, and others’ lack of these directly makes my work more difficult and time-consuming. It’s frustrating.)

2. Look for patterns.

Hannibal has fairly obvious patterns because Bryan Fuller is many things, but–generally speaking–subtle he is not. So you see the same lines repeated (”They know”), the same images repeated (eyeballs with reflections), the same strains of music (go go Brian Reitzell), the same general topics (transformation, consumption, the human propensity for violence, God), and so forth. But this is true in all texts: if it bears repeating, it will bear examining. This is where themes (in books or otherwise) come from, along with the kinds of lessons that characters learn (or should have learned) through their experiences. 

3. Back up your opinions with text.

If you can’t back it up with text, you don’t have meta. You have headcanon. And sometimes headcanons are just wrong interpretations not because anything in the text directly counters them them, but because multiple things point toward countering them. Interpretations are fine, but they need to have multiple and/or significant portions of text to support them. 

I occasionally get into “the author is dead” debates with people, but as a rule of thumb, if you want to maintain any respectability in this endeavor, imo it’s worthwhile to look at a thing from the perspective of what you think the authors (including actors, directors, writers, etc) were trying to accomplish, and then look for details that support that. So like the “Bedelia cut off her own leg” argument–in the sense that you can’t definitively argue that she didn’t cut off her own leg, since they don’t show on screen who did, the claim that she cut it off herself is weaker than the claim that Hannibal and/or Will did it for her. There are pieces of evidence that imply that Hannibal and/or Will did it, but there is only conjecture to support that Bedelia herself did (”she could have…” this that, or the other). You cannot argue from an absence of evidence, and the evidence of an author’s thinking will be there, in the details. 

4. Study, look things up, and learn to write and argue. 

If Hannibal decides to quote Nietzsche, it don’t matter that you ain’t read Nietzsche in twenty-odd years and never read that particular piece at all. Go do your research, cuz somebody gonna ask. Not only that, but somebody gonna read that shit that is a fuggin philosophy major, so you better get your goddam ducks in a sweet little tidy row. 

Read what other people write about the topic you want to write about. If you want to write MCU meta, get your ass in the MCU meta tag (or whatever it is that they use) and read what people are saying. Some of them are going to be hella smart and help you understand things you didn’t know you misunderstood.

Same with writing. Learn to do that shit, if you don’t know already, on all levels: we’re dealing with ideas here, but there are also organization, voice, sentence fluency, word choice, and conventions. Reread and edit your shit. I recommend being linear in your organization–I’ve known people who wrote beautiful meta that you wouldn’t ever get any sense of what the point is till the absolute end. Don’t do that to people. Make a point, support it, draw a conclusion. Writing 101 stuff.

Learn to recognize logical fallacies so that you don’t do them when you don’t want to, and so that when you do want to, you can hide them so people won’t call you out on them. And so that you can call out others on them. 

Make no mistake: meta is argument. It’s only pretending to be expository.

With that in mind, know what you’re capable of. If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch. Especially if you’re easily hurt and/or have self-esteem issues. So much of fandom is all about lovey feelings and not leaving unasked-for criticism on people’s fic and all that–and I support that–but meta is an exception to this. It just is. Everyone is going to be jumping for a chance to tell you how wrong you are, even if they don’t write meta themselves and only watched the show once and just have feelings. 

5. Know your audience. 

Here’s an example of what I mean: I received an ask some years ago about whether or not Hannibal ever was in love with Bedelia, maybe even just a little? Even if it wasn’t like how he feels about Will??? 

Look, I’m a Hannigram shipper, and I wasn’t making any bones about that matter at the time I got that ask. But obviously that was from someone who shipped Bedannibal and really just wanted their poor soul to be soothed, and I can guarandamntee you I found some way to answer yes, in a way that was honest and that I could textually support, even though I myself would not call that relationship “in love.”

If you can, be on the side of your readers. They will be the people who are asking you questions. It doesn’t hurt to demonstrate kindness, as much as you can, without sacrificing the integrity of what you have to say as a meta writer. I’ll be the first to say I’ve made a lot of enemies on this blog because of various arguments I’ve gotten into, and I haven’t always known how important this is. But the people who come to you with questions deserve the best you can possibly give them.

How do you know when a work has substance?

It should be able to check several if not all of the following boxes:

Addresses the human condition in a non-trivial way (needs to be arguable and worth arguing about)

Contains complex characterization (no black and white major characters)

Displays text complexity (you gotta put in some effort to get it)

Exercises intertextuality (allusions to the greater world, other texts, history, etc.) 

Displays artistic quality (in all areas: writing, cinematography, acting, etc.)

Utilizes multiple varying artistic tools (metaphor, symbolism in writing, for example, or an appropriate variety of camera angles)

Controls and maintains a tone appropriate to subject and message

Note that being contextually relevant (dealing with important social issues) is not something that I listed here. Many on Tumblr would say that it should be. You should be at least vaguely aware of how your particular venue (Tumblr vs. reddit, for example) is going to affect your audience’s expectations of such things. 

#Anonymous #bear answers #hannibal meta #meta

[nintendotreehouse]

Localizing “Jump Up, Super Star!”

Life in the Treehouse moves pretty fast, and it can be hard to remember when you did what, and sometimes even why, so I had to check my e-mail archives to figure out that we started working on the lyrics for the songs in Super Mario Odyssey back in January of this year. (…Unless it was earlier? Who knows, man.)

Faults in my memory aside, the prospect of working on some songs at work was an exciting one. As a former music and Japanese double major, the idea that I would be using BOTH my degrees at my actual job was amazing. Who does that? Besides, I mean, people who chose their majors for more practical reasons…

When I became involved, the song that would eventually become “Jump Up, Super Star!” was basically done, at least as far as the music was concerned. The song was already going to be a hit in my mind, no matter what the lyrics ended up being, and at that time, the first section already had Japanese lyrics, written by Nobuyoshi Suzuki at NCL. I translated them thusly:

The symbol of a voyage, let’s start to raise the sails A tailwind dances at our backs

Flip a coin, the goddess who’ll tell our fortune Blows a kiss

Let’s sing our love as brightly as All the lights in all the world Then jump! (JUMP SE) And grab! (COIN SE) Say yeah!!! (yeah!!!)

Let’s dream together Love together If we walk with our eyes to the sky Once all our tears have fallen We’ll get a 1UP

Let’s all Jump up high and high five Tap and dance

I’m a superstar lighting up the world Switching you on to happiness So, let’s dance the Odyssey!!!

(Chorus) Odyssey, ya see! etc.

Obviously, directly translating song lyrics leaves you with…well, something that won’t actually work as lyrics in the target language. But it’s clear that Suzuki-san and the team wanted something big and romantic. A love song of sorts. I listened to the song a few more times and set about creating a first draft of the English lyrics, taking the ideas from the above and fleshing them out so there would be enough syllables to match the rhythm and melody of the song. 

Mayor Pauline is a fantastic vocalist, so we had to make sure she had an equally fantastic song to sing.

Here’s what I ended up with:

Oh we're ta- / -king a trip / Here we go it's time to raise the sails The wind is dancing at our backs

Flip a coin / Make a wish / and the goddess might just blow a kiss Boy I'd say your fortune's looking good

Le-et your love shine as bright as the lights in this whole wide wonderful world Jump with me / (grab) coins with me / Oh yeah!

Together we can live our dreams / This love is what it seems / So keep your chin up as you trek alone/ And when the tears they start to fall / There'll be no need to fear 'cause / I'll be your 1UP girl

So let's all jump up super high / and high five in the sky / There's no power-up like da-a-ncing / You know that I'm the superstar / No one else can take you this far / I'm flipping the switch / are you ready for this / Oh, let's do the Odyssey

Odyssey, ya see!

As you can see, a lot of that first draft did survive through to the final version of the lyrics. At this point, Rob Heiret (main English writer on Super Mario Odyssey) and I passed the lyrics back and forth a few times, until we had the following:

This time we're / off the rails / Here we go let's raise our sails It’s freedom like you never knew

Grab a coin / Make a wish / and the goddess might just blow a kiss You could say my hat is off to you.

We-e can zoom all the way to the moon from this great wide wacky world Jump with me / (grab) coins with me / Oh yeah!

Together we can live our dreams / This love is what it seems / So keep your chin up as you trek alone/ And when we’re underground in gloom, / Don’t fear, don’t shed a tear, 'cause / I'll be your 1UP shroom

So let's all jump up super high / high up in the sky / There's no power-up like da-a-ncing / You know that you’re my superstar / No one else can take me this far / I'm flipping the switch / are you ready for this / Oh, let's do the Odyssey

Odyssey, ya see!

We now felt like what we had was worth sharing with the folks on the Japan side, so I went into my home studio (living room) and whipped up a demo version. I’m not sure if it is fortunate or embarrassing that I didn’t delete these demos once the project was done, but here’s what that sounded like:

Too bad it couldn’t have been “Mayor Paul.” If you’re curious, I’m singing the song down a 6th in Eb because singing in the original key of C was not going to happen for me.

After we sent off the demo, the first round of feedback we got from NCL was really illuminating. They liked a lot of what we’d done, but also wanted a lot of it to change. For one thing, we’d leaned a little hard on the Mario references.

Through conversations with Suzuki-san, Naoto Kubo (the composer), and Shigetoshi Gohara (the overall sound producer), we learned more about their vision for the song: that it should be a fun, bombastic jazz number you could enjoy even if you had no connection or familiarity with Mario, but that would reward you even more, with little allusions to the Mario universe, if you were a Mario fan.

The same can be said of the music video that was produced to help promote the game as well—it’s fun to watch no matter who you are, but Mario fans will catch little details like Mario’s classic block-punch in the choreography.

The Mario references had to be at such a level that if you knew, then you knew, but if you didn’t, you wouldn’t really notice.

Another big goal from the dev team was to make the chorus as catchy as possible—simple and repetitive so even people who don’t speak English might be able to pick up on the lyrics and sing along. So, we had our work cut out for us.

Over the next couple of months, I settled into a pattern of adjusting and rewriting the lyrics, sending those around internally at NOA for more feedback, recording a demo, sending that to NCL, getting more feedback, rewriting, and then doing all of that again.

More than a few times, we even had video conferences with Gohara-san, Kubo-san, and Suzuki-san at NCL headquarters, where we would come up with new ideas on the fly that I would sing back to them then and there. I wonder what that sounded like outside the room…

At the end of that long (but fun) process, we had the lyrics for the first verse nailed down and realized that we were going to need two more verses. Oh, and we realized we had to record the song in about three weeks’ time. So, yeah… Things were going to need to speed up.

And they did! Here’s the first draft of the second verse:

Spin the wheel / take a chance/ every journey starts a new romance A new world’s calling out to you

Take a turn / off the path / find a new addition to the cast You know that any captain needs a crew

You can play it in 3D or 8-bit they’re just different points of view Down the pipe / there’s an extra life / oh yeah!

(Come on and) Jump up in the air / Jump without a care Jump up ‘cause you know that I’ll be there And if you find you’re short on joy Don’t fret, just don’t forget that You’re still our 1UP boy.

So go on straighten up your cap / let your toes begin to tap This rhythm is a power shroom / Don’t forget you’re the superstar / No one else could make it this far / Put a comb through that ‘stache / you’ve got panache

Oh, let’s do the Odyssey

Except for the “3D or 8-bit” line, and the “down the pipe” stuff, that’s pretty much what the final lyrics ended up being.

One thing Gohara-san and company really focused on was making sure that the lyrics felt good to sing, and that’s always been something I’ve really focused on in my own songwriting over the years as well. Aside from the actual meaning of the words, lyrics should have an intrinsic aesthetic appeal.

Gotta get those toes tapping, after all, right?

Which isn’t to say that meaning isn’t important, or wasn’t important when working on these lyrics. That said, I’ve found the various interpretations I’ve seen of our final lyrics to be way more thoughtful than my own.

A lot of people think there’s a deliberate “sails/sales” pun in the first line, as in: “Here we go, it’s time to raise our sales!” Sadly, I’m not that clever.

The best interpretation I’ve heard seems to have come out of Japan. I heard about it during the height of E3, when the song debuted. See, people read a lot into the idea that Pauline (in their eyes, Mario’s ex-girlfriend, though I’d never really thought of her that way) was singing a song to cheer him on as he undertakes an epic journey to rescue his current girlfriend (again, feels weird to type that out, but who am I to argue with other people’s headcanons?).

Kinda makes you think about Pauline differently, doesn’t it? Especially when you take a shot of her in Snapshot Mode and the moment you caught the fireworks almost makes them look like tears. I’m sorry, Pauline!

Viewed through that prism, the song becomes—while still joyful and upbeat—incredibly bittersweet at the same time. Again, I’d love to take credit for that, but I know I at least wasn’t cognizant of any of that stuff, really. I just wanted the song to feel good when you sing it.

And from the very humbling reception the song has gotten, it seems like it does! So thanks for listening, singing, and reading.

—Rob T.

#Super Mario Odyssey #Nintendo Switch #Nintendo #Treehouse

[maiji]

Thoughts on Grasses of Remembrance (The Tale of Genji through its poetry)

Finally had some time this weekend to sit down with A Waka Anthology, Volume 2: Grasses of Remembrance Part B by Edwin A. Cranston. This book is the last in an impressive and intimidating collection translating a number of major classical poetry anthologies. It’s basically a speedrun through Tale of Genji (if such a thing were possible) filtered through all 795 waka poems written or uttered by the characters over the course of the novel.

Poetry was a Really Big Deal during the Heian era. If you were an aristocrat, not only were you expected to compose decent poetry, you had to be able to do it off-the-cuff appropriate to the occasion. AND to do this properly, you were expected to be able to recognize and respond cleverly to references to a ton of other existing classic poems from memory that people would just mention casually in conversation or writing (kinda like how people quote the Simpsons today lol). This was a prime marker of how intelligent/competent and - no joke - how sexy you were. So not surprisingly, these poems are extremely important to the development of character interactions and themes in the Tale of Genji which has a lot of romance and relationship plotlines. 

However. Translating Heian era Japanese into modern Japanese is already challenging. Rendering Heian era Japanese waka poetry into modern English is, as you might imagine, harder for a bunch of reasons. Considering how dense the actual novel already is, it’s super easy to gloss over the poetry, and some modern translations simply integrate the basic intent of the poems right into the main text/dialogue.

I was really interested in finding something specifically focusing on and analyzing the poetry, and this book appeared to fit the bill.

Short review: IT TOTALLY DOES. If you’re into Tale of Genji, Heian era, classical Japanese history, classical Japanese literature, Japanese poetry, or just love reading translators articulating eloquently while sassing characters or flailing through linguistic complexities, I RECOMMEND THIS BOOK

Long review: blah blah blah thoughts follows, including some quotes/poem for reference.

The book starts with a quick 2 page intro setting the context of the Tale of Genji, then goes straight into the poems. TBH I personally found it more flowery and redundant than necessary (it repeats a few poems that are then explained later). But it’s only 2 pages, we’ll live.

Then, the poems. For every poem (or poems, in the case of an exchange - sometimes a flurry of them with multiple characters speaking or dashing letters off to each other) there’s an intro and summary of context followed by an analysis, including notes on meaning, narrator and character intent, structure, symbols and wordplay. The original Japanese is included in romaji alongside the English translation. The commentary also flags known references to other classic poems (WITH those poems in-line! This is awesome because I don’t have the rest of these books!), and even mentions poem and folk song quotations from the rest of the novel where the characters have not composed new poetry, but are reciting other existing known pieces.

Overall, I have only three real “warnings” about Grasses of Remembrance Vol 2b:

1) It’s very academic and flowery in tone. If you’re not used to it, it can be hard to read. But then again, if you’re not willing to get past that, how are you reading Tale of Genji? lol. In any case, I personally thought the commentary was a lot of fun. Cranston definitely has opinions and can get pretty sarcastic in places, which I found hilarious. Here are a few sample quotes:

“Tamakazura has remarked to herself how superior the Emperor [Reizei] was in looks to all the courtiers in his train (It is a principle with this author that superior people be dashingly handsome or ravishingly beautiful).” 

“The ruefully witty poems exchanged between Yugiri and To no Naishi [Koremitsu’s daughter, the Gosechi Dancer] are rather more to my taste than the soggy ones Yugiri and Kumoi no Kari exchanged on their wedding night. Might it be the case that a totally sanctioned relationship is literarily uninspiring?”

“The old lady reaches for the melodramatic ultimate and dies just as Yugiri’s letter arrives.”

The overall effect is like an exceedingly well-educated, gossipy and sassy ride through the entire novel hahaha. 

2) Minor typos. I noticed some speckled throughout the text every so often (e.g., Tamakazura being rendered Takakazura, Akashi as Asashi, instances of accidental extra letters, etc.). It was pretty clear what the correct spelling was supposed to be, and TBH considering this is the last of a huge-ass series of over 1300 pages I think it’s forgiveable. Maybe a few that spell-check should have caught, but oh well.

3) This book is NOT CHEAP. As I mentioned in a previous post, not only did I not buy the entire collection, I didn’t even buy a complete Volume 2 - I only bought the last half of the second volume lmao. And the Tale of Genji translations are only HALF of this half of a book. The rest is actually the footnotes, appendices, notes to poems, glossary, bibliography and indices (including indices for every poem by author and by first line) for this beast of a translation/compilation project. This includes a lot of additional commentary and other poems and makes for pretty interesting reading itself, even without the rest of the volumes/parts. The price can definitely be scary and an issue for a lot of people, so if you’re interested in it, I suggest try checking it out at your library or on Google Books first. (In fact, Google Books is how I learned of this book in the first place.)

For me, the depth of insight for the poems was fantastic. It gave me a lot more appreciation for the scenes, including the mental state of the characters, plus a million more symbols, metaphors and ideas for my own creative works like the Genjimonogatari illustration series, North Bound and other original stuff. 

It also clarified several fuzzy translation questions I had that relied on specific knowledge of Heian culture and history/evolution of the use of the language and wasn’t easily found in Google searches or online language resources. And even if you’re already familiar with common allusions, metaphors and puns/homophones in Japanese poetry, it’s still helpful to see them all summarized. And sometimes lamented by the book’s author too. SO MANY PONIES EATING GRASS. SO MANY PINES. Especially the pines. (It IS an amazing pun though, especially because it works in both English and Japanese. Pine [tree] -> to pine, matsu/pine tree -> matsu/to wait)

In term of the actual translations themselves, you may still find them coming off a bit roundabout in some cases when comparing to the original Japanese. But overall I find Cranston’s translations more direct/flavourful than how they were rendered in the Tyler translation, partly because of how Tyler chose to juggle his set of translator’s challenges for rendering not only meaning but also more technical aspects of the poetic form. So the imagery ends up being, to me, a lot more vivid. The overall effect usually ends up more colourful, more emotional, more erotic, more cutting, more entertaining, and whatnot. 

For example, Kashiwagi’s suitor’s poem in the Kocho/Butterflies chapter. When reading the novel, I was like, uh-huh, yah, OK. When I read it here, I was like whoa, dude, that’s a little intense lol. Cranston’s translation amps up the connotation of the heat of the water based on the rest of the line. For comparison:

(The original non-romaji Japanese in the samples following are thanks to the Japanese Text Initiative from the University of Virginia Library Etext Centre and the University of Pittsburgh East Asian Library. Their Tale of Genji page has a FREAKING AMAZING side-by-side comparison of the novel in original Japanese, modern Japanese and romaji. Bless them and the people who had to organize and wrangle that text together.)

Original Japanese: 思ふとも君は知らじなわきかへり 岩漏る水に色し見えねば Omou to mo / Kimi wa shiraji na / Wakikaeri Iwa moru misu ni / Iro shi mieneba

Tyler version: You can hardly know that my thoughts are all of you, for the stealthy spring welling from the rocks leaves no colour to be seen.

Cranston version: Hardly can you know / Of the longing that I feel, / For the boiling wave / Is merely colorless water / As it drains away from the rock.

Here’s another example. Oigimi (Agemaki in the book, as Cranston used Wayley’s names for the sisters) telling Kaoru that he’s the only one who’s been actually visiting them and Kaoru is like all riiiight :Db! From Shii ga Moto / Beneath the Oak chapter:

Oigimi’s poem 雪深き山のかけはし君ならで またふみかよふ跡を見ぬかな Yuki fukaki / Yama no kakehashi / Kimi narade Mata fumikayou / Ato o minu kana

Tyler: No brush but your own has marked the steep mountain trails buried deep in snow / with footprints, while back and forth letters go across the hills.

Cranston: Over the bridges / Clinging to the cliffs along / Our deep-snow mountains / No letter-bearer leaves his trace: / Those footprints are yours alone.

Kaoru’s reply つららとぢ駒ふみしだく山川を しるべしがてらまづや渡らむ Tsurara toji / Koma fumishidaku / Yamakawa o Shirube shigatera / Mazu ya wataramu

Tyler: Then let it be I who firsts ride across these hills, though on his mission, / where ice under my horse’s hooves crackles along frozen streams.

Cranston: In the sheets of ice / Covering the mountain streams / My steed crushes / Such letters as form my reason, / My first, to cross as a guide.

In other examples, Genji’s “*throws hands in the air* I give up” poetic reply to Suetsumuhana about how she keeps using Robes of Cathay/Chinese cloak imagery in her poems in the original Japanese alongside the translation cracked me up even more. And one of my favourites is a pair of poems between the future Akashi Empress (as a child) and her birth-mother the Akashi lady. It’s really sad, sweet and cute all at the same time and completely flew under my radar when I read the novel originally.

The poetry analysis for the Uji chapters is especially intriguing. The plot pointedly pits Niou against Kaoru as opposing personalities with particular similarities and contrasts that drive their relationship with each other and with the woman they’re competing for. Especially in the latter half of the story, a lot of their poems, even ones written independently (i.e., to Ukifune), are specifically composed to highlight those attributes and play off of each other.

Finally, it’s also super interesting to see my experience with the narrative changes through the lens of the poems. Obviously, as I mentioned, some things I easily missed without paying as much attention to the poems in between the rest of the story. But also, some prominent characters have very few poems, so the narrative shifts away from them. Meanwhile, a number of otherwise very minor or usually overlooked characters stand out even more, thanks to the fineness, loveliness, resonance, and sometimes just sheer consistent presence of their poetry. This book definitely gave me a lot of additional perspective on the Tale of Genji, and enhanced my appreciation of the novel and the skill behind its crafting!

#tale of genji #genji monogatary #waka poetry #a waka anthology #grasses of remembrance #edwin a. cranston #royall tyler #japanese #translation #japanese tranlation #heian period #kaoru chujo #oigimi #agemaki #kashiwagi

[pamphletstoinspire]

THE CANTICLE OF CANTICLES - SOLOMON'S CANTICLE OF CANTICLES - From The Douay-Rheims Bible - Latin Vulgate

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION.

This book is called the Canticle of Canticles, that is to say, the most excellent of all canticles: because it is full of high mysteries, relating to the happy union of Christ and his spouse; which is here begun by love; and is to be eternal in heaven. The spouse of Christ is the Church: more especially as to the happiest part of it, viz. perfect souls, every one of which is his beloved; but above all others, the immaculate and ever blessed Virgin mother. Ch. --- The bridegroom is Christ, as God and man. His praises and those of his spouse are recorded by various speakers. Solomon has given us three works; for beginners, the more advanced, and the perfect; as the philosophers teach ethics, physics, and metaphysics. All the holy Scriptures contain spiritual food, but they are not all fit for every person. Heb. v. 13. With what humility ought we not, therefore, to read this most perfect and mystical canticle, as the sentiments of spiritual love are expressed in the same words as that of worldlings, and we are more inclined to follow our own judgment and carnal notions! W. --- None, therefore, should dare to peruse this work, who has not mastered his passions, having his conversation in heaven. H. --- The Jews would not allow any ot read it before the age of thirty. Orig. and S. Jer. --- Some of the fathers and commentators have even asserted that the mystical sense is the only one which pertains to this book, (Theod. Durham. T.) and it is certainly the true and principal one, though allusion may be made to the marriage of Solomon with Pharao's daughter, (C. Bossuet. D.) or with a Tyrian princess, (c. iv. 8. and 3 K. xiii. 5.) or with Abisag. Rabbins. --- Grotius shews the corruption of his own heart in his impure comments, as Theodorus, of Mopsuestra, is blamed by the second Council of Const. iv. a. 68. The name of God never, indeed, occurs; as he is represented under the idea of the bridegroom, &c. and the piece is allegorical. It might be divided into seven scenes, or nights, as the marriage feast lasted so long. Gen. xxix. 22. During this time the bridegroom saw his spouse seldom, and with great reserve, (C.) as was the custom with the Lacedemonians. Plut. in Lyc. --- We might also refer all to six nights, or to the six ages of the Church, conformably to the system of De la Chetardie and Bishop Walmesley on the Apocalypse. --- I. Age. C. i. 2. marks the ascension of Christ, and the propagation of Christianity; v. 4. 5. persecutions; v. 6. 7. vocation of the Gentiles; v. 12. protection granted by Christ. II. C. ii. 3. peace under Constantine; v. 11. 17. troubles excited by Arius. III. C. iii. 1. irruption of barbarians; v. 4. does not overturn the Church; v. 6. they are converted; v. 11. and Christ is more glorified, as Apoc. xix. IV. C. iv. 5. the Latin and Greek Churches; v. 8. the Chaldees, lions, and Greeks, leopards, (Dan.) are converted; the Turks obtain dominion; v. 12. the Greek schismatics cut off: v. 16. the Church is persecuted, but protected. V. C. v. 2. Dew marks the cooling of charity, (S. Aug.) when Luther appeared; c. vi. 3. yet the Church triumphs, particularly after the Council of Trent. VI. C. vi. 9. after the sounding of the sixth trumpet, the Jews are converted, and adorn the Church, in spite of antichrist's power; v. 11. she addresses the synagogue, v. 12. C. viii. 2. obtains leave to go into the house of her mother, as the apostles were of Jewish extraction; v. 7. the constancy of the martyrs appears; (see Rondet.) v. 8-14. the Church pants for her speedy union with her beloved. We may justly admire her authority, in preserving this and the former work of the canon, notwithstanding the internal and external evidence, and the ill use made of them by infidels, which seemed to militate against them. The Prot. Chateillon styles this "a wicked book." Several passages may, no doubt, be abused by a corrupt heart: but what is there so holy, which may not be perverted? When we meditate on this canticle, we ought to remember the admonition given by the Church in the Mass: "Let hearts be on high;" and Oh! that all might answer with truth: "We have them to the Lord!"

The additional Notes in this Edition of the New Testament will be marked with the letter A. Such as are taken from various Interpreters and Commentators, will be marked as in the Old Testament. B. Bristow, C. Calmet, Ch. Challoner, D. Du Hamel, E. Estius, J. Jansenius, M. Menochius, Po. Polus, P. Pastorini, T. Tirinus, V. Bible de Vence, W. Worthington, Wi. Witham. — The names of other authors, who may be occasionally consulted, will be given at full length.

Verses are in English and Latin. HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY

This Catholic commentary on the Old Testament, following the Douay-Rheims Bible text, was originally compiled by Catholic priest and biblical scholar Rev. George Leo Haydock (1774-1849). This transcription is based on Haydock's notes as they appear in the 1859 edition of Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary printed by Edward Dunigan and Brother, New York, New York.

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES

Changes made to the original text for this transcription include the following:

Greek letters. The original text sometimes includes Greek expressions spelled out in Greek letters. In this transcription, those expressions have been transliterated from Greek letters to English letters, put in italics, and underlined. The following substitution scheme has been used: A for Alpha; B for Beta; G for Gamma; D for Delta; E for Epsilon; Z for Zeta; E for Eta; Th for Theta; I for Iota; K for Kappa; L for Lamda; M for Mu; N for Nu; X for Xi; O for Omicron; P for Pi; R for Rho; S for Sigma; T for Tau; U for Upsilon; Ph for Phi; Ch for Chi; Ps for Psi; O for Omega. For example, where the name, Jesus, is spelled out in the original text in Greek letters, Iota-eta-sigma-omicron-upsilon-sigma, it is transliterated in this transcription as, Iesous. Greek diacritical marks have not been represented in this transcription.

Footnotes. The original text indicates footnotes with special characters, including the astrisk (*) and printers' marks, such as the dagger mark, the double dagger mark, the section mark, the parallels mark, and the paragraph mark. In this transcription all these special characters have been replaced by numbers in square brackets, such as [1], [2], [3], etc.

Accent marks. The original text contains some English letters represented with accent marks. In this transcription, those letters have been rendered in this transcription without their accent marks.

Other special characters.

Solid horizontal lines of various lengths that appear in the original text have been represented as a series of consecutive hyphens of approximately the same length, such as ---.

Ligatures, single characters containing two letters united, in the original text in some Latin expressions have been represented in this transcription as separate letters. The ligature formed by uniting A and E is represented as Ae, that of a and e as ae, that of O and E as Oe, and that of o and e as oe.

Monetary sums in the original text represented with a preceding British pound sterling symbol (a stylized L, transected by a short horizontal line) are represented in this transcription with a following pound symbol, l.

The half symbol (1/2) and three-quarters symbol (3/4) in the original text have been represented in this transcription with their decimal equivalent, (.5) and (.75) respectively.

Unreadable text. Places where the transcriber's copy of the original text is unreadable have been indicated in this transcription by an empty set of square brackets, [].

Chapter 1

The spouse aspires to an union with Christ, their mutual love for one another.

[1] Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth: for thy breasts are better than wine,

SPONSA. Osculetur me osculo oris sui; quia meliora sunt ubera tua vino,

[2] Smelling sweet of the best ointments. Thy name is as oil poured out: therefore young maidens have loved thee.

fragrantia unguentis optimis. Oleum effusum nomen tuum; ideo adolescentulae dilexerunt te.

[3] Draw me: we will run after thee to the odour of thy ointments. The king hath brought me into his storerooms: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, remembering thy breasts more than wine: the righteous love thee.

CHORUS ADOLESCENTULARUM. Trahe me, post te curremus in odorem unguentorum tuorum. Introduxit me rex in cellaria sua; exsultabimus et laetabimur in te, memores uberum tuorum super vinum. Recti diligunt te.

[4] I am black but beautiful, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Cedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

SPONSA. Nigra sum, sed formosa, filiae Jerusalem, sicut tabernacula Cedar, sicut pelles Salomonis.

[5] Do not consider me that I am brown, because the sun hath altered my colour: the sons of my mother have fought against me, they have made me the keeper in the vineyards: my vineyard I have not kept.

Nolite me considerare quod fusca sim, quia decoloravit me sol. Filii matris meae pugnaverunt contra me; posuerunt me custodem in vineis : vineam meam non custodivi.

[6] shew me, O thou whom my soul loveth, where thou feedest, where thou liest in the midday, lest I begin to wander after the flocks of thy companions.

Indica mihi, quem diligit anima mea, ubi pascas, ubi cubes in meridie, ne vagari incipiam post greges sodalium tuorum.

[7] If thou know not thyself, O fairest among women, go forth, and follow after the steps of the flocks, and feed thy kids beside the tents of the shepherds.

SPONSUS. Si ignoras te, o pulcherrima inter mulieres, egredere, et abi post vestigia gregum, et pasce haedos tuos juxta tabernacula pastorum.

[8] To my company of horsemen, in Pharao's chariots, have I likened thee, O my love.

Equitatui meo in curribus Pharaonis assimilavi te, amica mea.

[9] Thy cheeks are beautiful as the turtledove's, thy neck as jewels.

Pulchrae sunt genae tuae sicut turturis; collum tuum sicut monilia.

[10] We will make thee chains of gold, inlaid with silver.

Murenulas aureas faciemus tibi, vermiculatas argento.

[11] While the king was at his repose, my spikenard sent forth the odour thereof.

SPONSA. Dum esset rex in accubitu suo, nardus mea dedit odorem suum.

[12] A bundle of myrrh is my beloved to me, he shall abide between my breasts.

Fasciculus myrrhae dilectus meus mihi; inter ubera mea commorabitur.

[13] A cluster of cypress my love is to me, in the vineyards of Engaddi.

Botrus cypri dilectus meus mihi in vineis Engaddi.

[14] Behold thou art fair, O my love, behold thou art fair, thy eyes are as those of doves.

SPONSUS. Ecce tu pulchra es, amica mea! ecce tu pulchra es! Oculi tui columbarum.

[15] Behold thou art fair, my beloved, and comely. Our bed is flourishing.

SPONSA. Ecce tu pulcher es, dilecte mi, et decorus! Lectulus noster floridus.

[16] The beams of our houses are of cedar, our rafters of cypress trees.

Tigna domorum nostrarum cedrina, laquearia nostra cypressina.

Commentary:

Canticles. Heb. shir hashirim asher Lishlomo, "the Canticle of Canticles which is for (H.) or according to Solomon," (M.) dictated to him by the Holy Ghost.

Ver. 1. Let. Heb. yishakeni, (H.) "kiss or instruct me," as if to insinuate the we must raise our thoughts from carnal to spiritual things. --- The. Heb. "kisses." --- His mouth. Others I reject. M. --- The synagogue prays for Christ's coming, as the Church does for his glorious appearance. W. --- The figures of the law and predictions afford not satisfaction; only the Messias can bring it to mankind. Orig. --- They shall all be taught by God. Jo. vi. 45. Heb. i. 2. H. --- Breasts. Heb. also, "loves." But the former is the primary signification of (M.) dodec. Christ, in his divine and human nature, is the source of all our good. His graces are manifested. He instructs and feeds us with the truths contained in Scripture, and in tradition, (H.) or in the Old and New Testament. Ven. Bede, &c. --- Spiritual delights are to be preferred before all terrestrial ones. From the incarnation of Christ, and sanctification of man, all other graces proceed. T. --- At first the spouse speaks to the bridegroom in the third person, to show her respect, though he was certainly present. Her companions attend her. C. --- Wine. All seem to agree that these words are addressed to the bridegroom: which shews that they must be understood in the mystical sense. H.

Ver. 2. Ointments. The bosom used to be perfumed. Athen. xv. 5. and xv. 14. --- Thy name. Thou thyself. The preaching of the gospel produced a wonderful change in the world. 2 Cor. ii. 15. C. --- The Church honours the name of Jesus on the second Sunday after the Epiphany. A. Butler, p. 130. H. --- Thee. The martyrs and Christian virgins are inflamed with divine love.

Ver. 3-4. To, &c. is in the Sept.; but not in Heb. or Complut. C. --- Grace must draw, and then people will run. Jo. vi. 44. and xii. 32. Phil. iii. 12. S. Amb. Bossuet. --- Rooms. Where there is abundance of wine and ointments. The extraordinary favours of heaven are not granted to all. Matt. xiii. 11. C. --- Righteous. The apostles, and faithful souls, (H.) and all who form a right judgment of things, (M.) having their thoughts, works, and actions composed. T. --- Black. Or brown. v. 5. H. --- The Egyptians were of a less fair complexion, and she had been exposed to the sun. v. 5. C. --- The synagogue gloried in her advantages; but the Gentiles being chosen by Christ, obtain the palm. Theod. --- Though outwardly afflicted, the Church is inwardly fair. W. --- Cedar. Or of the Arabs, who dwelt in tents, made of black goat's hair. C. --- The tents of the eastern kings were equal in magnificence to our palaces. Bernier, Valle, &c.

Ver. 5. Altered. Heb. "looked upon me," (Prot.) or "darted his rays at me." Mont. H. --- The Church of the Gentiles was quite disfigured before Christ chose it. Persecutors afterwards strove to tarnish its beauty, but in vain. --- Vineyard. My face (C.) and person I have not regarded, while I was attentive to serve others. H. --- Pastors, who are chosen against their will, sometimes pay so much attention to the welfare of their flock, that they neglect their own interior, and fall into small faults, which Christ will know how to excuse and pardon. Ezec. xxxiii. 2. S. Bern. ser. xxx. C.

Ver. 6. Liest. Heb. "makest thy flock to rest." Prot. H. --- Mid-day. She represents herself and her beloved as guarding flocks, which were usually driven into some shady place during the heat of the day, when the shepherds took their innocent recreations. --- Wander. Sept. Prot. But marginal note has, "as one that is veiled," which was the mark of a common woman. Gen. xxxviii. 14. The Gentile Church is eager to be guided by the one true Shepherd, and adheres to him with the greatest fervour, (C.) during the heat of persecution. Cassiod. --- We ought to imitate the solicitude of the spouse, and hide ourselves under the shadow of the cross when we are tempted. Isai. xxv. 4. C.

Ver. 7. If. Christ comforts his Church. W. --- He doubts not of her fidelity. M. --- But the very insinuation, which she had made, causes him to give her this sort of rebuke. God is jealous. Ex. xxxiv. 14. He punishes the smallest faults. The spouse perceives this, and runs towards him. --- Thyself. He who is ignorant of himself, must be so likewise of God, (C.) and will be sentenced to feed goats. S. Jer. ep. xxii. ad Eustoc. --- Kids. Which had been detained at home. They will naturally seek their mothers. All creatures will raise the soul to God. Job xii. --- Shepherds. Though in the midst of a perverse generation of idolaters and philosophers, the Church will continue steadfast. M.

Ver. 8. Company. Heb. "mare." Such were preferred, as more gentle and swift. Pharao had probably made his son-in-law a present of a magnificent chariot. Theocritus (xviii.) compares the beauty of Helena to a Thessalian horse in a chariot, so that this idea is not low. Gen. xliv. 14. Os. x. 11. C. --- Horsemen. Prot. "horses." H. --- Heb. susa. Sept. h ippoV means also "cavalry," as well as a mare. The Church has nothing to fear. M.

Ver. 9. As, &c. Heb. "with rows of jewels, thy neck with chains of gold." Prot. --- Sept. here read like the Vulg. c instead of b before thurim, which signifies chains, (v. 10. H.) as well as turtles. We cannot say that this bird has cheeks. C. --- It is an emblem of the Church mourning, and ever true to her beloved, (Orig. &c.) who bestows a variety of graces on different people. 1 Cor. xii. 4. C.

Ver. 11. While. The Church meditates on his passion and resurrection. W. --- Repose. Or bed. Thus our Saviour was treated. Matt. xxvi. 7. Lu. vii. 37. C. --- Odour. The virtues of the Church please him. M. --- The saints, before and since his coming, pray with all earnestness. Apoc. v. 8.

Ver. 12. Abide. Heb. adds, "all night." Christ remained nine months in the virgin's womb. C. --- The faithful discover him in both the Testaments, (H.) and meditate on his sufferings. Myrrh is a bitter but odoriferous liquor.

Ver. 13. Cyprus. A shrub with leaves like the olive-tree, and fruit growing in clusters, of a very agreeable smell. See Pliny, xii. 24. Christ has given us his sacred blood on the cross, and in the blessed Eucharist. M.

Ver. 14. Behold. Christ praiseth his spouse. W. --- Doves. Sharp-sighted, and reddish. Gen. xlix. 12. The Holy Ghost came upon Christ in the form of a dove. Matt. iii. 16. We must imitate his simplicity, (Matt. x. 16.) and have a pure and single eye, or intention, (Matt. vi. 22. C.) inviolably to please God. Orig. --- The Church decides matters of controversy, without any mistakes. M.

Ver. 15. Behold. The spouse makes a return of praise, and thanksgiving for her repose, to Christ. W. --- The corporal beauty of Solomon or of our Saviour is not fully ascertained; but their inward perfections are often proclaimed. --- Flourishing. Heb. "green." Sept. "shaded." Est. i. 5. --- This bed was the womb of the blessed Virgin, the cross, or any faithful soul. S. Bernard says it is a monastery, retired and adorned with all virtues. C.

Ver. 16. Beams. Prelates. --- Rafters. Virtuous subjects. M. - Cypress. The are both odoriferous and incorruptible. The cypress has leaves from top to bottom, and grows not so large as the cedar. Pliny, xii. 17.

#canticles of canticles

[danvanzandt]

Modes of Representation

An exhibition by Annie Teall and Danny VanZandt

Alexander Calder Art Center Padnos Gallery (January 23 - February 3)

“il n'y a pas de hors-texte” (“There is no outside of context”)[1]-Jacques Derrida

“it’s stability hinges on the stability of the observer, who is thought to be located on a stable ground of sorts”[2]-Hito Steyerl

The Modes of Representation exhibition seeks to explore artworks that deal with the arbitrary nature of systems of representation— i.e. to exhibit representations of reality that self-reflexively deconstruct the very modes in which they operate. Modes of Representation seeks to find connections between various structures of representation, from language’s illusive appearance as the truth of things, to databases attempts to display an encyclopedic and objective knowledge of the world, as well as spatial representations in the form of cartography and linear perspective, with their suggestion of an author and viewer at the “center of the universe”[3].John Berger writes in Ways of Seeing of how, “perspective makes the single eye the centre of the visible world. Everything converges on to the eye as to the vanishing point of infinity. The visible world is arranged for the spectator as the universe was once thought to be arranged for God.” His pulling back of the curtain on the representational form of linear perspective displays how it relies directly on a stable viewer (i.e. a stable origin point) located at the center of the universe, a model no different from Derrida’s deconstruction of logocentrism[4] as a closed off system of signs lacking a “transcendental signifier”. Language has no stable origin point (aforementioned “transcendental signifier”), rather words merely refer back to other words ad infinitum, and so it is impossible for language to transcend its context—you can’t talk about language without using language.

Within both of these ideas is a referral back to Lacan’s “Order of the Symbolic”, the idea that we are trapped within a semiotic matrix with no access whatsoever to “the Real.”[5] Artists working from the early twentieth century (Magritte, DuChamp) up through and during the postmodern era (Kosuth, Tansey, Salley, etc.) have explored this space between the representational and the real, exposing its fault lines and mining them for a greater understanding of how we engage with the world around us, and furthermore how semiotics mediates that relationship. But with the turn to New Media[6] in the last couple of decades this interrogation of the simulacrum has become far more important due to the prevalence of online databases such as Facebook, Google Maps, and Wikipedia that can often appear deceptively as objective, “god’s-eye-view” representations of reality (not to mention the possible future of Big Data as the panopticon, seen through the controversy surrounding datamining regarding at home smart devices like the Amazon Echo and Google Home).

This hypothetical “god’s eye view”, also known as the ‘Archimedean point’, “a point ‘outside’ from which a different, perhaps objective or ‘true’ picture of something is obtainable”[7] serves as a spatial model for Derrida’s claim re: language that “there is no outside of context”. Another example of this Archimedean third person perspective would be cartographic representations of real space. Maps not only help to display the way in which we orient ourselves relative to the space around us, but also how this spatial orientation becomes a common model for how we understand ourselves relative to the world around us (and it should be noted that spatial metaphors pervade language). This sense of psychological projection, or “mapping”, also recall the ‘psychogeography’ of Debord and the Situationists, defined as "the study of the precise laws and specific effects of the geographical environment, consciously organized or not, on the emotions and behavior of individuals."

Annie Teall’s Head Smashed in Buffalo Jump succinctly joins together these reflections on the arbitrary nature of sign systems, objective representation, spatial orientation, and the primacy of databases as symbolic form in the age of New Media[8]. Head Smashed in Buffalo Jump displays a process of deconstructing the epistemology of Wikipedia and Google Maps, both supposedly objective databases[9], by working through Wikipedia from an arbitrarily chosen starting page, and then following the internal path of hyperlinks from page to page by clicking the first locational link on each page. The final image is the product of then further replicating that path of linked locations in Google Maps, screen-capturing each route, and collaging them together.

Similarly, in her piece In Free Fall, which draws its name from Hito Steyerl’s essay on how vertical perspective acts as a visual model for Western philosophy (“we cannot assume any stable ground on which to base metaphysical claims or foundational political myths”), we again see the fragmentation of spatial representations drawn from Google Maps. However, this time these cartographic images are morphed with a striped motif that appears throughout her work. This motif, an allusion to the op-art work of Bridget Riley, normally appears in her work as a static, flat, two-dimensional image, but here we see it presented with a sense of three-dimensional depth, climbing the various image panes and drifting back and forth between foreground and background. It acts as a visual pun, calling our attention to how all two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional space are optical illusions.

Within my work there is a similar sense of poking fun at the Western tradition of representational art by means of calling attention to the slipperiness of signification that arises within images and language as a result of their dual nature as material and virtual. As Barthes wrote in Camera Lucida “you cannot separate the windowpane of the image from the landscape” [10]. When we cast our gaze upon the image we see how our casual perception can often find it hard to reconcile that the image we are looking at is both the subject matter the image presents to us, as well as the image screen itself (the photo paper, canvas, monitor, etc.)—‘ceci n’est pas une pipe’. [11] My paintings are images of images, both in that they are paintings of subject matter not drawn from directly from life, but rather secondarily from photographs, as well as in that they are paintings of photographs that within them contain other paintings of photographs. By operating as meta-paintings (paintings of paintings) they subvert the narrative continuity of the image screen and draw attention to themselves as authored, furthermore reminding us that our perception of reality itself is authored. The wall between image and reality has vanished, leaving us in an infinite regression of constructed images of reality. There is no “outside of context”, we are lost in the funhouse.

 -Danny VanZandt

[1] Jacques Derrida Of Grammatology

[2] Hito Steyerl In Free Fall: A Thought Experiment on Vertical Perspective

[3] John Berger Ways of Seeing

[4] “the tradition of Western science and philosophy that regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality. It holds the logos as epistemologically superior and that there is an original, irreducible object which the logos represents. It, therefore, holds that one's presence in the world is necessarily mediated. According to logocentrism, the logos is the ideal representation of the Platonic Ideal Form.” -Wikipedia ‘Logocentrism’

[5] Jacques Lacan, Écrits: A Selection

[6] Lev Manovich The Language of New Media

[7] ‘Archimedean Point’ The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy

[8] Lev Manovich Database as Symbolic Form

[9] "attempt to render the full range of knowledge and beliefs of a national culture, while identifying the ideological perspectives from which that culture shapes and interprets its knowledge" - Edward Mendelson Encyclopedic Narrative

[10] Roland Barthes Camera Lucida

[11] Rene Magritte The Treachery of Images

#art #contemporary art #annie teall #danny vanzandt #gvsu #grand valley #visual studies #visual culture #roland barthes #lev manovich #jacques derrida #jacques lacan

[sometimesrosy]

Rosy--LOVE the blog! Thanks for answering so many questions! What do you think the odds are of B & C being in the same place at the end of S4? & do you think JR/the writer's room would kill one or both of them (please say no!)? I want them to live! JR's comments about doomed love stories being compelling freaked me out!! & people keep talking about sci-fi shows not having happy endings for everyone, etc., so I'm trying to be practical & aware of the larger story being told.

I do not think Clarke and Bellamy are dying. I think they’re the heroes of the show. The leads. Both of them. This gives them a bit of protection. We are watching them become heroes. They are the characters that the story is about. They are the story being told. Antagonists and helpers and other partners can fall along the way, but we need the heroes to get to, at least, the end of the story so we can hear the whole tale.

If they end up in the same place in the end of S4? I can’t tell. It depends on the story they end up telling this season and I don’t think that’s entirely clear yet. We have to look more for the narrative clues. Still to be decided for me.

I know the comment about doomed love stories being compelling was worrisome, but let me explain the reason why I am so sure of Bellarke. It’s not shipping. Shipping was when I saw Bellamy look at her in awe when she told him she needed him, or when they flirted in Unity Days. But by season three, right around 3.05 when they’d put forth all these allusions to epic stories and mythic tales and I realized Bellarke WASN’T REALLY A LOVE STORY, that’s when I decided that Bellarke was endgame. No, I take it back. It wasn’t a romance story. It wasn’t about them GETTING together. It was about them BEING together. Partners. It was about the way they make each other better, support each other, work for the same aims. It was about union on cosmic level. About bringing to different people/cultures/concepts together to create a new world. 

Bellamy and Clarke are symbolic of the reconciliation of the dark and the light in order to create the world. That means that while I believe we’re going to see romantic Bellarke, because that’s how you literally show the union of two young people who represent these big ideas, the STORY is not a romance, it’s a creation myth. 

Science fiction doesn’t have to end with everything going bad or not everyone making it. That’s not really dictated by the genre. Dystopic science fiction, however has two distinct conventions for endings. One is everyone dies, life sucks, none of it means anything. THIS IS NOT THE 100. They have a STRONG thread of hope and purpose running through the entire show. So it’s not nihilistic. The other convention is that the survivors struggle through the dystopia and it ends, creating hope for a better world. I think THIS is the school of dystopia we’re talking about. 

One caveat: I’m not guaranteeing either Bellamy’s or Clarke’s survival at the very end of the season. If they continue with the chess metaphor, which they have been, then we only need the king to win the game. The queen can be sacrificed for his survival. Doesn’t mean she has to be, but she can be. Or if they don’t use the chess metaphor, they could both die, as long as they have built a new world for the people, in which case we’d get the happy ending hope for humanity, but it would have Clarke and Bellamy sacrificing themselves for that. But we can also have them both surviving, and living, and growing and struggling to lead the new society which would bring a whole new set of struggles, suffering and adventures. This is the best ending for television because it offers the producers the chance to revisit the world, if they ever want to or can manage it and continue the stories. I mean, another season? Netflix picking it up? A movie? A sequel? Hollywood likes franchises. 

So the ending of the series is up in the air. The ending of season 4 is not. JR is too optimistic about season 5 to risk the center of his story by killing off Clarke or Bellamy. That would simply be stupid. 

#the 100 meta #the 100 speculation #bellarke #bellarke endgame #mythos #symbolism #science fiction

[wisdomrays]

TAFAKKUR: Part 375

THE QURANIC APPROACH TO SCIENCE: Part 3

EXAMPLES OF THE QUR’AN’S REFERENCES TO SCIENTIFIC FACTS AND DEVELOPMENTS

The Qur’an hints at technological advances and marks their final development, besides many other ways by mentioning the miracles of’ the Prophets. It encourages man to fly in the air and alludes implicitly to the fact that one day man will be able to make spaceships and aircraft, by the verse. ‘And to Solomon (We subjugated) the wind: its morning course was a month’s journey, and its evening course was a month’s journey (34.12). It also invites man to search the remedy of every illness in the verse. (Jesus said): I also heal the blind and the leper and bring to lift the dead, by the leave of God (3.49) and hints that man will one day be able to cure every illness and thus gives the impression as if death would no longer overtake man. By the verse, Said he who possessed knowledge of the Book. ‘I will bring it (the throne of the Queen of the Yemen) to you (to Solomon in Jerusalem) before ever your glance returns to you (27.40) the Qur’an foretells that one day images or even the things themselves will be transmitted in a moment through knowledge of the Divine book of the universe, just as a man who possesses knowledge of the Book of Divine Revelation is able to bring things from a long distance before his glance returns to him. The Qur’an also symbolically informs us that it might be possible to identify the killer of a person by sonic cells taken front his body at the time of death by narrating that the killer of a person was found out in the time of the Prophet Moses upon him be peace, by smiting the slain man with part of a cow the Children of Israel were ordered to slaughter by God Almighty (2.7 1-2). There are many other examples in the Qur’an of allusions to the scientific and technological advances to be made by mankind in the future, but these instances suffice to give an indication of the matter.

The Qur’an being the Divine Revelation for every age and every person until the Day of Judgement, has great depths of meaning: it is an infinite ocean in which every person of knowledge and ability can dive deeply, and according to his capacity finds its pearls and coral. Its scientific wisdom is, as it were, rejuvenated with the passage of time. Every generation discovers its wisdom anew, and its secrets continue to be revealed with the passage of time.

In a verse about the creation of the universe, ‘Then He turned to the sky when it was smoke, and said to it and to the earth. ‘Come willingly or unwillingly.’ They said: ‘We come willingly’ (40.1 I), the Qur’an indicates that there is a difficulty in the cooperation between the earth and sky. As is known, the molecules and atoms in the atmosphere try to escape into space while the earth tries to attract and hold them. For the formation of an atmosphere, the motions leading to the force of escaping molecules has to be counterbalanced by the gravitational attraction of the earth. This is an almost impossibly difficult, condition to fulfil. From the standpoint of geophysics, these extremely difficult conditions require the preservation of three important balances: (i) atmospheric temperature. (ii) proportionate gravitational attraction on the part of the earth, and (iii) the non- violation of this balance by various radiant energies arriving from space. The Qur’an expresses all these facts by the phrases. ‘Then He turned to the heaven… and said to the heaven, and the earth. ‘Come willingly o,’ unwillingly’. That the almost impossible conditions are fulfilled only by God’s power is indicated by the phrase. They said: ‘We come willingly’.

Verses 12- 14 of surah al-Mu‘mi-un-Surely ,We created man from a filtered product of wet earth; then placed him as a drop of seed in a safe lodging: then fashioned We the drop a suspended clot, then fashioned We the clot a little lump, then fashioned We the little lump bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it us another creation. So blessed be God, the Best of creators!,-explicitly mentions the stages a human embryo undergoes in the womb until it grows into a human being. This information the Qur’an gave fourteen centuries ago has recently been confirmed by the science of embryology, a fact which proves the Divine authorship of the Qur’an and the Prophethood of Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings.

The verse, ‘Glory to be Him. Who created in pairs all things that the earth produces, as well as their own selves, and many other things of which, they know nothing (36.36), after beginning with the warning that God Himself is beyond being involved in any double or pairing, any likeness or equal, proceeds to tell of the existence of created things in pairs. a condition of opposition simultaneously with similarity. The scientific definition of the creation in pairs implies ‘similar opposites’. The Qur’an gives three examples of existence in pairs: (i) pairs produced by the earth (positron-electron, proton-antiproton, neutron-antineutron; pairs that differ in their physical and chemical characteristics. e.g. metals and nonmetals, biologically composed pairs: male and female sexes of plants and animals, and physically opposed pairs); (ii) pairs of their selves (man and woman, personality traits such as compassionate and cruel, generous and mean, and traits which are similar but subject to opposed value judgements such as true and false. etc.): (iii) pairs we do not know about. The discovery in contemporary physics of ‘parity’ (creation in pairs) has been hailed as a major turning point in the advancement of knowledge, an idea that was mentioned fourteen centuries ago by the Qur’an.

The verse, He is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, and all that lies between them, He is the Lord of the easts (37.15), indicates the spherical shape of planets and their rotations because the concept of the ‘Easts’ introduces infinite dimensions, and differs for each location on the earth. A point on the earth is in the east with respect to its western regions, therefore the ‘East’ concept is different at every point on earth, and these form an ensemble of easts. Besides, there are 180 points of sunrise, that is, the sun rises at one place for only two days in a year so there are 180 ‘easts’. Therefore, this verse is also indicative of meridians as well as of infinite dimensions, and of the relativity of space and the spherical shape of planets as well as the rotation of the earth.

The French scientist Jacques Cousteau has discovered that the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean differ in terms of their chemical and biological constitution. He conducted various undersea investigations at the straits of Gibraltar in order to explain this phenomenon, concluding that unexpected fresh water springs issue from the southern and northern coasts of Gibraltar. These water sprouts gush towards each other at an angle of 45 forming a reciprocal dam like the teeth of a comb. Due to this fact, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean cannot intermingle. Subsequent to this assessment, Cousteau was amazed upon being shown the Qur’anic verse. ‘He has let forth the two seas, that meet together Between them a barrier, they do not overpass’ (55.19-20). These verses, of which some other connotations we pointed out above, further invite our attention to the plankton composition of the seas, and to the flora and fish distributions that change with variations in temperature.

There are many other verses in the Qur’an which shed light upon scientific facts, and invite everyone to study. Certainly, the day will come when God will have shown mankind His signs in the outer world, as well as in their own inner worlds and it will be manifest to them that the Qur’an is the truth: We shall show then? Our signs in the outer world and in their own selves until it will he manifest to them that it (the Qur’an) is the truth (48.53). Humankind will more concentrate on sciences in future and the Qur’an, which is the counterpart in letters of the universe, the realm where God’s Names are manifested, will prove itself to be Gods Revelation.

You may ask why then have Muslims not developed sciences and discovered such Qur’anic truths, and why are they under the dominion of the West?

As we explained earlier, to the extent that the time and the prevalent conditions allowed them to, Muslims did discover the truths of the Qur’an and, obeying its injunctions, founded a magnificent civilization, which lasted for many centuries.

A typical example: while explaining the meaning of the verse, We send the wind fertilizing, and cause water to descend from the sky, and give it you to drink (15.22). Ibn Jarir al-Tabari writes about how the winds fertilize clouds so that rain may form. The verse clearly mentions the winds fertilizing clouds because it is about the formation of rain. As has recently been discovered, clouds are also charged with electricity and it is only when positive and negative poles in clouds form a circuit that rain forms.

Also, in his Tafsir named al-Bahr al-Muhir, Ahu Hayyan al-Andalusi records from Abu Ja’far ibn al-Zuhayr that from the initial verses of surah al-Rum. Alif Lam Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the nearer land, and they, after their defeat will be victorious. Within nine years-God’s is command in the former case and in the latter-and in that day believers will rejoice in God’s help to victory. He helps to victory whom He wills. He is the Mighty, the Merciful, Abu’l Hakem ibn Barrajan deduced many years before the exact date-with its year, month and day-the recapture of Jerusalem by Muslims from the Crusaders in 1187.

Islam ruled two-thirds of the old civilized world for at least eleven centuries. During its whole history of fourteen centuries, it has had to confront continual onslaughts from both the East and West and it was able to retain its superiority until the eighteenth century. However, when moral and spiritual decay and laziness and negligence of what was going on around them were added to the endless attacks from the West and East, the magnificence and supremacy of the Islamic civilization began to decline until its collapse in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Military victories and a sense of superiority had induced the Muslims to become content with what they had achieved and to neglect further researches in sciences. They had abandoned themselves to living their own lives, reciting the Qur’an but without ever studying its deeper meanings. Meanwhile the Western world made had been making great advances in sciences and technology, which they had carried forward from the Islamic civilization. As already mentioned in this book, sciences are in reality the languages of the Divine book of creation and an aspect of religion. Therefore, whoever neglects to study this book and benefit from it is destined to lose in the worldly life, and this negligence was one of the main reasons why Muslims fell under the domination of the West.

It is impossible that the present Western civilization will endure long since it is materialistic and far from satisfying man’s perennial needs. Western sociologists such as Oswald Spengler and others have predicted the collapse of this civilization, which is against basic human nature and values. Either it will abandon itself to its inevitable decay or equip itself with the creeds and moral and spiritual values of Islam, as well as its social and economic principles. In other words, Muslims will re-discover that, in essence, science and religion are two aspects of the same reality and know that to be a Muslim means, first of all, to represent the beauties of Islam in practical life. The luminous world of the future will be founded upon the firm foundations of Islamic morality, spirituality and its socio-economic and political order.

#allah #god #prophet #Muhammad #quran #ayah #sunnah #hadith #dua #salah #pray #prayer #islam #muslim #muslimah #hijab #help #revert #convert #reminder #religion #welcome to islam #how to convert to islam #new muslim #new convert #new revert #revert help #convert help #islam help #muslim help

[goodnewsus]

Female Leadership and the Churchby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Amid the polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who, on the one hand, wish to conform to Bible protocol, and those who, on the other, wish to modernize, update, adjust, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say that the church as we know it is the product of a male-dominated society and that consequently it has misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be restricted in worship, he is hailed as one who engages in “fresh, scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is viewed as being guilty of prejudice and of being unduly influenced by “church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually every segment of our society?

RELEVANT BIBLE PASSAGES

A detailed study of all of the relevant biblical texts in a single article like this is impossible. However, God’s Word is understandable on any significant subject in the Bible. In fact, it is the recently emerging “scholars”—with their intellectual complexities and imported seminary bias—that have contributed to the confusion over this subject (see Osburn, 1993). For example, Carroll Osburn summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p. 115). The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women in leadership in worship and the church.1 Corinthians 11,14Chapters eleven and fourteen of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together” (cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for women to be subordinate to men in worship. Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter fourteen. In chapter eleven, he focused on the propriety of females removing the cultural symbol of submission.The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an

authoritative act of leadership

. To wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an

implicit

directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated

explicitly

in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted

in the created order—not in culture

. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).In chapter fourteen, Paul addressed further the confusion over spiritual gifts, and returned specifically to the participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasized the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, the phrase “as in all churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence”; cf. the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent to: (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word; and (2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters eleven and fourteen address a unique situation. After all, spiritual gifts no longer are available to the church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see

Miller

, 2003), and veils, in Western society, no longer represent a cultural symbol of female submission. Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of the created order.1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).

The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is: proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly, but includes the general life of the church.Paul affirmed that adult males (

andras

) are to lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of speech—a metonymy—in which a posture of prayer is put in place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth out of holy lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus upon appropriate apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast set up in the passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text.

Authentein

should be translated “to have authority.” Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment—stalling for time and keeping prejudice to a minimum—until he could teach them the Gospel? Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit gave the reason for the limitations—a reason that transcends all culture and all locales. Paul stated that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men because

Adam was created before Eve

. Here, we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate.Paul was saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male

first

as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate (though certainly not inferior) assistant. God

could

have created the woman

first—but He did not

. He

could

have created both male and female

simultaneously—but He did not

. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created as a “help meet

for him

,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that, in a unique sense, the woman was created

for

the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again, as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this understanding by stating, “the woman whom You gave to be

with me

” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created

for the woman

; but the woman

for the man

” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of

naming

the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evinced through the practice of primogeniture—the prominence of the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man

first

was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission order of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).Observe that Paul next elaborated upon this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14 by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves to their created function, but instead tamper with, and act in violation of, divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally follows.God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather, she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4). When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam had failed to exercise spiritual leadership and thereby circumvented the divine arrangement of male/female relations.Paul concluded his instructions by noting how women may be preserved from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche, in which a part stands for the whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility. Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating on the functions assigned to them by God—tasks undertaken with faith, love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives, rather than to men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11, suggests women in general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict wives from leadership roles in the church but then permit single women to lead?

DEACONESSES

Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek word

diakonos

, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to. Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred to when the context plainly shows the office itself is under consideration.In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians 3:5. Obviously, these are all

non

-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. Paul’s phrase, “our sister,” designates her church membership, and “servant” specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2, translated “help,” implies a technical usage. It is true that

prostatis

can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that

diakonos

does, in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul. Even his fellow apostles did not do that, since he exercised high authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (

paristemi

) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (

prostatis

) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun

prostates

can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun

prostatis

means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.” She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her as an office holder in the church.The second passage to which some have appealed in order to find sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since

gunaikas

(from

gune

) also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy—as “female” (2:9-12,14) and as “wife” (3:2,12; 5:9).Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in speaking of male deacons from 3:8-13, it would be unusual for Paul to switch, in the middle of the discussion, to female deacons for a single verse without some clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could mean simply that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with

gunaikas

(“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons, since neither is used in other cases where men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two

ministrae

. This term has the same ambiguity within it that

diakonos

has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).Not until the late third century in the Syrian

Didascalia

do we find a reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women, hardly would be content with such tasks.Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males, and their specific task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon establishing such an office, do so without the authority of the Scriptures behind them.A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women often are superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men, anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of

all

human beings to the will of God. It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How willing are we to fit ourselves into God’s arrangement?”

CONCLUSION

A massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards has been taking place in American culture for over forty years now. The feminist agenda is one facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values. Virtually every sphere of American culture has been impacted—including the church. Those who resist these human innovations are considered tradition-bound, resistant to change, narrow-minded, chauvinistic, etc.—as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters.If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words, we will be judged (John 12:48). May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of heaven.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957),

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

(Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does

kephale

(‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,”

Trinity Journal

, 6 NS, 38-59.Lewis, Jack (1988),

Exegesis of Difficult Passages

(Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569

.Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993),

Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity

(Joplin, MO: College Press).Osburn, Carroll (1994),

Women in the Church

(Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).Woods, Guy N. (1986),

Questions and Answers: Volume Two

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

#READ MORE at. steve-finnell.blogspot.com

[stevefinnellp-blog]

Female Leadership and the Churchby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Amid the polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who, on the one hand, wish to conform to Bible protocol, and those who, on the other, wish to modernize, update, adjust, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say that the church as we know it is the product of a male-dominated society and that consequently it has misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be restricted in worship, he is hailed as one who engages in “fresh, scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is viewed as being guilty of prejudice and of being unduly influenced by “church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually every segment of our society?

RELEVANT BIBLE PASSAGES

A detailed study of all of the relevant biblical texts in a single article like this is impossible. However, God’s Word is understandable on any significant subject in the Bible. In fact, it is the recently emerging “scholars”—with their intellectual complexities and imported seminary bias—that have contributed to the confusion over this subject (see Osburn, 1993). For example, Carroll Osburn summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p. 115). The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women in leadership in worship and the church.1 Corinthians 11,14Chapters eleven and fourteen of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together” (cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for women to be subordinate to men in worship. Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter fourteen. In chapter eleven, he focused on the propriety of females removing the cultural symbol of submission.The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an

authoritative act of leadership

. To wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an

implicit

directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated

explicitly

in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted

in the created order—not in culture

. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).In chapter fourteen, Paul addressed further the confusion over spiritual gifts, and returned specifically to the participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasized the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, the phrase “as in all churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence”; cf. the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent to: (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word; and (2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters eleven and fourteen address a unique situation. After all, spiritual gifts no longer are available to the church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see

Miller

, 2003), and veils, in Western society, no longer represent a cultural symbol of female submission. Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of the created order.1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).

The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is: proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly, but includes the general life of the church.Paul affirmed that adult males (

andras

) are to lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of speech—a metonymy—in which a posture of prayer is put in place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth out of holy lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus upon appropriate apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast set up in the passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text.

Authentein

should be translated “to have authority.” Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment—stalling for time and keeping prejudice to a minimum—until he could teach them the Gospel? Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit gave the reason for the limitations—a reason that transcends all culture and all locales. Paul stated that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men because

Adam was created before Eve

. Here, we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate.Paul was saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male

first

as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate (though certainly not inferior) assistant. God

could

have created the woman

first—but He did not

. He

could

have created both male and female

simultaneously—but He did not

. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created as a “help meet

for him

,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that, in a unique sense, the woman was created

for

the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again, as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this understanding by stating, “the woman whom You gave to be

with me

” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created

for the woman

; but the woman

for the man

” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of

naming

the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evinced through the practice of primogeniture—the prominence of the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man

first

was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission order of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).Observe that Paul next elaborated upon this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14 by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves to their created function, but instead tamper with, and act in violation of, divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally follows.God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather, she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4). When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam had failed to exercise spiritual leadership and thereby circumvented the divine arrangement of male/female relations.Paul concluded his instructions by noting how women may be preserved from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche, in which a part stands for the whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility. Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating on the functions assigned to them by God—tasks undertaken with faith, love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives, rather than to men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11, suggests women in general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict wives from leadership roles in the church but then permit single women to lead?

DEACONESSES

Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek word

diakonos

, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to. Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred to when the context plainly shows the office itself is under consideration.In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians 3:5. Obviously, these are all

non

-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. Paul’s phrase, “our sister,” designates her church membership, and “servant” specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2, translated “help,” implies a technical usage. It is true that

prostatis

can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that

diakonos

does, in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul. Even his fellow apostles did not do that, since he exercised high authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (

paristemi

) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (

prostatis

) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun

prostates

can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun

prostatis

means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.” She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her as an office holder in the church.The second passage to which some have appealed in order to find sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since

gunaikas

(from

gune

) also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy—as “female” (2:9-12,14) and as “wife” (3:2,12; 5:9).Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in speaking of male deacons from 3:8-13, it would be unusual for Paul to switch, in the middle of the discussion, to female deacons for a single verse without some clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could mean simply that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with

gunaikas

(“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons, since neither is used in other cases where men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two

ministrae

. This term has the same ambiguity within it that

diakonos

has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).Not until the late third century in the Syrian

Didascalia

do we find a reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women, hardly would be content with such tasks.Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males, and their specific task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon establishing such an office, do so without the authority of the Scriptures behind them.A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women often are superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men, anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of

all

human beings to the will of God. It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How willing are we to fit ourselves into God’s arrangement?”

CONCLUSION

A massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards has been taking place in American culture for over forty years now. The feminist agenda is one facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values. Virtually every sphere of American culture has been impacted—including the church. Those who resist these human innovations are considered tradition-bound, resistant to change, narrow-minded, chauvinistic, etc.—as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters.If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words, we will be judged (John 12:48). May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of heaven.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957),

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

(Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does

kephale

(‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,”

Trinity Journal

, 6 NS, 38-59.Lewis, Jack (1988),

Exegesis of Difficult Passages

(Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569

.Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993),

Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity

(Joplin, MO: College Press).Osburn, Carroll (1994),

Women in the Church

(Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).Woods, Guy N. (1986),

Questions and Answers: Volume Two

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

#READ MORE AT. steve-finnell.blogspot.com

[stevefinnell-blog]

Female Leadership and the Churchby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Amid the polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who, on the one hand, wish to conform to Bible protocol, and those who, on the other, wish to modernize, update, adjust, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say that the church as we know it is the product of a male-dominated society and that consequently it has misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be restricted in worship, he is hailed as one who engages in “fresh, scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is viewed as being guilty of prejudice and of being unduly influenced by “church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually every segment of our society?

RELEVANT BIBLE PASSAGES

A detailed study of all of the relevant biblical texts in a single article like this is impossible. However, God’s Word is understandable on any significant subject in the Bible. In fact, it is the recently emerging “scholars”—with their intellectual complexities and imported seminary bias—that have contributed to the confusion over this subject (see Osburn, 1993). For example, Carroll Osburn summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p. 115). The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women in leadership in worship and the church.1 Corinthians 11,14Chapters eleven and fourteen of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together” (cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for women to be subordinate to men in worship. Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter fourteen. In chapter eleven, he focused on the propriety of females removing the cultural symbol of submission.The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an

authoritative act of leadership

. To wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an

implicit

directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated

explicitly

in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted

in the created order—not in culture

. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).In chapter fourteen, Paul addressed further the confusion over spiritual gifts, and returned specifically to the participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasized the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, the phrase “as in all churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence”; cf. the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent to: (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word; and (2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters eleven and fourteen address a unique situation. After all, spiritual gifts no longer are available to the church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see

Miller

, 2003), and veils, in Western society, no longer represent a cultural symbol of female submission. Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of the created order.1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).

The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is: proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly, but includes the general life of the church.Paul affirmed that adult males (

andras

) are to lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of speech—a metonymy—in which a posture of prayer is put in place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth out of holy lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus upon appropriate apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast set up in the passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text.

Authentein

should be translated “to have authority.” Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment—stalling for time and keeping prejudice to a minimum—until he could teach them the Gospel? Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit gave the reason for the limitations—a reason that transcends all culture and all locales. Paul stated that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men because

Adam was created before Eve

. Here, we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate.Paul was saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male

first

as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate (though certainly not inferior) assistant. God

could

have created the woman

first—but He did not

. He

could

have created both male and female

simultaneously—but He did not

. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created as a “help meet

for him

,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that, in a unique sense, the woman was created

for

the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again, as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this understanding by stating, “the woman whom You gave to be

with me

” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created

for the woman

; but the woman

for the man

” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of

naming

the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evinced through the practice of primogeniture—the prominence of the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man

first

was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission order of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).Observe that Paul next elaborated upon this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14 by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves to their created function, but instead tamper with, and act in violation of, divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally follows.God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather, she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4). When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam had failed to exercise spiritual leadership and thereby circumvented the divine arrangement of male/female relations.Paul concluded his instructions by noting how women may be preserved from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche, in which a part stands for the whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility. Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating on the functions assigned to them by God—tasks undertaken with faith, love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives, rather than to men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11, suggests women in general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict wives from leadership roles in the church but then permit single women to lead?

DEACONESSES

Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek word

diakonos

, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to. Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred to when the context plainly shows the office itself is under consideration.In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians 3:5. Obviously, these are all

non

-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. Paul’s phrase, “our sister,” designates her church membership, and “servant” specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2, translated “help,” implies a technical usage. It is true that

prostatis

can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that

diakonos

does, in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul. Even his fellow apostles did not do that, since he exercised high authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (

paristemi

) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (

prostatis

) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun

prostates

can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun

prostatis

means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.” She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her as an office holder in the church.The second passage to which some have appealed in order to find sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since

gunaikas

(from

gune

) also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy—as “female” (2:9-12,14) and as “wife” (3:2,12; 5:9).Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in speaking of male deacons from 3:8-13, it would be unusual for Paul to switch, in the middle of the discussion, to female deacons for a single verse without some clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could mean simply that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with

gunaikas

(“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons, since neither is used in other cases where men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two

ministrae

. This term has the same ambiguity within it that

diakonos

has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).Not until the late third century in the Syrian

Didascalia

do we find a reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women, hardly would be content with such tasks.Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males, and their specific task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon establishing such an office, do so without the authority of the Scriptures behind them.A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women often are superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men, anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of

all

human beings to the will of God. It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How willing are we to fit ourselves into God’s arrangement?”

CONCLUSION

A massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards has been taking place in American culture for over forty years now. The feminist agenda is one facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values. Virtually every sphere of American culture has been impacted—including the church. Those who resist these human innovations are considered tradition-bound, resistant to change, narrow-minded, chauvinistic, etc.—as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters.If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words, we will be judged (John 12:48). May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of heaven.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957),

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

(Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does

kephale

(‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,”

Trinity Journal

, 6 NS, 38-59.Lewis, Jack (1988),

Exegesis of Difficult Passages

(Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569

.Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993),

Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity

(Joplin, MO: College Press).Osburn, Carroll (1994),

Women in the Church

(Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).Woods, Guy N. (1986),

Questions and Answers: Volume Two

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

#READ MORE AT. steve-finnell.blogspot.com

[megaonewayjesuslove-blog]

Female Leadership and the Churchby

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Amid the polarization that plagues American civilization in general, and Christendom in particular, one chasm continues to widen between those who, on the one hand, wish to conform to Bible protocol, and those who, on the other, wish to modernize, update, adjust, and adapt Scripture to a changing society. The cry of those who are pressing the feminist agenda is that the church in the past has restricted women in roles of leadership and worship simply because of culture and flawed hermeneutical principles. They say that the church as we know it is the product of a male-dominated society and that consequently it has misconstrued the contextual meaning of the relevant biblical passages.As attitudes soften and biblical conviction weakens, Scripture is being reinterpreted to allow for expanded roles for women in worship. If one who studies the biblical text concludes that women are not to be restricted in worship, he is hailed as one who engages in “fresh, scholarly exegesis.” But the one who studies the text and concludes that God intended for women to be subordinate to male leadership in worship is viewed as being guilty of prejudice and of being unduly influenced by “church tradition” or “cultural baggage.” How is it that the former’s religious practice and interpretation of Scripture is somehow curiously exempt from imbibing the spirit of an age in which feminist ideology has permeated virtually every segment of our society?

RELEVANT BIBLE PASSAGES

A detailed study of all of the relevant biblical texts in a single article like this is impossible. However, God’s Word is understandable on any significant subject in the Bible. In fact, it is the recently emerging “scholars”—with their intellectual complexities and imported seminary bias—that have contributed to the confusion over this subject (see Osburn, 1993). For example, Carroll Osburn summarized his discussion of 1 Timothy 2 in the words—“Put simply, any female who has sufficient and accurate information may teach that information in a gentle spirit to whomever in whatever situation they may be” (1994, p. 115). The reader is invited to give consideration to the following brief summary of New Testament teaching on the subject of the role of women in leadership in worship and the church.1 Corinthians 11,14Chapters eleven and fourteen of First Corinthians constitute a context dealing with disorders in the worship assembly. The entire pericope of 11:2-14:40 concerns the worship assembly, i.e., “when you come together” (cf. 11:17,18,20,33; 14:23-26). Paul articulated the transcultural principle for all people throughout history in 11:3—“But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” “Head” clearly refers not to “source” but to “authority” (see Grudem, 1985, pp. 38-59). Therefore, God intends for women to be subordinate to men in worship. Corinthian women were obviously removing their veils and stepping forward in the assembly to lead with their Spirit-imparted, miraculous capabilities, i.e., prophecy (12:10; 14:31) and prayer (14:14-15). Such activity was a direct violation of the subordination principle, articulated by Paul in chapter fourteen. In chapter eleven, he focused on the propriety of females removing the cultural symbol of submission.The women were removing their veils because they understood that to stand and exercise a spiritual gift in the assembly was an

authoritative act of leadership

. To wear a symbol of submission to authority (the veil) while simultaneously conducting oneself in an authoritative fashion (to lead in worship) was self-contradictory. Paul’s insistence that women keep their veils on during the worship assembly amounted to an

implicit

directive to refrain from leading in the assembly—a directive stated

explicitly

in 14:34. The allusions to Creation law (11:7-9; cf. 14:34) underscore the fact that Paul saw the restrictions on women as rooted

in the created order—not in culture

. Also, Paul made clear that such restrictions applied equally to all churches of Christ (11:16).In chapter fourteen, Paul addressed further the confusion over spiritual gifts, and returned specifically to the participation of women in the exercise of those gifts in the assembly. He again emphasized the universal practice of churches of Christ: “as in all churches of the saints” (14:33). [NOTE: Grammatically, the phrase “as in all churches of the saints” links with “let your women keep silence”; cf. the ASV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NAB, etc.] The women who possessed miraculous gifts were not to exercise them in the mixed worship assembly of the church. To do so was disgraceful—“a shame” (14:35). To insist upon doing so was equivalent to: (1) presuming to be the authors of God’s Word; and (2) assuming that God’s standards do not apply to everyone (14:36).Granted, 1 Corinthians chapters eleven and fourteen address a unique situation. After all, spiritual gifts no longer are available to the church (1 Corinthians 13:8-11; see

Miller

, 2003), and veils, in Western society, no longer represent a cultural symbol of female submission. Nevertheless, both passages demonstrate the clear application of the transcultural principle (female subordination in worship) to a specific cultural circumstance. The underlying submission principle remains intact as an inbuilt constituent element of the created order.1 Timothy 2: The Central Scripture

I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting; in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control (1 Timothy 2:8-15).

The premier passage in the New Testament that treats the role of women in worship is 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The remote context of the book is: proper behavior in the life of the church (1 Timothy 3:15). The immediate context of chapter two is worship, specifically prayer (1 Timothy 2:1,8). The context does not limit the worship to the church assembly, but includes the general life of the church.Paul affirmed that adult males (

andras

) are to lead prayers anywhere people meet for worship. “Lifting up holy hands” is a figure of speech—a metonymy—in which a posture of prayer is put in place of prayer itself. Their prayers are to usher forth out of holy lives. On the other hand, women are admonished to focus upon appropriate apparel and a submissive attitude. Notice the contrast set up in the passage: Men need to be holy, spiritual leaders in worship while women need to be modest and unassuming. “Silence” and “subjection” in this passage relate specifically to the exercise of spiritual authority over adult males in the church. “Usurp” (KJV) is not in the original text.

Authentein

should be translated “to have authority.” Thus Paul instructed women not to teach nor in any other way to have authority over men in worship.Why would an inspired apostle place such limitations on Christian women? Was his concern prompted by the culture of that day? Was Paul merely accommodating an unenlightened, hostile environment—stalling for time and keeping prejudice to a minimum—until he could teach them the Gospel? Absolutely not! The Holy Spirit gave the reason for the limitations—a reason that transcends all culture and all locales. Paul stated that women are not to exercise spiritual authority over men because

Adam was created before Eve

. Here, we are given the heart and core of God’s will concerning how men and women are to function and interrelate.Paul was saying that God’s original design for the human race entailed the creation of the male

first

as an indication of his responsibility to be the spiritual leader of the home. He was created to function as the head or leader in the home and in the church. That is his functional purpose. Woman, on the other hand, was specifically designed and created for the purpose of being a subordinate (though certainly not inferior) assistant. God

could

have created the woman

first—but He did not

. He

could

have created both male and female

simultaneously—but He did not

. His action was intended to convey His will with regard to gender as it relates to the interrelationship of man and woman.This feature of Creation explains why God gave spiritual teaching to Adam before Eve was created, implying that Adam had the created responsibility to teach his wife (Genesis 2:15-17). It explains why the female is twice stated to have been created as a “help meet

for him

,” i.e., a helper suitable for the man (Genesis 2:18,20, emp. added). This explains why the Genesis text clearly indicates that, in a unique sense, the woman was created

for

the man—not vice versa. It explains why God brought the woman “to the man” (Genesis 2:22), again, as if she was made “for him”—not vice versa. Adam confirmed this understanding by stating, “the woman whom You gave to be

with me

” (Genesis 3:12, emp. added). It explains why Paul argued on the basis of this very distinction: “Neither was the man created

for the woman

; but the woman

for the man

” (1 Corinthians 11:9, emp. added). It further clarifies the implied authority of the man over the women in his act of

naming

the woman (Genesis 2:23; 3:20). The Jews understood this divinely designed order, evinced through the practice of primogeniture—the prominence of the firstborn male. God’s creation of the man

first

was specifically intended to communicate the authority/submission order of the human race (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:8).Observe that Paul next elaborated upon this principle in 1 Timothy 2:14 by noting an example of what can happen when men and women tamper with God’s original intentions. When Eve took the spiritual initiative above her husband, and Adam failed to take the lead and exercise spiritual authority over his wife, Satan was able to wreak havoc on the home and cause the introduction of sin into the world (Genesis 3). When Paul said the woman was deceived, he was not suggesting that women are more gullible than men. Rather, when men or women fail to confine themselves to their created function, but instead tamper with, and act in violation of, divinely intended roles, spiritual vulnerability to sin naturally follows.God’s appraisal of the matter was seen when He confronted the pair. He spoke first to the head of the home—the man (Genesis 3:9). His subsequent declaration to Eve reaffirmed the fact that she was not to yield to the inclination to take the lead in spiritual matters. Rather, she was to submit to the rule of her husband (Genesis 3:16; cf. 4:4). When God said to Adam, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife...” (Genesis 3:17), He was calling attention to the fact that Adam had failed to exercise spiritual leadership and thereby circumvented the divine arrangement of male/female relations.Paul concluded his instructions by noting how women may be preserved from falling into the same trap of assuming unauthorized authority: “She will be saved in childbearing” (1 Timothy 2:15). “Childbearing” is the figure of speech known as synecdoche, in which a part stands for the whole. Thus, Paul was referring to the whole of female responsibility. Women may avoid taking to themselves illicit functions by concentrating on the functions assigned to them by God—tasks undertaken with faith, love, and holiness in sobriety (i.e., self-control).Some argue that this text applies to husbands and wives, rather than to men and women in general. However, the context of 1 Timothy is not the home, but the church (1 Timothy 3:15). Likewise, the use of the plural with the absence of the article in 2:9 and 2:11, suggests women in general. Nothing in the context would cause one to conclude that Paul was referring only to husbands and wives. Besides, would Paul restrict wives from leadership roles in the church but then permit single women to lead?

DEACONESSES

Those who advocate expanded roles for women in the church appeal to the alleged existence of deaconesses in the New Testament. Only two passages even hint of such an office: Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Timothy 3:11. In Romans 16:1, the term translated “servant” in the KJV is the Greek word

diakonos

, an indeclinable term meaning “one who serves or ministers.” It is of common gender (i.e., may refer to men or women) and occurs in the following verses: Matthew 20:26; 22:13; 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:43; John 2:5,9; 12:26; Romans 13:4; 15:8; 1 Corinthians 3:5; 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; 11:15,23; Galatians 2:17; Ephesians 3:7; 6:21; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7,23,25; 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 3:8,12; 4:6.The term is used in the New Testament in two senses. First, it is used as a technical term for a formal office in the church to which one may be appointed by meeting certain qualifications. Second, it is used as a non-technical term for the informal activity of serving or attending to. Additional words in the New Testament that have both a technical and non-technical meaning include “apostle,” “elder,” and “shepherd.” To be rational in one’s analysis of a matter, one must draw only those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence. In the matter of deaconesses, one should only conclude that a deaconess is being referred to when the context plainly shows the office itself is under consideration.In Romans 13:4, the civil government is said to be God’s deacon. In Romans 15:8, Christ is said to be a deacon of the Jews. In 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 6:4, Paul is said to be a deacon of the New Covenant and a deacon of God. Apollos is listed with Paul as a deacon in 1 Corinthians 3:5. Obviously, these are all

non

-technical uses of the term referring to the service or assistance being rendered.Nothing in the context of Romans 16:1 warrants the conclusion that Paul was describing Phoebe as an official appointee—a deaconess. Paul’s phrase, “our sister,” designates her church membership, and “servant” specifies the special efforts she extended to the church in Cenchrea where she was an active, caring member. Being a “servant of the church” no more implies a formal appointee than does the expression in Colossians 1:25 where Paul is said to be the church’s servant.Some have insisted that the term in Romans 16:2, translated “help,” implies a technical usage. It is true that

prostatis

can mean a helper in the sense of presiding with authority. But this word carries the same inbuilt obscurity that

diakonos

does, in that it has a formal and informal sense. But since the verse explicitly states that Phoebe was a “helper” to Paul, the non-technical usage must be in view. She would not have exercised authority over Paul. Even his fellow apostles did not do that, since he exercised high authority direct from the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:6-12; 2 Thessalonians 3:14). Only Christ wielded authority over Paul.Romans 16:2 actually employs a play on words. Paul told the Corinthians to “help” (

paristemi

) Phoebe since she has been a “help” (

prostatis

) to many, including Paul himself. While the masculine noun

prostates

can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun

prostatis

means “protectress, patroness, helper” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 718). Paul was saying, “Help Phoebe as she has helped others and me.” She had been a concerned, generous, hospitable, dedicated contributor to the Lord’s work. Paul was paying her a tremendous tribute and expressing publicly the honor due her. But he was not acknowledging her as an office holder in the church.The second passage to which some have appealed in order to find sanction for deaconesses in the church is 1 Timothy 3:11. In the midst of a listing of the qualifications of deacons, Paul referred to women. What women? Was Paul referring to the wives of the church officers, or was he referring to female appointees, i.e., deaconesses? Once again, the underlying Greek term is of no help in answering this question since

gunaikas

(from

gune

) also has both a technical and non-technical sense. It can mean a “wife” or simply a “female” or “woman.” It is used both ways in 1 Timothy—as “female” (2:9-12,14) and as “wife” (3:2,12; 5:9).Five contextual observations, however, provide assistance in ascertaining the meaning of the passage. First, a woman cannot be “the husband of one wife” (3:12). Second, in speaking of male deacons from 3:8-13, it would be unusual for Paul to switch, in the middle of the discussion, to female deacons for a single verse without some clarification. Third, referring to the wives of church officers would be appropriate since family conduct is a qualifying concern (3:2,4-5,12). Fourth, “likewise” (3:11) could mean simply that wives are to have similar virtues as the deacons without implying they share the same office (cf. 1 Timothy 5:25; Titus 2:3). Fifth, lack of the possessive genitive with

gunaikas

(“of deacons”) or “their” does not rule out wives of deacons, since neither is used in other cases where men/women are being described as wives/husbands (Colossians 3:18-19; Ephesians 5:22-25; 1 Corinthians 7:2-4,11,14,33; Matthew 18:25; Mark 10:2).Insufficient textual evidence exists to warrant the conclusion that the office of deaconess is referred to in the New Testament. Outside the New Testament, Pliny, Governor of Bythynia, wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan about A.D. 110 referring in Latin to two

ministrae

. This term has the same ambiguity within it that

diakonos

has. He could have been referring to official appointees, or he just as easily could have been referring simply to servants. In any case, a passing reference by an uninformed non-Christian is hardly trustworthy evidence. Christian historical sources from this same period do not refer to the existence of female appointees even though they do discuss church organization (Lewis, 1988, p. 108).Not until the late third century in the Syrian

Didascalia

do we find a reference to deaconesses. Their work consisted of assisting at the baptism of women, going into homes of heathens where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them). A full-blown church order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth/fifth centuries. Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors, aiding in female baptisms, and doing other work with women (Lewis, pp. 108-109). Those within the church today who are pressing for deaconesses and expanded roles for women, hardly would be content with such tasks.Even if women were deacons in the New Testament church, they would not have functioned in any sort of leadership or authority position over men. They were not to be appointed as elders. If Acts 6:1-5 refers to the appointment of deacons (the verb form is used) in the Jerusalem church (Woods, 1986, p. 199), they were all males, and their specific task entailed distribution of physical assistance to widows.The evidence is simply lacking. The existence of a female deaconate within the New Testament cannot be demonstrated. Those who insist upon establishing such an office, do so without the authority of the Scriptures behind them.A final word needs to be said concerning the fact that both men and women must remember that Bible teaching on difference in role in no way implies a difference in worth, value, or ability. Galatians 3:28 (“neither male nor female”), 1 Timothy 2:15 (“she shall be saved”), and 1 Peter 3:7 (“heirs together of the grace of life”) all show that males and females are equals as far as their person and salvation status is concerned. Women often are superior to men in talent, intellect, and ability. Women are not inferior to men, anymore than Christ is inferior to God, citizens are inferior to the President, or church members are inferior to elders. The role of women in the church is not a matter of control, power, or oppression. It is a matter of submission on the part of

all

human beings to the will of God. It is a matter of willingness on the part of God’s creatures, male and female, to subordinate themselves to the divine arrangement regarding the sexes. The biblical differentiation is purely a matter of function, assigned tasks, and sphere of responsibility. The question for us is: “How willing are we to fit ourselves into God’s arrangement?”

CONCLUSION

A massive restructuring of values and reorientation of moral and spiritual standards has been taking place in American culture for over forty years now. The feminist agenda is one facet of this multifaceted effacement and erosion of biblical values. Virtually every sphere of American culture has been impacted—including the church. Those who resist these human innovations are considered tradition-bound, resistant to change, narrow-minded, chauvinistic, etc.—as if they cannot hold honest, unbiased, studied convictions on such matters.If the Bible authorized it, no man should have any personal aversion to women having complete access to leadership roles in the church. Indeed, many talented, godly women possess abilities and talents that would enable them to surpass many of the male worship leaders functioning in the church today. However, the Bible stands as an unalterable, eternal declaration of God’s will on the matter. By those words, we will be judged (John 12:48). May we all bow humbly and submissively before the God of heaven.

REFERENCES

Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957),

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament

(Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).Grudem, Wayne (1985), “Does

kephale

(‘head’) Mean ‘Source’ or ‘Authority over’ in Greek Literature? A Survey of 2,336 Examples,”

Trinity Journal

, 6 NS, 38-59.Lewis, Jack (1988),

Exegesis of Difficult Passages

(Searcy, AR: Resource Publications).Miller, Dave (2003), “Modern-Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism: A Refutation,” [On-line], URL:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2569

.Osburn, Carroll, ed. (1993),

Essays On Women in Earliest Christianity

(Joplin, MO: College Press).Osburn, Carroll (1994),

Women in the Church

(Abilene, TX: Restoration Perspectives).Woods, Guy N. (1986),

Questions and Answers: Volume Two

(Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).

Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Doctrinal Matters" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, Alabama 36117

U.S.A.

Phone [phone]

http://www.apologeticspress.org

#READ MORE at. steve-finnell.blogspot.com

[pauljosephrovelli]

A Commentary on NOAH WAS A KABIR, HENCE HE MUST HAVE BEEN A DEMON by HPB

It seems one of the most potent voices behind the inner order secrets of the Golden Dawn was that of Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.  Accordingly, Thelema, which also owes much to the inner order secrets of the Golden Dawn would clearly show its Theosophical roots.  We present here a Thelemic  commentary on HPB’s essay: NOAH WAS A KABIR, HENCE HE MUST HAVE BEEN A DEMON.

HPB: It matters little whether it is Isis, or Ceres -- the "Kabiria" -- or again the Kabiri, who have taught men agriculture; but it is very important to prevent fanatics from monopolising all the facts in history and legend, and from fathering their distortions of truth, history, and legend upon one man. Noah is either a myth along with the others, or one whose legend was built upon the Kabirian or Titanic tradition, as taught in Samothrace; he has, therefore, no claim to be monopolized by either Jew or Christian. If, as Faber tried to demonstrate at such cost of learning and research, Noah is an Atlantean and a Titan, and his family are the Kabiri or pious Titans, etc. -- then biblical chronology falls by its own weight, and along with it all the patriarchs -- the antediluvian and pre-Atlantean Titans.

AL:I.46 "Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen."

AL:I.47 "But they have the half: unite by thine art so that all disappear."

pj comment: Per Liber AL, the Jews have the half; but that doesn't mean that that half includes everything in Jewish lore and history.  Though there's much, including and especially the Qabalah that they did carry; yet I think it important to understand Thelema as a Western paradigm.  The East did not have the same ideological enslavement brought upon by the Roman church in the West, and its mystery tradition did not suffer the broken lineages subsequent to Roman persecution in the West.  Though possibly, the whole world lost when the library at Alexandria was destroyed.

HPB: As now discovered and proven, Cain is Mars, the god of power and generation, and of the first (sexual) bloodshed (As he is also Vulcan or Vul-cain, the greatest god with the later Egyptians, and the greatest Kabir. The god of time was Chium in Egypt, or Saturn, or Seth, and Chium is the same as Cain.). Tubal-Cain is a Kabir, "an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron"; or -- if this will please better -- he is one with Hephaestos or Vulcan; Jabal is taken from the Kabiri -- instructors in agriculture, "such as have cattle," and Jubal is "the father of all those who handle the harp," he, or they who fabricated the harp for Kronos and the trident for Poseidon (See Strabo, comparing them to the Cyclopes -- XIV. p. 653 et seq. (Callim in Del., 31 Stat. Silo. IV., 6, 47; etc., etc.)).

pj comment: Tubal-Cain is the secret word of the Freemasons; a holy and esteemed word.  We can see here that Tubal-Cain is then the Cain of the Bible, who was of the race of Giants or Titans (the Kabir and even the Nephilim).  As an artificer or creative artisan, he fits perfectly with the craft of mundane masonry, upon which the Freemasons are said by their lore, to have evolved.  But as Vulcan, the god of Fire, we can connote the idea of the element of Spirit, which is dually attributed to the element of Fire in the Western system.  As well, we see an allusion to Horus and the importance of sexual Magick. Albert Pike writes in the Freemasonic document, Morals and Dogma:

AROERIS or HAR-oeris, the elder HORUS, is from the same old root that in the Hebrew has the form Aur, or, with the definite article prefixed, Haur, Light, or the Light, splendor, flame, the Sun and his rays. The hieroglyphic of the younger HORUS was the point in a circle; of the Elder, a pair of eyes; and the festival of the thirtieth day of the month Epiphi, when the sun and moon were supposed to be in the same right line with the earth, was called "The birth-day of the eyes of Horus."

AL:I.16 "For he is ever a sun, and she a moon. But to him is the winged secret flame, and to her the stooping starlight."

pj comment: The Sun and the Moon of course, are the symbols of male and female.  The spilling of blood in the story of Cain and Abel must have a symbolic and not literal significance.  HPB writes in a footnote:

HPB: Adam-Jehovah, Brahma and Mars are, in one sense, identical; they are all symbols for primitive or initial generative powers for the purposes of human procreation. Adam is red, and so also are Brahma-Viraj and Mars -- god and planet. Water is the blood of the Earth; therefore, all these names are connected with Earth and Water. "It takes earth and water to create a human soul," says Moses. Mars is identical with Kartikeya God of War (in one sense) -- which god is born of the Sweat of Siva, Siva Gharmaja and the Earth. In the Mahabharata he is shown as born without the intervention of a woman. And he is also called "Lohita," the red, like Adam, and the other "first men." Hence, the author of "The Source of Measures" is quite right in thinking that Mars (and all the other gods of like attributes), "being the god of war and of bloodshed, was but a secondary idea flowing out of the primary one of shedding of blood in conception for the first time." Hence Jehovah became later a fighting god, "Lord of Hosts," and one who commands war. He is the aggressive Zodh -- or Cain by permutation who slew his (female) "brother," whose "blood crieth from the ground," the Earth having opened her mouth to receive the blood. (Genesis iii.)

pj comment: Jubal, the "father of all those who handle the harp" seems to draw an overt allusion to the three employed artificers (Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum) of the Third Degree in Masonry, who conspire and kill Hiram-Abif, the Master Mason overseeing the construction of Solomon's temple.  But also, HPB’s assertion that the god of procreation is also the god of war is clearly echoed in Thelema:

AL:III.3 "Now let it be first understood that I am a god of War and of Vengeance. I shall deal hardly with them."

HPB: The history or "fables" about the mysterious Telchines -- fables echoing each and all the archaic events of our esoteric teachings -- furnish us with a key to the origin of Cain's genealogy (Genesis, ch. iii.); they give the reason why the Roman Catholic Church identifies "the accursed blood" of Cain and Ham with Sorcery, and makes it responsible for the Deluge. Were not the Telchines -- it is argued -- the mysterious ironworkers of Rhodes; they who were the first to raise statues to the gods, furnish them with weapons, and men with magic arts? And is it not they who were destroyed by a deluge at the command of Zeus, as the Cainites were by that of Jehovah?

AL:III.11 "This shall be your only proof. I forbid argument. Conquer! That is enough. I will make easy to you the abstruction from the ill-ordered house in the Victorious City. Thou shalt thyself convey it with worship, o prophet, though thou likest it not. Thou shalt have danger & trouble. Ra-Hoor-Khu is with thee. Worship me with fire & blood; worship me with swords & with spears. Let the woman be girt with a sword before me: let blood flow to my name. Trample down the Heathen; be upon them, o warrior, I will give you of their flesh to eat!"

pj comment: To better understand this, the construction of the name Hiram-Abif as discussed in Pike's tome is essential:

In the ancient Phcenician character, and in the Samaritan, A B, (the two letters representing the numbers 1, 2, or Unity and Duality, means Father, and is a primitive noun, common to all the Semitic languages. It also means an Ancestor, Originator, Inventor, Head, Chief or Ruler, Manager, Overseer, Master, Priest, Prophet. is simply Father, when it is in construction, that is, when it precedes another word, and in English the preposition "of" is interposed, as Abi-Al, the Father of Al.

Also, the final Yod means "my"; so that by itself means "My father. David my father, 2 Chron. ii. 3. (Vav) final is the possessive pronoun "his"; and Abiu (which we read "Abif") means "of my father's." Its full meaning, as connected with the name of Khurum, no doubt is, "formerly one of my father's servants," or "slaves." The name of the Phcenician artificer is, in Samuel and Kings, [2 Sam. v. 11; 1 Kings v. 15; 1 Kings vii. 40]. In Chronicles it is with the addition of [2 Chron. ii. 12]; and of [2 Chron. iv. 16].

It is merely absurd to add the word "Abif," or "Abiff," as part of the name of the artificer. And it is almost as absurd to add the word "Abi," which was a title and not part of the name. Joseph says [Gen. xlv. 8], "God has constituted me 'Ab l'Paraah, as Father to Paraah, i.e., Vizier or Prime Minister." So Haman was called the Second Father of Artaxerxes; and when King Khurum used the phrase "Khurum Abi," he meant that the artificer he sent Schlomoh was the principal or chief workman in his line at Tsur.

pj comment: The Trident is also interesting here: in the GCL document, Liber Tridens, I write:

The trident is the fork, which mysteriously appears in our mythology, held traditionally by Neptune, while today it shows up in our cultural depiction of the Devil and interestingly enough, even the classic Norman Rockwell painting of the American farmer and his wife.  Its nature is thoroughly understood by our collective unconscious.  But the cartoon images of Satan don’t represent it well at all. They are the result of our cultural repression after centuries of domination by the Roman heresy.  The trident is a real Magickal weapon and its powers are complex and hard hitting.  With its power derived from the AUMGN going forth, the Trident directs and commands the way of the AUMGN; the spiritual content of our world, our reality in its unborn state.  

The Trident is held up or down in a vertical line, relating to the equations:  2=0, and 0=2, referring in its downward position, to the birth of duality/polarity, the birth of qualities within the world; or if held upwards, it refers to the process of Aspiration, to reconcile duality with each other in order to take a position beyond good and evil.  It points therefore to the highest or the lowest, and make no mistake about the lowest genius, it culminates in poison, disease and corruption.  And by comparison, the Rod in the Gnostic Mass is also held upwards and downwards, expressed in both ways during the rite. The Trident as we’ve presented it here, is a very lofty weapon, and the attainment of it (no less to be able to wield it) is possible for but a very few.  It is a type of a wand in that it is the AUMGN going; the dynamic expression of the content of Kether.  But it must not be confused with the Lance of the Gnostic Mass, as This Lance personifies the one-pointedness of the Magus. The Trident balances its holy tip containing the unborn essence by two sides, which will be recognized in this connection as Binah and Chokmah, but the correspondences and virtues of the Trident are many...

Continuing with the HPB essay:

HPB: The Telchines are simply the Kabiri and the Titans, in another form. They are the Atlanteans also. "Like Lemnos and Samothrace," says Decharme, "Rhodes, the birth-place of the Telchines, is an island of volcanic formation." (Genii of Fire, p. 271.) The island of Rhodes emerged suddenly out of the seas, after having been previously engulfed by the Ocean, say the traditions. Like Samothrace (of the Kabiri) it is connected in the memory of men with the Flood legends. As enough has been said on this subject, however, it may be left for the present.

pj comment: It is enough to state the obvious; the superstitious denotation that sees a God that created the deluge to destroy the race of Giants/Nephilim.  For that matter, he was quite inefficient as enough of that race survived; that we could even get story of Davey & Goliath--so much for the denotative interpretation of myth.  Yet this can be so rich in its connotative virtue.

HPB: But we may add a few more words about Noah, the Jewish representative of nearly every pagan God in one or another character. The Homeric songs contain, poetized, all the later fables about the Patriarchs, who are all sidereal, cosmic, and numerical symbols and signs. The attempt to disconnect the two genealogies -- those of Seth and Cain (Nothing could be more awkward and childish, we say, than this fruitless attempt to disconnect the genealogies of Cain and of Seth, or to conceal the identity of names under a different spelling. Thus, Cain has a Son ENOCH, and Seth a Son ENOCH also (Enos, Ch'anoch, Hanoch; -- one may do what one likes with Hebrew unvowelled names). In the Cainite line Enoch begets IRAD, Irad MEHUJAEL, the latter METHUSAEL, and Methusael, Lamech. In the Sethite line, Enoch begets Cainan, and this one MAHALEEL (a variation on Mehujael), who gives birth to JARAD (or Irad); Jarad to ENOCH (Number 3), who produces Methuselah (from Methusael), and finally Lamech closes the list. Now all these are symbols (Kabalistically) of solar and lunar years, of astronomical periods, and of physiological (phallic) functions, just as in any other pagan symbolical creed. This has been proven by a number of writers.) -- and the further attempt, as futile, to show them real, historical men, has only led to more serious inquiries into the history of the Past, and to discoveries which have damaged for ever the supposed revelation. For instance, the identity of Noah and Melchizedek being established, the further identity of Melchizedek, or Father Sadik, with Kronos-Saturn is proved also.

pj comment: Perhaps there is some connection here with Enoch and the antidiluvian races that once existed on this planet.  In HPB's exposition on races, there were more subtle (less material) races that preceded our race (giving some credence to the Nephilim as a spiritual or lower astra race) that ultimately would have contacted someone such as Enoch; who himself was not Hebrew and as a descendent of Cain (as HPB points out here) is of this race of Giants.

HPB: That it is so may be easily demonstrated. It is not denied by any of the Christian writers. Bryant (See "Analysis of Ancient Mythology," Vol. II., p. 760) concurs with all those who are of opinion, that Sydic, or Sadic, was the patriarch Noah (as also Melchizedek); and that the name by which he is called, or Sadic, corresponds to the character given of him in Genesis, chap. vi., 9. "He was , Sadic, a JUST man, and perfect in his generation. All science and every useful art were attributed to him, and through his sons transmitted to posterity." (See New Encyclopaedia by Abraham Rees, F.R.S.)

pj comment: With some puzzlement, I'll state that Melchizedek is said by some to be one of the names of Akhenaten (the first priest/pharaoh of monotheism); along with Oedipus and Aeschylus.  The latter is an ancient playwriter of great renown; the seeming originator of the ancient Greek myths that especially have to do with the stories of creation and are as closely woven into Judaic lore as could possibly be.  In the essay that follows this essay in HPB's Secret Doctrine: The Curse from a Philosophical Point of View, she writes:

Pointing to antiquity he will prove that there never was an original sin, but only an abuse of physical intelligence -- the psychic being guided by the animal, and both putting out the light of the spiritual. He will say, "All ye who can read between the lines, study ancient wisdom in the old dramas -- the Indian and the Greek; read carefully the one just mentioned, one enacted on the theatres of Athens 2,400 years ago, namely 'Prometheus Bound' " The myth belongs to neither Hesiod nor AEschylus; but, as Bunsen says, it "is older than the Hellenes themselves," for it belongs, in truth, to the dawn of human consciousness.

--and--

The subject of AEschylus' drama (the trilogy is lost) is known to all cultured readers. The demi-god robs the gods (the Elohim) of their secret -- the mystery of the creative fire.

pj comment: This is the Promethean drama; reflected in the pseudepigraphal myth of Lucifer being exiled from heaven.  Returning to the present HPB essay:

HPB: Now it is Sanchoniathon, who informs the world that the Kabiri were the Sons of Sydic or Zedek (Melchizedek). True enough, this information, having descended to us through Eusebius (Preparatio Evangelica), may be regarded with a certain amount of suspicion, as it is more than likely that he dealt with Sanchoniathon's works as he has with Manetho's Synchronistic Tables. But let us suppose that the identification of Sydic, Kronos, or Saturn with Noah and Melchizedek, is based on one of the Eusebian pious hypotheses. Let us accept it as such, along with Noah's characteristic as a just man, and his supposed duplicate, the mysterious Melchizedek, King of Salem, and priest of the high god, after "his own order" (See Hebrews, ch. v. 6, and vii. 1, et seq.); and finally, having seen what they all were spiritually, astronomically, psychically and cosmically, let us now see what they became rabbinically and KABALISTICALLY.

Speaking of Adam, Kain, Mars, etc., as personifications, we find the author of "The Source of Measures" enunciating our very esoteric teachings in his Kabalistic researches. Thus he says: --

"Now Mars was the lord of birth and of death, of generation and of destruction, of ploughing, of building, of sculpture or stone-cutting, of Architecture . . . . in fine, of all . . . . ARTS. He was the primeval principle, disintegrating into the modification of two opposites for production. Astronomically, too (HPB Note: The AEolian name of Mars was [[Areus]], and the Greek Ares, [[Ares]], is a name over the etymological significance of which, philologists and Indianists, Greek and Sanskrit scholars have vainly worked to this day. Very strangely, Max Muller connects both the names Mars and Ares with the Sanskrit root mar, whence he traces their derivation, and from which, he says, the name of Maruts (the storm-gods) comes. Welcker, however, offers more correct etymologies. (See Griech. Gotterlehre, I., 415.) However it may be, etymologies of roots and words alone will never yield the esoteric meaning fully, though they may help to useful guesses.), he held the birthplace of the day and year, the place of its increase of strength, Aries, and likewise the place of its death, Scorpio. He held the house of Venus, and that of the Scorpion. He, as birth, was good; as death, was Evil. As good, he was light; as bad, he was night. As good, he was man; as bad, he was woman. He held the cardinal points, and as Cain, or Vulcan (HPB Note: As the same author shows: "The very name Vulcain appears in the reading; for in the first words (of chap. iv. Genesis, 5) is to be found V'elcain, or V'ulcain, agreeably to the deepened u sound of the letter vau. Out of its immediate context, it may be read as "and the god Cain," or Vulcain. If, however, anything is wanting to confirm the Cain-Vulcain idea, Fuerst says: , Cain, the iron point of a lance, a smith (blacksmith), inventor of sharp iron tools and smith work"), or Pater Sadic, or Melchizadek, he was lord of the Ecliptic, or balance, or line of adjustment, and therefore was THE JUST ONE. The ancients held to there being seven planets, or great gods, growing out of eight, and Pater Sadik, the Just or Right One, was lord of the eighth, which was Mater Terra. ("Source of Measures," p. 186-70.)

pj comment: It is interesting to note that Libra, the scales of Justice; connected with this age of the Hammubi Code and the Ten Commandments, is opposite Aries on the astrological wheel.  The origin of the Jewish myth and the Torah is placed in this aeon, as discussed in my book: The Starry Gnosis. 

HPB: This makes their functions plain enough after they had been degraded, and establishes the identity.

The Noachian Deluge, as described in its dead letter and within the period of Biblical chronology, having been shown to have never existed, the pious, but very arbitrary supposition of Bishop Cumberland has but to follow that deluge into the land of fiction. Indeed it seems rather fanciful to any impartial observer to be told that there were "two distinct races of Kabiri," the first consisting of Ham and Mizraim, whom he conceives to be Jupiter and Dionysus of Mnaseas; the second, "of the children of Shem, are the Kabiri of Sochoniston, while their father Sydyk is consequently the Scriptural Shem." (Append. de Cabiris, ap. Orig. gent. p. 364, 376, and the latter statement on p. 357.)

pj comment: The chapter in my book, Gnostic Cycles asserts that the deluge is actually shown to be in the Manifestation of Scorpio (that includes the Aeon of Aries) and its aeon of Gemini.  So it's not that the deluge itself is pure fiction as HPB suggests, but rather the Hebrew myth of the deluge is fictional.

HPB: The Kabirim, "the mighty ones," are identical with our primeval Dhyan-Chohans, with the corporeal and the incorporeal Pitris, and with all the rulers and instructors of the primeval races, which are referred to as the Gods and Kings of the divine Dynasties.

pj comment: Identifying the Kabirim (the race of Noah as shown at the beginning of this essay) with the Dhyan-Chohans and the Pitris more clearly shows the spiritual importance of the Nephilim and validates further my speculation on the Nephilim being the Augoeiades or race of beings that are connected with the Thelemic idea of the Holy Guardian Angel, which itself evolves of Greek and Hebrew/Merkabah (Psuedpegripha) traditions.  Note also that the Jews, as descendants possibly of Akhenaten that when he was overthrown, settled into a region of ancient Greece (from which we get the Hellenic Jews), carried on the idea of Monotheism.  We should not be terribly surprised to see Jewish and Hellenic mythology to be so closely intertwined.  Indeed, the Greek connection of numeric values to the letters of their alphabet had a profound effect on the Jews; leading to the development of the Qabalah.