The Bible Text is Not Perspicuous

"If there be ten just men, I will not do it", the Lord said to Abraham.

I don't want to put into the Bible what is not and has not been there, but merely as a mathematician who likes to play strange games, I want to point out that God said to Samuel,

Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys,

and the tale continues

And Saul smote Amalec from Hevila, until thou comest to Sur, which is over against Egypt. And he took Agag the king of Amalec alive: but all the common people he slew with the edge of the sword. And Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the flocks of sheep and of the herds, and the garments and the rams, and all that was beautiful, and would not destroy them: but every thing that was vile and good for nothing, that they destroyed.

It does not say that they found chidren or infants to put to death. They found "common people" and a King, flocks of sheep and beautiful plunder. It does not say they found any children or infants.

I like to say such things, sometimes, as "all my natural sisters live in Antarctica", or "all my pet octopodes can fly". They're perfectly true, as well, though I wouldn't advise voyaging to Antarctica in search of my natural sisters. It is entirely consistent with the sparsity of the text that all the children and infants of Amalek were indeed slaughtered, and that all of them were innocent at least as preceding the age of reason, and that no innocents were slaughtered. I haven't much gusto for even so prosaic a reading, and you would think that someone in Saul's army might notice a complete lack of children (had there been such lack) and mentioned it, such that it might have come down into the scripture; mentioned, unless, of course, it was part of a pattern they took for granted.

And a complete lack of children within Amalek is indeed consistent with particular violences they were reputed for: sterile thrills, practices that would widely proliferate sterilizing disease, and sacrifice of infants themselves.

I don't want to say that this is what actually happened, but I do want to point out that, if we are to read Deuteronomy through Kings N as an account of actual military campaigns, this is an important possible circumstance to consider.

I stumbled, by chance, on the Radio, into Evensong. I understand the broadcast was from an Anglican church, but most of the readings were as described in the current Roman books. In any case, there was an extra lesson (read in French, but that should not frustrate us!) from Exodus (Ex 28), and it included these verses I'd never before noted:

31 And thou shalt make the tunick of the ephod all of violet, 32 In the midst whereof above shall be a hole for the head, and a border round about it woven, as is wont to be made in the outmost parts of garments, that it may not easily be broken.

And what this directly called to mind were these words from St. John's Gospel:

[...] Now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. 24 They said then one to another: Let us not cut it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be [...]

John himself points to prophecy of this moment; I'd like to think that he's also pointing out that Jesus walked to Golgotha actually vested as a priest.

Thoughts?

Causes of concern

It occured to me about the time that silly movie just impending and the ads for it cluttered up between the segments of Doctor Who (which is also silly, but differently) — That the name of the hazardous game consisted of two words, one French, one German, both meaning "yes".

For sure, invoking you-cannot-even-say-what to whatever end is a hazardous game fool's rush, but to build into the very name of the game ab-initio acquiescence — to agree to say "no" only to saying "no" — is, shall we say, cause for grave concern. It is agreeing, at the start of play, that you have already lost.

Dignus est Agnus

Our New Fire fizzled out before they could light the Paschal Candle from it.

The choir twice didn't get the Ferial Tone (at the Exsultet and blessing the Font... while the organist is ... enthusiastic ... about ... helping us along ... and making sure we have enough time to sing all the notes)

But what more than makes up for all that?

IT'S EASTER! HOORRAY!

... am I being a bit silly? But it's still Easter!

to Avoid Excessive Latinity

... or, don't be you too Norman.

A dear dear friend of mine who has been through a lot (and I won't tell you any more than this) was once frequently worn down by the maxim "Patience is a virtue". Like all propositions that happen to be true, it isn't at all a helpful thing to say unless one properly understands the proper meaning of all the words in it and their interconnections. Worse, some phrases become so culturally bound that they work, in conversation, like single words ("for all intents and purposes", anyone?). A triage nurse might have fun announcing "Patient has a vert hue", and it might be true, and it might be what the doctor hears, but that's not the true expression "Patience is a virtue".

Now, the hapless proponent of the virtue of patience may well have meant: "if you'll wait quiet a while longer, perhaps I'll praise you later on", because "patience" has come usually to mean "enduring delay", and "virtue" that which is praiseworthy. But that also is not the true meaning of "Patience is a virtue". For the True Meaning, we must translate the Latin into "plain brittish".

Suffering is Strength.

Ok, you will counter that "suffer", from latin "su(per)fero", or "bear up", is still Latin. Thing is, we don't read it as Latin anymore.

Next, you might complain "That's backwards. Suffering needs strength; you can't 'suffer' the way you mean if you aren't already strong". Well, yes and no; but the formation of strength requires exercise: you have to try first what you aren't good at before you get good at it. Then doing it well is proof of strength.

And, here's the odd bit. Doing it well need not mean "quit yer belly-achin'". It does mean "Despair not". It does not mean that the pain goes away, or becomes "bearable". It does mean you are lovable. And a good and loving neighbor will suffer with you, and so exercise his patience, too.

Confusions of the Supreme Court nothwithstanding

1 Whereas "Canada is founded on principles recognizing the supremacy of God and the rule of law"

2 Whereas the provision of aid in suicide is aiding and abetting an act of murder, and recognized as such in Canadian law

3 Whereas a promise to provide aid in suicide is equally conspiracy to murder

4 Whereas Canadian law nonetheless further recognizes that a suicide, as victim of a murder, is more in need of living aid than of criminal prosecution

5 Whereas the logical procession from principles to consequences is not a fault in Law, but one of the underlying principles of the rule of law,

6 Whereas the act or conspiracy of a free person, capable or otherwise, is not alienated of its free character by anticipated sufferings

A Therefore it is already, unambiguously, and constitutionally illegal for all, whether licensed as a medical agent or not, to provide aid in the suicide of a disabled individual, or to promise aid in the suicide of a person either currently disabled or anticipating future disability.

B Furthermore, there is no conflict with the constitution in this conclusion, as security from both murder and conspiracy to murder are both founded on the Charter provision: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person [...] except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

C In Particular, the exception "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" has always intended the proportioned and proportionate acts, of the state or civilians, necessary to protect themselves against an active menace; it is a perversion and contradiction to the constitution to deny (6) to reconstruct the lawful protection of another's life as compelling an earlier suicide, or depriving anyone of "Life, liberty and security of the person".

A... silent song?

I am, at the moment, chewing on the half-verse, from today's ever-strange Gospel reading,

... ecce, nubes lucida obumbravit eos.

because it feels so strange.

Thoughts and reflections welcome.