Early Sumer

The first glimmers of what we call civilization began in the Near East, which we now call the Middle East. The Near East of Mesopotamia, or the land between the rivers, is the cradle of the earliest civilization and a fountain for much of our biblical culture. The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers flow out of the Causasus Mountains and toward the Indian Ocean. They form a delta at the Persian Gulf and lay down a tremendous amount of silt (nutrient-rich sediment) along the way. Using the Flood-based Ice Age hypothesis laid down in chapter one, we can surmise that the deep trench of the Persian Gulf was not covered with water at this early period. In fact, some historians have suggested that the land extended as far as modern Qatar in the Arabian Peninsula. As the ice receded, water levels began to rise. It rarely rained on the plain, but rainwater and melting ice would come from the mountains once a year flooding the plain and leaving behind the muddy silt that dried into baked earth.
Sometime between 3500 and 3000 BC people began to settle here and developed techniques of animal husbandry and agriculture. The grasses that grew in the region provided excellent grazing grounds for sheep and goats gathered off the nearby mountains. The animals provided meat, milk, and cheese, as well as clothing from the skins. Soon people began cultivating the grains that grew in the area and harvested barleys and other cereals for their own nutrition. As more and more people flowed into the region, communities began to form along the rivers of the valleys. The people used the mud to bake bricks and build little huts and homes with. These communities eventually coalesced into primitive cities or city-states. Evidence suggests that major decisions were made by a council of elders and a council of adult citizens. Organized labor for canal building or other projects would have leader elected to rule at that time. Government, such as this, developed to keep order and provide protection and trade among the citizens began to allow for stratification of class and vocation. This earliest example is called Sumer.
The earliest records of Sumer are king lists written down about 2,100 BC. They record kings from before the Flood, but are not reliable at this point. For instance, King Alulim of Erech was said to have ruled for 28,000 years. This exceptional reign dwarfs even that of the biblical genealogies, and is clearly accurate.
What we know of Sumer must be drawn from both written and physical sources. We have writings from much later, but give us indications of events and social structures. We also have excavated cities and sites of interest. These give us a great amount of understanding about the buildings they built, the pottery they used, and other social structures. Pottery is fascinating because of the way it is constructed. Once the clay is fired, it really cannot break down or decay any further. The process of baking it unites the molecules in such a way that they can be shattered to dust, but cannot be destroyed or turned into anything else. Thus pottery can be a great vehicle for archaeological knowledge. Pottery was often buried with people, and in excavations, is usually found in dwellings. The styles of pottery are informative, as is the decoration on pottery. In Greek pottery, for example, we can view the way different kinds of people dressed and acted. This is not usually the case with Sumerian pottery, but as a source for ancient history, its value is still high.
From the more reliable portions of the king lists however; we can construct a partial chronology for Mesopotamia and Sumer. Why is this important? Some very important figures and events come to light in this period and it behooves us to take notice of the culture that brought these things into existence. For instance, writing begins in Sumer.

The form of writing that we call cuneiform was invented here. It is done by pressing wedge-shaped sticks into wet wax or clay, making markings that were used as words. It is pictographic, as opposed to phonetic. Words were marked out by specific symbols, not phonetic combinations. Cuneiform writing was apparently invented because of the tremendous amount of trade done in Sumer. Merchants had to have ways to account for inventory and accounting. It is significant that economics brought forth the invention of writing, not literature or religion. Both of these were oral traditions long before writing was used to record them.
The city, or city-state, is first expressed here as well. As people began to gather together in central locations, they began to relate to each other differently than they had before. There is a remarkable difference in the way members of a single household relate as opposed to members of multiple households. As more and more people were drawn to the agricultural way of life, they built houses of mud brick and lived close to other people. This was done for protection. A single raiding party could devastate one household, but with others nearby, they were deterred from their actions. A city-state is a collection of people who voluntarily live near each other, protect each other, and provide for each other with goods and materials. Evidence suggests that “an assembly of free adult male citizens … convened on an ad hoc basis to make decisions for the good of the community.” Some historians suggest that the choosing of ruler was initially only done to assist with large defense efforts or public work projects. This origin of political organization in Sumer is part of its claim as well.

Agrarianism

The more I read of Davidson, the more I get the impression that to him, Agrarianism meant a balance life. He didn't say it very well, all the time, but as I read more and more of what he wrote, he doesn't have a beef with machines per se. He has a problem with a messianic faith in machines. He doesn't have a problem with industry per se, he has a problem with a messianic faith in industrialism to relieve all our woes.
Davidson seems to hold on to Agrarianism as the best way to bring everything back into balance. A clear harmony between the life of the land and the life of the city seems to be in view with him. Now if I can just prove it.

The Fertile Crescent

The first chapter of this book was devoted to the period we sometimes refer to as “prehistory.” This means that there are no contemporary records from that period. The period itself took place before people wrote things down about it. Contemporary records are other writings that can complement the history record we have. If you were to write a biography of Winston Churchill and you used his own diary and documents that he wrote for official business, they would be considered contemporary records. If you mentioned that he began working at the Office of the Admiralty in 1911 and you used either of these sources, you would have contemporary records for the assertion. There are no lists of anything from before the Flood and no catalogs of animals on the ark. The only source of information we have is the book of Genesis and other works that parallel the account given there. For instance, the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, presents a parallel flood narrative that can be instructive if given the proper place.
However, after the Tower of Babel, we begin a new phase of history. Many history books, even those written by Christians, begin here. This is partly because writing about the period prior to this takes a lot of speculation, even if we follow the book of Genesis completely. It is difficult to know exactly when and where things took place. After the Tower of Babel, we have better knowledge of these things. We can focus our attention on a specific region and location, the Fertile Crescent.
The Fertile Crescent is known as the birthplace of civilization. Civilization is a very difficult word to define. It has typically been used to describe a city-dwelling culture. This is an unsatisfactory definition. We will not present a full-blown definition here, but we will begin to construct a definition in which civilization has to do with the transmission of culture from one generation to the next. For now, we will accept part of the traditional definition and acknowledge that civilization involves cities. Cities first spring up in the Fertile Crescent, a band of irrigated land stretching from the Persian Gulf in modern Iraq, up through the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys of Assyria and down through Palestine into Lower Egypt (see map below).
It is easy to see why civilization first began to develop in this region once we begin to understand the region. The Fertile Crescent is made up of river valleys. The basic geography of the Fertile Crescent is important to understand.
Rivers are formed when water runs down out of mountains on its way to sea. The Fertile Crescent is surrounded by mountains. To the north in Turkey and Armenia we find the Causasus and Taurus ranges. To the west we have the Zagros range. Deep in the south of central Africa the Ruwenzori range feeds the Nile River. Mountains also run through Palestine, the ranges of Lebanon and Hermon are particularly important. As water runs out of mountains it inevitably picks up sediment from the mountain and carries it down to the sea. However, as water flows rapidly it often overflows its traditional bed and lays this sediment down along its path. This sediment is often mineral-rich and suitable for growing.
The more important information though is the human side of this equation. All the sediment in the world would do nothing valuable if it were not for people. We learned from the Bible that after the Flood, Noah’s descendants traveled down the river valley and settled in the land of Shinar (cf. Gen. 11:1). Here they built the Tower of Babel and here God’s judgment came upon them. Humanity was forced to travel more and we see various groups of people develop different patterns of civilization all around the region of the Fertile Crescent.
In the immediate Persian Gulf area we find the Sumerians and the Akkadians, who we will look at carefully soon. To the east we find the Egyptians settled in the Nile River valley. Between both of these major groups we find a whole host of smaller groups filling in the lands. This first unit of this book will focus mostly on this region of the Fertile Crescent. The Fertile Crescent represents the foundational geography we will be concerned with for a while.

Home ... where you least expect it

In researching the life and career of Donald Davidson and the Agrarians I have found many interesting notes about my own home, Middle Tennessee. For instance, Donald Davidson great-great-grandfather, Andrew Davidson put down roots near Shelbyville, TN after his first family was murdered by Shawnee Indians in Virginia. Donald's father spent some time in Winchester, TN (my hometown) at a teacher preparatory school I never knew existed.
Allen Tate's family often came down to Estill Springs for a family vacation. Apparently it used to be quite the wealthy Nashvillian hang out. Several of these men spent time in or around Sewanee and the University of the South. Tate edited the Sewanee Review for a while, as did Andrew Nelson Lytle. Lytle actually retired to Monteagle and died there in 1995.
This has been one of the interesting and exciting things about this research. It has given me a new glimpse of the home I grew up in and yet never really appreciated.

The Tower of Babel

After the flood subsided, Genesis tells us that Noah and his children left the ark and made a sacrifice to God on the top of the mountain. There God made a covenant with Noah. This covenant is important because it parallels very closely the original covenant made with Adam. In both covenants God tells humanity to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth” (Gen. 9:1; cf. Gen. 1:28). This tells us that the command to control the earth and subdue it (cf. Gen. 1:28) is still in force after the fall. It also sets us an interesting context for the next significant event in human history, the Tower of Babel.
Before we get to the Tower of Babel though, we should notice the tenth chapter of Genesis. It is traditionally called the Table of Nations. In this portion of Scripture, God gives us a catalog of all the major Mediterranean nations descended from Noah and his sons. It is a fascinating study to see that the Greeks, the Arabs, and others are all carefully cataloged in the Bible for us.
The general location of Babel is pretty easy to deduce. Genesis tells us that after a while the descendants of Noah traveled east and dwelt in the land of Shinar. Shinar is the biblical term for Mesopotamia (lit. the land between the rivers). This means that Noah’s descendants came to live between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. It was here that they decided to dwell and to raise the mighty tower to heaven.
Most archaeologists, whether they accept the biblical narrative or not, identify the structure of the Tower of Babel with the Sumerian ziggurat. The ziggurat was a structure utilized often throughout Sumeria. We have several archaeological examples of these structures. It is not necessary for us to settle on this explanation at this time. The far more important issue, historically, surrounds the reasons why the tower was built and what the effects were rather than what it looked like. It is enough to understand the general geography of the Tower of Babel.
When God made His covenant with Noah, which was a renewal of the original covenant with Adam, He instructed Noah again to “be fruitful and multiply, populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it” (Gen. 9:7 NASB). Part of the command here is to move and spread out. However, we can see an unwillingness to obey the command of God in the Tower of Babel event because the people had not moved around. They had stayed exactly where their forefathers had dwelt. There was an inherent disobedience in the descendants of Noah here. The building of the tower was just the physical manifestation of the internal sin of this disobedience. The people even state this. “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a  name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth” (Gen. 11:4).
The tower is constructed to reach heaven. Historians tell us that many primitive religions see high places as the dwelling place of divinity. We will find this to be generally true whether we are discussing Sumeria or Greece. Why is this? Scripture is consistent in maintaining that God is “high and lifted up” (Is. 6:1). Since we are all made in the image of God and have the knowledge of God imprinted on our hearts, it is by constant suppression that we pretend we do not know God. This is the substance of Paul’s argument in Romans 1:18-32. His conclusion to this argument is that all humanity is “without excuse” (Rom. 1:21) and are subject to the judgment of God because they ignored their responsibilities before Him. Since all men know God it is reasonable to expect them to counterfeit true worship. True worship of God is according to His commands. Counterfeit worship flows from the heart of man and is directed at what he wants God to be like, whether this be an impersonal force or a buddy. Also at the heart of the tower is the desire from the garden to “be like God” (Gen. 3:5).
The tower represents a combination of sinful attitudes and actions on the part of humanity. It is our refusal to obey God in His commands. It is our attempt at counterfeit worship rather than authentic worship. It is also our attempt to be God. Thus the judgment of the Tower of Babel is instructive.
God communicates clearly why He acts. Do not miss how important it is that God communicates His will and reasons to us in the Bible. Many religions have gods that supposedly act in human history. However, few, if any, will give their rationale for acting in issues such as divine judgment. Here and in the Flood, we are not left to our own devices to determine why God chose to do what He did. He tells us, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them. Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one anothers speech” (Gen. 11:6-7).
Much about history can be learned is episodes such as the Tower of Babel. Of course, the obvious piece of information is that we get all of the different languages from this event. Why do Egyptians speak differently from Greeks or Native Americans? Simply because God confused their language. The variety of languages in the world is not the result of random and cultural forces alone, it is a direct result of the God of heaven and earth acting judiciously on His creation.
The distribution of peoples can also be traced to this event. Many of the languages cataloged have families, (i.e.) they are similar. We can surmise that some of the languages created in the Tower of Babel judgment were similar and allowed the people to live in close proximity to each other. Others, however, were very different and thus people moved far away. From this, languages continued to develop and an entire history of language exists to consider the relationships they have to each other. Language is a fascinating thing and its history is incredible.

On iTunes Now...

The radio program Echoes tuned me into a great artist who distributes his work on the internet. General Fuzz has several albums worth of stuff that you can download. I enjoy his most recent compositions the most, but find all of it good.
Check him out.

Davidson on Education

In an essay written in 1935 to document and explain the history of the book, I'll Take My Stand, Donald Davidson indicates that he and the other Agrarians wrote the book to Southerners as Southerners. He laments that perhaps, this was presumptuous. The Agrarians and the critics of the book did not even use the primary terms (Agrarianism and Industrialism) in the same way. Later he makes the following statement:

It was first of all a book for mature Southerners of the late nineteen-twenties, in the so-called New South - Southerners who, we trusted, were not so far gone in modern education as to require, for the act of comprehension, coloured charts, statistical tables, graphs, and journalistic monosullables, but were prepared to use intelligence and memory.

Wouldn't it be nice to have people like that? He didn't and I doubt we will either for a long time. But that is one of the things a good classical education seeks to remedy. The act of interacting with primary sources, as much as possible, helps build the kind of person who can use his intelligence and memory. Sure we use maps and sometimes charts to help us colect similar types of information. I think Davidson went a little too far. However, the modern education system, including modern journalism (which is supposed to be a primary agent of continuing education for adults) has reduced all learning to statistics, graphs, and monosyllables.

The Process

I have been down to Clemson University several times in the past two weeks. I have registered for my final class, a Master's Research class. I have paid for said class (Thanks, Dad!). I have spoken to advisors in the department and managed to get all the appropriate forms signed and turned in. I have raided the library more times than I'd like to think. My limit on books is 200. I'm not sure how close I am on that.

This is just one part of a bookcase. The stuff you can see is in front of my books.











I have photocopied, scanned, and printed more articles than I ever thought I would. Here are some of them on my
desk

and floor












The process is to begin to read as much as I can about Davidson and figure out what exactly I can say about him or ideas that he had that hasn't been said before. With my Senior Thesis at UTC, I did this by looking at how B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge both used the philosophy of Thomas Reid, called Common Sense Realism. Stuff had been written on Reid, Warfield, and Hodge, but no one brought it together and said what I tried to say.
At this point I have read two biographies of Davidson, several books on the Agrarian movement, and a ton of Davidson's own writings. I am coming close to something. I can feel it. I just hope it happens before school starts. My ability to read for seven hours at a time reduces severely at that point. If I have a thesis statement by that point, however, then I have about 45 days to write at least 90 pages on my topic. If I make it to October 15 with a draft, I should be home free from there.

Paternalism in Southern History

I find it very interesting that, in Southern historiography, no white southerner can have any concern for an African-American without it being paternalistic. There is no room for generosity, love, compassion, or genuine fellowship. Every attempt by a white southerner to reach out to the African-American is dubbed "paternalism" which means that they are reaching down, not out.
To a large degree I suppose we have brought this on ourselves, but it ticks me off.

Metaphysical Poetry

“About the beginning of the seventeenth century appeared a race of writers that may be termed metaphysical poets.”
Samuel Johnson first used the term “metaphysical poets” in a disparaging way in his Lives of the Poets in 1744. He faulted these writers for using their wit to construct false conceits, tying dissimilar ideas together in a violent fashion. He acknowledged that many of these poets were “men of learning” and that they occasionally hit on truth, saying “their learning instructs, and their subtlety surprises; but the reader commonly thinks his improvement dearly bought, and, though he sometimes admires, is seldom pleased.”
By the end of the seventeenth century the poetry studied in this guide had fallen out of favor and was largely ignored for nearly two centuries. Poets like T.S. Eliot recovered the genius of the metaphysical poets and stated that the metaphysical poets were merely “engaged in the task of trying to find the verbal equivalent for states of mind and feeling. And this means both that they are more mature, and that they wear better, than later poets of certainly not less literary ability.” He noted that English poetry changed significantly after John Milton (1608-1674) and John Dryden (1631-1700) and that poets lost the technique of feeling the experiences that create poetry. In Eliot’s opinion, it is a lost art to convert heterogeneous experiences into poetry, and this is what the metaphysical poets did.
The poets that are generally labeled “metaphysical” are men like John Donne, Andrew Marvell, George Herbert, Henry Vaughan, Abraham Crowley, Edward Herbert, Richard Crashaw and a host of other poets generally living during the seventeenth century (1600’s). From time-to-time sonnets of men like William Shakespeare will be slipped in. As Eliot noted, it was an organic transition from the dramatists of the sixteenth century that gave rise to the conceits of the seventeenth century poets. What makes a poem “metaphysical”? The poets we are concerned with wrote about a broad range of topics, both secular and sacred. However, their poetry is very much characterized by wit. Wit is different from humor, which is what we generally associate the word with today. Humor is more-or-less immediately funny. Wit requires a second glance or reconsideration before it is realized. Wit “suggests intellectual brilliance and ingenuity, verbal deftness, as in an epigram.”
An epigram is a short poem with a witty twist at the end. The form of the epigram comes from Rome, but has been well-developed by English-speaking authors as well. It may be the best way to illustrate the use of wit that is central to metaphysical poetry. Consider the epigrams reproduced below:
Little strokes
Fell great oaks.— Benjamin Franklin

Here lies my wife: here let her lie!
Now she's at rest — and so am I.— John Dryden

Another major characteristic of metaphysical poetry is use of the conceit. A conceit is a “fairly elaborate figurative device of a fanciful kind which often incorporates metaphor, simile, hyperbole or oxymoron and which is intended to surprise and delight by its wit and ingenuity.To put it more simply, a conceit is a comparison of two things which are really nothing alike. Probably one of the best examples comes from John Donne’s poem “A Valediction: forbidding Mourning.” In this poem Donne compares the love he shares with his wife to a drafter’s compass:
Our two souls therefore, which are one,
Though I must go, endure not yet
A breach, but an expansion,
Like gold to aery thinness beat.
If they be two, they are two so
As stiff twin compasses are two ;
Thy soul, the fix'd foot, makes no show
To move, but doth, if th' other do.

Using this conceit, Donne explains that his going will do nothing more than expand the circumference of their unified love. It cannot diminish the love they share, for their souls are joined as the compass is joined. One leg of the compass provides a footing, an anchor; while the other moves away if needs be, but always they are connected at the center.

---

[1] Samuel Johnson, “Life of Cowley,” in Lives of the Poets, 1744.

[2] Ibid.

[3] T.S. Eliot, “The Metaphysical Poets”

[4] J.A. Cuddon, “Wit,” in The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory, ed. J.A. Cuddon (New York: Penguin, 1999), 985-986.

[5] Ibid., 165.

Going for the Gold, or the hat, or the paper, or something...

I just found out I am about 90 some-odd pages away from my M.A. in History. I thought I had a language requirement hanging over my head but I talked to the director of the Language department and they said I was clear. So now, with all my coursework done I just have to write my thesis.
I met with my advisor yesterday about this and we talked through the timetable. Unless I can graduate this semester (Fall 2008) I will have to wait until August 2009. But my advisor is going on a sabbatical beginning this Spring and will be gone until August 2009. To graduate this semester I have to have a draft of the thing on his desk in September (i.e. 30 days).
I'd like to be done. But I'm not sure I can do this whole thing in 30 days. I think I'm going to give it a try though.
So the saga of the M.A. for Mr. Sisk continues. Mr. Sisk, who is writing a masters thesis on Donald Davidson's attempt to counter modernity through Agrarianism, Distributism, and Regionalism. Donald Davidson who was hopelessly modern but hated modernity (which he identified with nothing more than industrialism).
I have typed a single page with "90 Pages" written on it and taped it above my monitor. That way I will remember for the next 30 days that I have nothing more important (in my spare time) than an essay of 90 pages on Modernism and the futile reaction of one little man from Vanderbilt University.
Follow the continuing saga here, if you wish. Maybe even support me if you can.

Milton on Education

“The end then of learning is to repair the ruins of our first parents by regaining to know God aright, and out of that knowledge to love him, to imitate him, to be like him, as we may the nearest by possessing our souls of true virtue, which being united to the heavenly grace of faith makes up the highest perfection.” John Milton, Of Education
Milton’s words are powerful. They presuppose something very important. They presuppose, in their very statement, that repair work has to be done. We can go through the litany of problems with modern education, but we don’t have to to see where Milton is coming from. You see, Milton does not locate the problem of education in the newest curricular fad, multicultural program, or pro-homosexual textbook selection. Milton locates the problem systemic in education exactly where it is, the fall. The goal of education, according to Milton, is to repair the ruins of the fall. To bring us back into wonderful, blissful communion with our heavenly Father and the glory of His only-begotten son, Christ, our Lord. Not that we reverse the fall through education, but that we seek to suppress it. We seek, through knowing God aright, through loving Him in knowledge, through imitation of His divine attributes, “to be like Him … by possessing our souls of true virtue.” That is the goal of a classical and Christian education.

Uncle Tom's Cabin-Themes Part Two

The other major theme we need to consider when reading Uncle Tom's Cabin is Stowe's understanding of Christian Ethics. This theme goes two ways for Stowe. On the one hand, Christian ethics are lauded on the part of Tom and ultimately George Shelby. They are Christ figures in the novel. Tom accepts the humiliation of his life with the understanding that as long as he trusts his life to God he will persevere. Tom is seen reading his Bible, accepting his humiliating position in life, and taking cruel and undeserved punishment from an authority figure, much as Christ. George Shelby, though a late-comer in the novel, is seen acting out his ethical principles to find and rescue Tom from Legree.
The other way Stowe uses Christian ethics is to condemn most of the white characters in the novel and convict readers of the novel. While each person in the novel confesses Christ, they do not truly represent Christ-likeness as Stowe understands it. True Christ-likeness, as Stowe understands it, would immediately free the slaves since she holds slavery itself to be antithetical to Christian love and charity. Rather, many white characters use Christianity as a means to gain and keep power as opposed to a way of changing the world. In this respect we can see Stowe’s link to the social reform movements of Transcendentalism in America.

Major Technological Breakthrough by Tristan Gylberd

I found this in the recent edition of Arx Axiom. It was originally published December 1998 in the Stirling Bridge newsletter.
"There is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

At the recent technology show in Las Vegas, a protocol for a new technological breakthrough was announced. The new protocol, Bio-Optic Organized Knowledge device, will be trade named BOOK. This new BOOK protocol is a revolutionary technological marvel-with no wires, no electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected, and nothing to be switched on. It's so easy to use, even a child can operate it after only a short training session. Compact and portable, it can be used practically anywhere-even sitting in an armchair by the fire-yet it is powerful enough, and contains enough data storage space to potentially hold as much information as a CD-ROM disc.
Here is how it works. BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of fully recyclable paper, each capable of holding thousands of bits of information. The pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence. Opaque Paper Technology (OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides of the sheet, doubling the information density and cutting costs. Experts are divided on the prospects for further increases in information density; for now, BOOKS with more information simply use more pages. Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to the next sheet. BOOK may be taken up at any time and used merely by opening it. BOOK never crashes or requires rebooting, though like other display devices it can become unstable if dropped overboard. The "browse" feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move forward or backward as you wish. Many come with the "index" feature, which enables users to pinpoint the exact location of any selected information for instant retrieval.
Marvel of marvels, it has also been determined, following a series of laboratory tests in the most adverse conditions, the new protocol is altogether Y2K compliant. Indeed, it seems to be entirely unaffected by the seemingly omnipresent Millennium Bug-thus, guaranteeing the survival of the technology regardless of what the next year brings us in the way of basic infrastructure disruptions.
Optional BOOKmark accessories allows users to open BOOK to the exact place they left it in a previous session-even if the BOOK has been closed. BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus, a single BOOKmark can be used in BOOKS by various manufacturers. Conversely, numerous BOOK markers can be used in a single BOOK if users want to store numerous views at once. The number is limited only by the number of pages in the BOOK. Users may also wish to make personal notes next to BOOK text entries with yet any one of another series of optional accessories-transferable programming tools: the Portable Erasable Nip Cryptic Intercommunication Language Stylus, known by the trade name, PENCILS. Portable, durable, and affordable, BOOK is already being hailed as a precursor of a new wave of educational and entertainment products. Also, BOOK's appeal seems so certain that thousands of content creators have committed to the platform and investors are reportedly flocking in. Look for a flood of new titles soon.

Hermeneutics Part Five

Today we consider the final major principle in interpreting the Bible.
Scripture must be interpreted according to the genre in which it is written: Poetry should not be interpreted as prose, nor should prophecy be interpreted as prose. Each style of literary genre is to be interpreted differently, not all as the same thing. This hampers the so-called literal interpretation of Scripture. Scripture is full of allusions, allegorical remarks, metaphors and other literary devices. Many students of the Bible claim to interpret the Scriptures literally, but they cannot do this consistently. For instance, John 15:1 portrays Christ as a vine, yet few (if any) interpreters would say that Jesus meant this literally. Is the difference in the text, does Jesus clue us into the metaphor in any way. Not really. He just says "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser." Throughout the Old Testament we see God portrayed in a variety of metaphors. None of these are to be taken literally with respect to God, for God is spirit and cannot be understood as anything literal or physical. He even warned against this in the Decalogue. Anthropomorphism is a frequent literary device among ancient writings and is never meant to be taken literally. Scripture may have a divine origin, but its writers were men who had to follow the rules of grammar for their social context, just as we do today. Idioms and other literary devices are not uncommon in Scripture, and we must not impose literal constraints on passages that do not have them. How do we tell the difference? We return to the previous point and let Scripture interpret Scripture. In the Olivet discourse Christ references events of catastrophic and cosmic proportions. Today most evangelical Christians understand these events to be future because they have not happened in time. However, this presents the problem of expecting a literal fulfillment of prophecy, which cannot be justified. In the book of Isaiah, the prophet records that in God's judgment on Babylon "the stars of heaven will not give their light and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth and the moon will not cause its light to shine" (Isaiah 13:10). This passage must be understood to have been fulfilled because of later revelation in the book of Daniel which references the judgment of Babylon by God through other nations (Daniel 2:36-45). Is this passage to be interpreted literally as one would passages such as Genesis 6 where God destroyed the earth with a flood? Some have suggested that events such as these are literal to God. However, this does not really answer the question. In supposing that scripture was written for contemporary hearers, it must also be supposed that they understood what was being written or said. Otherwise the very nature of Scripture as personal revelation from God is useless. Why would God go about telling us what is real to Him if it is not real to us as well? In short, even if passages such as Isaiah 13:10 are to be taken as literal to God, though not to mankind, they must have some form of reference point to mankind and interpretational value. Therefore, are they to be taken as literal to us? The direct answer is obviously not. The heavens are still around, we can look up and see them. This discussion should inform our understanding of the Olivet Discourse. Is it necessary to restrict Christ's words to literal events which were to occur? Not at all.
If we use these principles of hermeneutics carefully and faithfully, the Scriptures will open up to us with very few problems. We will not understand everything. That is part of the hermeneutical problem. We were not alive when they wrote and have a very different perception of things. The problem of translation is that it does not always catch the idioms and figures of speech that a culture like Israel or Babylon, or even Rome would have known instantly. It is perplexing to us to understand why Christ said that the Pharisees strained out a gnat to swallow a camel, but not impossible to understand it. There are some passages of Scripture that have perplexed scholars for years. The great church father Augustine once wrote concerning the "Man of Sin" in 2 Thessalonians, that he had no idea what Paul was talking about. The best efforts have yet to come to a conclusive answer to the question yet. That does not mean that no answer exists, only that we lack the tools to find it with. All of Scripture is meant to be understood. It may not be for our generation to understand that passage yet. It was not meant for the early church to understand the doctrine of justification, it was meant for those men who suffered for the Protestant Reformation to draw on the Scriptures and the insights of godly men to set down clearly the doctrine of sola fides. This is to say that we should be mindful of our task as exegetes of Scripture. It is there to say something. The depths of Scripture are deep, but they are not inpenetrable. We can exegete a passage to learn what that has to say. We can expound a passage based on our exegesis and learn what the Scriptures have to teach us there. We can systematize the passage with other similar passages to see what God would teach us regarding a similar theme. We can systematize the entire Bible and learn God's will for humanity. But we can do none of these things exhaustively, or without the aid of the Spirit. He is the primary agent in the understanding of Scripture. It is He who, as the Westminster Confession says, is the "supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we can rest" since it is He who is "speaking in the Scripture" (WCF I.x).

Foucault and Progressive Education

The "expert" phase of Progressive Education is dead, or at least dying. We have come to the end of the rope with regards to the idea that there are professionals out there who can and should do a better job at education than other, less professional folks. Well, there's a lot of double talk, but some of the more academic educators have figured this out even if the court system in California is a little behind. Instead of relying on the idea of a professional expert to show us all what we need to know to become Dewey's "knowledgeable citizens" the educators have shifted gears to Michel Foucault (1926-1984). Foucault was a French social theorist who taught that people learn through self-questioning and other-questioning, which eventually creates power. According to Foucault, "power and knowledge are joined together" because what we consider knowledge is created by those in power. The old "winners write the history books" argument comes into play here.
Foucault was a postmodern thinker who taught that in the realm of truth, there were "regimes of truth" generated by societies. Truth amounted to "the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true." Truth was, of course, relative, and was kept in place by those in power.
In Progressive education the standardized, testable, formal assessment is the only way to determine if anything is being done because the "experts" who wrote the curriculum are not present teaching the curriculum. The teacher is no longer the one who knows, but is instead a stand-in administrator for the all-knowing textbook. Foucault suggested that American education exercises a disciplinary role over children to the tune of a prison. “Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?” The challenge of Progressive education, in their own minds, is not to teach children anything, but to keep them where they are long enough so they don't leave. School systems regularly pass students from grade to grade, regardless of how they perform, because if students don't pass they will drop out. If a student drops out, the argument goes, the system has failed. So they keep the train moving regardless of the condition of those inside. So this aspect of Progressive education is dying because educators are figuring out that the plethora of tests and administrative controls actually devalue the teaching role. One author has asserted that "standardizing procedures and developing competency tests may actually create more problems than they solve."
So what is the pedagocial answer? Foucault argues that to have power, everyone must accept responsibility for knowledge. The teacher must hand over the seat of authority and become a student in the same idiotic state as the student. Both sit there sharing statements, responses, questions, and replies to enhance or argue the last reply indefinitely. "For Foucault, through these discourses or complex crisscross of thoughts and the social forces that support them, individuals come to know what is true about the world. Drawing on these created truths, they organize and control their lives." (Levitt, 47).
Levitt argues, "To encourage students to critically consider and even challenge their learning, teachers must develop their own self-images as knowledgeable individuals, interacting and learning with others. Educators’ contributions to this discourse are particularly important, as they have as much to offer as to gain."
Modern education is scary folks.

Uncle Tom's Cabin-Themes Part One

The first theme we want to consider is that of slavery. It seems almost ludicrous to discuss the theme of slavery in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Slavery would strike us as more of a subject or topic than a theme. But it is a theme. Stowe’s opinions on slavery and the institution of slavery form the very heart of this novel. As we have said before, much of Stowe’s experience with slavery came from people she met and things she saw from the North. She did not spend great amounts of time researching the various ways people kept or treated slaves. The novel itself was written from Brunswick, Maine, nearly 500 miles from Maryland, the most northern slave state in the Union.
That being said, how does slavery fit into the novel as a theme? It is obvious that Stowe thinks of slavery as an evil in the nation. Even as she recounts the gentleness of Shelby and St. Clare, she counters with the cruelty of Haley and Legree. With the exception of Tom, almost every slave we meet wants out of that circumstance in their life. They want to escape, to get to the North or Canada where they can be free. The cruelty with which Legree and Haley treat slaves overshadows the beneficence of Shelby and St. Clare because the latter are unable to make good on their intentions of freedom. Shelby and St. Clare have good intentions regarding Tom, but are incapable of carrying them out. In this way, Stowe represents every Southerner who is kind and gentle with their slaves as incompetent to do what they know should be done. No matter what good intentions a slave owner may have, the system itself is evil, and will inevitably lead to cruelty.

Hermeneutics Part Four

Today we consider the fourth major principle of biblical hermeneutics.
Scripture must be interpreted in light of its historical context: This means that the first things that must be determined with respect to a passage of Scripture is what did it mean in the historical context in which it was written and to the people it was written to. In other words, what did Paul's letter to the Romans mean to the Roman congregations when he wrote it to them? This does not negate the fact that general principles contained in Scripture apply to the whole church at all times, but it helps to weed out those portions that do not. To use a blatant case, it would be similar to only reading Romans if there were someone named Priscilla around to greet. That part does not apply to the larger church, only to those congregations to whom it was written. On the contrary, when Paul wrote that all had "turned aside," that "they have together become unprofitable" (Romans 3:12), he was making a general, categorical statement about the human race. By the same token, are we to assume that the material after the 4th chapter of Revelation had no meaning whatsoever to the first century hearers? The likelihood of that being affirmed is slim. What meaning did it have then. In light of other Scriptural writings and historical writings it is clear that the material after the seven letters deals with the divine judgment of God on Israel (chs. 4-11) and Rome (chs. 12-29) as a vindication of His people and the final presentation of the future hope of judgment on the world (chs. 20-22).

Uncle Tom's Cabin-Summary

A basic summary is all that is necessary here. The story begins at the Shelby plantation in Kentucky. Tom and Harry are the best slaves Mr. Shelby has. When Mr. Shelby cannot pay all of his debts, he is forced to sell some slaves. A slave-trader, Mr. Haley selects Tom and Harry both for selling. Harry’s mother, Eliza, cannot bear the thought of being separated from her child. Since her own husband has already made an escape, she decides to do the same. Eliza gathers Harry up and begins her escape. She stops at Tom’s cabin to try to convince him to go as well, but he decides he must be loyal to Mr. Shelby. The story then breaks into two plotlines, one following Eliza and Harry as they make their way north to Canada and another following Tom.
Eliza and Harry race up the Ohio River with Haley right behind them. They get across the Ohio River into northern territory and find shelter and sympathy from Senator Bird. Eliza and Harry are taken to a nearby Quaker community where they find Eliza’s husband George. The family finds a boat going to Canada and evades capture by men Haley has hired to find them.
Upset over losing Harry, Haley intends to sell Tom in New Orleans for the highest price he can get. Tom resigns himself to his destiny and reads his Bible as he is taken down the Mississippi River. While on the steamboat, Tom meets Eva St. Clare and becomes a guardian to her. He saves her when she falls off the ship. For this kindness, Tom is bought by Eva’s father and lives at the St. Clare plantation. Tom lives a fairly comfortable life at the St. Clare plantation, growing fonder of Eva. However, Eva becomes ill and dies leaving Mr. St. Clare in deep grief. He plans to free Tom for his many kindnesses to Eva, but never gets around to doing it legally. He is killed while trying to stop an argument between two drunken men. Once again, Tom is sold to pay debts at the St. Clare plantation.
This time he is sold to Simon Legree, a cruel plantation owner. Tom befriends Cassy, another slave on the plantation. Legree drinks heavily and beats his slaves when he is drunk. Tom often takes the worst of his beatings. Cassy and Emmeline, another slave, plan an escape from Legree’s plantation. As Tom is dying of the beatings, George Shelby, son of Tom’s original owner, appears to try to purchase Tom from Legree. Legree refuses and Tom dies in George Shelby’s arms. George buries Tom and returns to Kentucky by steamboat. There he is able to help Cassy and Emmeline, who have finally managed to escape from Legree’s plantation.

Hermeneutics Part Three

Today we consider the second major principle in biblical hermeneutics.
Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture: This principle is often referred to as the "analogy of faith." The Bible itself says that all of its parts are inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16), who is not a God of disorder (1 Corinthians 14:33). Since Scripture cannot contradict itself, we are to interpret the less clear passages in light of the more clear passages. A concrete example of this is the teachings of Jesus on divorce. Mark records only that people may not divorce (Mark 10:2-12). Matthew, on the other hand, clarifies the teaching to include circumstances where the general rule may not apply (Matthew 19:3-9). It is not as though Matthew contradicts what Mark has recorded, but only that Matthew records information that Mark did not feel his readers needed to know. A contradiction would require that Mark recorded that people may not ever divorce while Matthew would have said they must divorce in all cases. Contradictions in the true sense are not present in the Bible, contrary to popular opinion. Also there is a paradigm of interpretation that informs us concerning the understanding of the parts of the Bible. The Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament. This is required for both literary and theological reasons. In a literary sense it informs the reader of qualifications or added information to something which has come before it. Scripture is one continuous revelation from God. It is a collection of sixty-six books, but they make one book. That one book is consistent throughout and tells a singular story of redemption from cover to cover. It should not surprise us to find that God told those in the Old Testament things which were to be expounded upon and added to as the times drew to a close. Hebrews tells us that God spoke many times in diverse manners before, but now, in the New Testament, He has spoken clearly through His Son (Hebrews 1:1). A literary example of what we have been discussing would be the statement "she sang before the Queen." The word "before" is somewhat ambiguous until the writer adds "on her throne," such that the full statement reads "she sang before the Queen on her throne." To appeal, therefore, to Scripture as we must, we see the message of redemption unfolding a bit at a time until all is clear in consummation. The ambiguous "offspring" (one or many?) in God's promise to Abraham (Genesis 22:18) becomes focused on Christ (Galatians 3:16). The unidentified maiden and Immanuel of Isaiah 7:14 are seen to be the Virgin Mary and her Son (Matthew 1:23), and the anonymous Servant in Isaiah (42:1-4; 49:1-6; 52:13 - 53:12; 61:1, 2) is revealed as Jesus, the suffering and yet triumphant Savior (Matthew 12:18-21; Luke 24:44-49; 1 Peter 1:11). But the rule has a theological basis as well. We know that the revelation given by Christ is superior to that given before Him (Hebrews 1:10). We also know that He gave power to His apostles to speak for Him and to remember everything that He said (John 15:27; 14:26). We understand that the revelation of the Old Testament period was incomplete. John the Baptizer testified that He, the last of the Old Testament prophets, was merely preparing the way for one who was far superior to him (John 1:27). By this we understand that the newer revelation of the New Testament completes and is superior to the Old Testament. If the Old Testament appears to say one thing, and the New Testament says that it says another, the New Testament must be preferred. Scripture must interpret Scripture in all cases. The Old Testament must be thought of as the less clear text in all cases.

Hermeneutics Part Two

Today we will look at the first concept of Biblical Hermeneutics, Sola Scriptura
Only Scripture has the authority over the Christian’s faith and practice. Those men who sought to reclaim the Church for its central task recovered this during the Reformation of the 16th century. Scripture is the very breath (2 Timothy 3:16) and word (Hebrews 4:12) of God and should be treated with the utmost respect and honor. In the Old Testament the example is given that when the prophet speaks he speaks "Thus saith the Lord." He speaks for God. Scripture teaches that all of Scripture is to be interpreted in that manner (2 Timothy 3:16). If Scripture says something, it has been said for our benefit (Romans 15:4) and should be understood as nothing other than the very words of God himself to us (1 John 5:9). As such it carries the same weight as a direct revelation from God. A simple understanding of the nature and character of God would prove that when God speaks, as our creator, He has the right to hold us accountable to his decrees. Disobedience is sin, punishable by eternal death. We ignore sola scriptura to our own peril.