Einstein said somewhere that his theory of general relativity had to be true because it was so beautiful. When I finished DBH’s book on universalism, my first thought was that he had to be right, because what he wrote was so beautiful in its arguments, and so beautiful in its picture of God. Thank you.
That's Keats, not Yeats: Ode on a Grecian Urn. And it's a mistake to read it literally. The lines must be taken with a heavy dose of irony, given the preceding stanzas.
Well, but it is the urn that says the famous lines at the end—they're in quotation marks—& the entire point of the poem is that the urn's truth is not ours. We exist in time, with death & "woe," unlike the urn, which presents the pretty illusion of a world without such unpleasantries (although with a surplus of sexual violence). I mean, that's just what the poem is about, what it says on its surface. The lines are therefore ironic of necessity. Beauty is certainly not truth in this world. Keats was no dummy.
I always take it as the Keatsian equivalent of Yeats's Sailing to Byzantium: would that the perfect serene simplicity of a finished work of art were possible for the mortal imperfect things we are, and would that there really were no other truth than beauty...etc. Irony, but with a sincere longing.
Thanks so much. I have your first edition on Kindle and it's been liberating to see how our typical translations have been rendered more with theological presuppositions and tradition instead of unapologetic honesty and careful research.
I grew up as a rigid calvinist protestant. When Michael Heiser (RIP) argued that election is not synonymous with salvation I eventually ended up at your writings. Really loved your point in Doors of the Sea that if we cannot imagine uttering the calvinist dogma directly to those who are suffering, then surely we must never speak it at all.
It's kinda like the equivalent of "showing your work" in grade school. When after doing your long division problem you must then show the teacher how you did the equation.
Also known as: The most boring part of school.
Say David, you mind showing us the 1,000 changes you made in detail? You could just put them all in another book companion work titled "how I made the first edition better." It won't sell as well, but it'll certainly put our minds at rest.
Thank you David. Very kind of you. I sometimes think that if we just keep saying it, tweaking here and there, folks (like Rooney) who don't see it will see it. The coin will drop in the slot. But being a moral argument, I suppose it is also aesthetic at bottom. And just as there is no syllogism (which is what Rooney wants) that will communicate the beauty of a Turner, a Sorolla, or a Monet canvas, perhaps there's no syllogism that will move one into seeing why divine beauty exposes eternal hell as the worst kind of art. Not familiar terrain for Thomists I take it?
Well, Rooney fails to understand the basic dialectical point as well. Yes, he’s a moral philistine; all manualists are. But the simple logic—that even scripture identifies the loss of a soul as a natural evil, that the direct willing of a natural evil is a moral evil, that the classical metaphysics of creation leads to an eschatological collapse of any distinction between will and permission, etc.—his failure to grasp that part of the argument is the result simply of very poor philosophical gifts.
The arguments in that thread are long and complicated, but did you all get Rooney to move from the clear atrocity of infinite torment to the mere absurdity of “infinite purgation?” I’m not sure this counts as a victory, but perhaps it’s something?
Your curt nod of the head causes me to imagine you in persona Iovis on an Olympian crag, slowly nodding your assent as Thetis (or in this case Tom Belt) begs you to honor Achilles and bring ruin on the Achaean Thomists.
I ordered mine off eBay. I didn't realize until recently that they sold brand new copies of books but I'm glad I discovered it. It will be fun having the first and second editions side by side and studying the differences between them since your revisions. I hope the proceeds from the sale of your book through eBay get to you somehow. If not, I'll make sure whatever book I buy of yours in the future does. For now, I've got some good reading coming up soon!
I was intrigued by your note about "epibalon" and Peter in the Gospel of Mark, 14:72 and wondered if you had any thoughts about the possible relation with the "neaniskos" and the nakedness after leaving the "sindon". Given the proximity, Mark seems like he might be making a point about Jesus' disciples and the shame of fleeing naked, compared with the shame of Peter's denial and covering/encowling.
I was reading in the introduction of The New Testament your concern about translation by committee and that had me wondering about what, if anything, distinguishes the Septuagint, or is it susceptible to the same pitfalls, and if not, in your estimation, why not? I recognize , of course, that it is a translation in very different circumstances, but it seems likely that many of same impulses that you reasonably decry would still obtain.
Alas, we in the UK must wait until 6th May for the 2nd Ed. to be released. Speaking of scripture, would you recommend The Orthodox Study Bible as an entry into EO approaches to scriptural interpretation?
question: david, tom quotes you as saying creation is not theogony but rather theophany. however, in “you are gods”, you write “creation is already deification—is, in fact, theogony”. would appreciate clarification. btw — your writing has been profoundly transformative to my faith & understanding — i give thanks to God for you.
I look forward to my updated copy. Had your previous one next to me whenever I did a paper while getting my MTh. BTW, was there anything that jumped out at you in your second go-around. Something that changed you a bit?
Einstein said somewhere that his theory of general relativity had to be true because it was so beautiful. When I finished DBH’s book on universalism, my first thought was that he had to be right, because what he wrote was so beautiful in its arguments, and so beautiful in its picture of God. Thank you.
That's Keats, not Yeats: Ode on a Grecian Urn. And it's a mistake to read it literally. The lines must be taken with a heavy dose of irony, given the preceding stanzas.
Well, but it is the urn that says the famous lines at the end—they're in quotation marks—& the entire point of the poem is that the urn's truth is not ours. We exist in time, with death & "woe," unlike the urn, which presents the pretty illusion of a world without such unpleasantries (although with a surplus of sexual violence). I mean, that's just what the poem is about, what it says on its surface. The lines are therefore ironic of necessity. Beauty is certainly not truth in this world. Keats was no dummy.
I always take it as the Keatsian equivalent of Yeats's Sailing to Byzantium: would that the perfect serene simplicity of a finished work of art were possible for the mortal imperfect things we are, and would that there really were no other truth than beauty...etc. Irony, but with a sincere longing.
Thanks so much. I have your first edition on Kindle and it's been liberating to see how our typical translations have been rendered more with theological presuppositions and tradition instead of unapologetic honesty and careful research.
I grew up as a rigid calvinist protestant. When Michael Heiser (RIP) argued that election is not synonymous with salvation I eventually ended up at your writings. Really loved your point in Doors of the Sea that if we cannot imagine uttering the calvinist dogma directly to those who are suffering, then surely we must never speak it at all.
Re 1, might you at any point offer some kind of summary of what the main changes in this updated edition are?
No. There’s no way of summarizing them; I could only list them.
Ah, well, fair enough then.
It's kinda like the equivalent of "showing your work" in grade school. When after doing your long division problem you must then show the teacher how you did the equation.
Also known as: The most boring part of school.
Say David, you mind showing us the 1,000 changes you made in detail? You could just put them all in another book companion work titled "how I made the first edition better." It won't sell as well, but it'll certainly put our minds at rest.
Thanks.
Thank you David. Very kind of you. I sometimes think that if we just keep saying it, tweaking here and there, folks (like Rooney) who don't see it will see it. The coin will drop in the slot. But being a moral argument, I suppose it is also aesthetic at bottom. And just as there is no syllogism (which is what Rooney wants) that will communicate the beauty of a Turner, a Sorolla, or a Monet canvas, perhaps there's no syllogism that will move one into seeing why divine beauty exposes eternal hell as the worst kind of art. Not familiar terrain for Thomists I take it?
Well, Rooney fails to understand the basic dialectical point as well. Yes, he’s a moral philistine; all manualists are. But the simple logic—that even scripture identifies the loss of a soul as a natural evil, that the direct willing of a natural evil is a moral evil, that the classical metaphysics of creation leads to an eschatological collapse of any distinction between will and permission, etc.—his failure to grasp that part of the argument is the result simply of very poor philosophical gifts.
The arguments in that thread are long and complicated, but did you all get Rooney to move from the clear atrocity of infinite torment to the mere absurdity of “infinite purgation?” I’m not sure this counts as a victory, but perhaps it’s something?
Your curt nod of the head causes me to imagine you in persona Iovis on an Olympian crag, slowly nodding your assent as Thetis (or in this case Tom Belt) begs you to honor Achilles and bring ruin on the Achaean Thomists.
Not sure how I should feel about being compared to a sea nymph, but OK.
Hey, I mean, I at least intend it as a compliment. Also, hi, Tom! Long time.
Hi David!
I took it as a compliment as well. She had her parts to play too! ;o)
Elpenor.
I ordered mine off eBay. I didn't realize until recently that they sold brand new copies of books but I'm glad I discovered it. It will be fun having the first and second editions side by side and studying the differences between them since your revisions. I hope the proceeds from the sale of your book through eBay get to you somehow. If not, I'll make sure whatever book I buy of yours in the future does. For now, I've got some good reading coming up soon!
I was intrigued by your note about "epibalon" and Peter in the Gospel of Mark, 14:72 and wondered if you had any thoughts about the possible relation with the "neaniskos" and the nakedness after leaving the "sindon". Given the proximity, Mark seems like he might be making a point about Jesus' disciples and the shame of fleeing naked, compared with the shame of Peter's denial and covering/encowling.
I was reading in the introduction of The New Testament your concern about translation by committee and that had me wondering about what, if anything, distinguishes the Septuagint, or is it susceptible to the same pitfalls, and if not, in your estimation, why not? I recognize , of course, that it is a translation in very different circumstances, but it seems likely that many of same impulses that you reasonably decry would still obtain.
Alas, we in the UK must wait until 6th May for the 2nd Ed. to be released. Speaking of scripture, would you recommend The Orthodox Study Bible as an entry into EO approaches to scriptural interpretation?
I would recommend it as an object for propping up an uneven table, and for no other purpose.
I think you’re being unfair David: I’m sure another purpose could be kindling for cold winter evening fires.
Ooh, are there lots of new footnotes? I bought the first edition mainly for the footnotes and the post-script.
What would “lots” be? The footnotes have been revised.
question: david, tom quotes you as saying creation is not theogony but rather theophany. however, in “you are gods”, you write “creation is already deification—is, in fact, theogony”. would appreciate clarification. btw — your writing has been profoundly transformative to my faith & understanding — i give thanks to God for you.
Two different contexts. Creation is not theogony for God. It is however theogony for creatures-becoming-God.
makes perfect sense. thank you!
I look forward to my updated copy. Had your previous one next to me whenever I did a paper while getting my MTh. BTW, was there anything that jumped out at you in your second go-around. Something that changed you a bit?
<3
I’ve thought of doing my own. But that’s just a slippery slope to doing the whole Septuagint.
Not really.