Friday, February 12, 2010
Biblical Style
(4)
I am unable to detect any Rad (thump) at the moment. Bizarre. Does Gerash think of me as his 'psychiatrist'? Yeesh.
Kootch has hit the sack at 1845. Buzzing. I'm learning not to use 'tabs.' Tabs tend to fuck things up when you're blogging. Use 'windows' only:
'Growing up Jewish was a sad event for me. I always felt like something was missing.'
(This is the first sentence of this post. Something was indeed missing: his male foreskin.) (Alright! I have figured out how to do links in IE8!)
The author says that he was struck by 'the Jewishness of The Gospel of Saint Matthew.' Interesting. He must have read the gospels in sequence. In my opinion he was struck by the 'sacred language' of the gospels. Judeo-Christian religious writings are apparently written in a style which I call, 'sacred language.' 'Sacred Language' is very different from the many and various colloquial languages into which 'The Bible' has been translated. 'Sacred language' imparts a unique mystique to passages so enwritten. Such passages would be 'blah' or absurd when written in the modern colloquial style, but would acquire a certain mystique upon translation. Here is an example from the Old Testament:
'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, and God's spirit hovered over the water.'
Huh? Formless void? Deep? Water?
Matthew, on the other hand, says that,
'This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His mother, Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they came to be together (before they fucked the first time) she was found to be with child (knocked up).' Bafrolitonicus. Ratness of fuckness. Mary, the 'mother of god,' was a slut?
As you begin to read this bizarre book you begin to understand that 'language and style' are the essense of an essentially meaningless 'narrative.' Language and meaning are secondary. Style is everything. The Bible is a 'book of style.' Religious style. The translators of The Bible understood this, and as a result they wrote from the point of view of 'stylists.' As a result, The Bible is all style, no substance.
Prove me wrong if you can.
I am unable to detect any Rad (thump) at the moment. Bizarre. Does Gerash think of me as his 'psychiatrist'? Yeesh.
Kootch has hit the sack at 1845. Buzzing. I'm learning not to use 'tabs.' Tabs tend to fuck things up when you're blogging. Use 'windows' only:
'Growing up Jewish was a sad event for me. I always felt like something was missing.'
(This is the first sentence of this post. Something was indeed missing: his male foreskin.) (Alright! I have figured out how to do links in IE8!)
The author says that he was struck by 'the Jewishness of The Gospel of Saint Matthew.' Interesting. He must have read the gospels in sequence. In my opinion he was struck by the 'sacred language' of the gospels. Judeo-Christian religious writings are apparently written in a style which I call, 'sacred language.' 'Sacred Language' is very different from the many and various colloquial languages into which 'The Bible' has been translated. 'Sacred language' imparts a unique mystique to passages so enwritten. Such passages would be 'blah' or absurd when written in the modern colloquial style, but would acquire a certain mystique upon translation. Here is an example from the Old Testament:
'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, and God's spirit hovered over the water.'
Huh? Formless void? Deep? Water?
Matthew, on the other hand, says that,
'This is how Jesus Christ came to be born. His mother, Mary was betrothed to Joseph; but before they came to be together (before they fucked the first time) she was found to be with child (knocked up).' Bafrolitonicus. Ratness of fuckness. Mary, the 'mother of god,' was a slut?
As you begin to read this bizarre book you begin to understand that 'language and style' are the essense of an essentially meaningless 'narrative.' Language and meaning are secondary. Style is everything. The Bible is a 'book of style.' Religious style. The translators of The Bible understood this, and as a result they wrote from the point of view of 'stylists.' As a result, The Bible is all style, no substance.
Prove me wrong if you can.
