Philrel

PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION

This is defined as philosophical exploration of religious beliefs and practices.
Religion impinges on every area of human life, and it has to be investigated by all scholarly disciplines:

history/anthropology/sociology/psychology/philosophy of religion.

The basic science of studying this subject is phenomenology of religion; it gathers data from the religions, describing and explaining the phenomena (the technical term for the things in a religion), constructing typologies, and comparing (‘comparative religion’) the types of things across the range of religions, but without making value judgements.

Defining Religion

A system of symbols; a religion is like a language, which breaks up into dialects, or sects in the case of religions; these can become new religions.

Analysis of Religions

(A religion is a set of sacred beliefs, practices, objects, and persons)
Persons Traditions Writings Times Places Rites Objects Doctrines Rules

Philosophy of religion is where the question can be asked: Is it true?
But don’t expect a yes/no answer.

When logical positivism ruled philosophy, religious statements were judged to be non-sense, meaningless, and religious beliefs were absurd. When I had to study philosophy of religion in the 1960s, it was a battlefield, with A.J. Ayer and Antony Flew firing the cannons at me. The bombardment was eventually silenced, and the attacks *flew away into the*air.
Still, there were lessons learned about tidying up religious language.

Arguments for the existence of God.

Ontology (we have an idea of a perfect being, so it must exist; unicorns too?)
Cosmology (the universe exists, someone must have brought it into being)
Teleology (the marvellous universe must have a purpose and a maker)
Morality (based on commandments, so who gave these commands?)
Thaumatology (miracles show that God is there, and acting)
Experience (religious experiences, if you have them, put you in touch with God)

Defining Divinity (What is God?)

Monotheism (God is One; there is no God but God)
Polytheism (God is many; a multitude of deities)
Polymorphomonotheism (God is one, but in many forms; Trinity or 330 million)
[I made that word up; you might see it elsewhere as polymorphic monotheism]
Pantheism (God is all; everything together constitutes God)
Panentheism [God is the universe, and more; in it and beyond it)
[I usually take the most paradoxical option, but can not decide which]

Belief Positions

Theism (belief in Divinity; all the above 5 forms go under this heading)
Deism (God wound up the universe and lets it unwind with no interference)
Agnosticism (we do not know, can not know, whether God exists, but we care]
Atheism [to Hell with God, but actually neither of those concepts exist)

Divine Attributes

Omnipotence (God Almighty!) Omniscience (Big Know-all) Omnipresence
God is SPIRIT (like wind, breath; but Mormons allow God to have a body) LOVE


JESUS GAVE THE GOLDEN RULE: DO UNTO OTHERS BEFORE THEY DO ONE TO YOU.

Brian Colless PhD ThD

I have no religious beliefs; but I am an advocate for everyone's religion (unless it includes female circumcision).

My ultimate point was that if anyone wants to take the label atheist, or theist, the qualification agnostic must precede it
(Graham Greene was an agnostic Catholic, for example.) We must all be agnostics.

However, I accept that the universe is there (not an illusion), and that it is alive and kicking; and I want to have a loving relationship with it.

I am very keen to engage in Rolf's wrestling match with God (as set forth in Genesis).

In the beginning God created humankind in his own image.
Or: Humans created God in their own image?
(But remember: male and female he created them in his own image. (Gn 1)
This is what really happened:
In the beginning humans created their (mental) image of God in their own image (male and female).

GOLIATH

Goliath of Gath lieth down and dieth, 
but now riseth again

Lately (indeed, constantly)  I have been spending a lot of time on attempting to decipher ancient Semitic inscriptions (Canaanite and Hebrew). Because I am known through my CRYPTCRACKER website, people send me pictures of their  prized antiquities, hoping I will be able to read the writing on them. For instance, there is a mountain in the Negev desert in Israel named Har Karkom (Mount Saffron) which is  a candidate for being the  true Mount Horeb (or Mount Sinai) where Moses and later Elijah (properly Eliyahu. "Yahu is my God") communed with God (full name YHWH). Being conversant with the proto-alphabet I can read the markings on several stones along the track to the summit (and its cave, where Eliyahu heard God's "still small voice", or whatever): they say YH, that is YaHu (as in Hallelu Yah). So the name of the God who was worshiped there is written all over it.

Another object that has been brought to my attention is a bronze cup (apparently from the Bronze Age, before 1200 BCE) with a Canaanite inscription, which I see as including the words "bronze cup"; it was found in Jamaica, and this would put the Phoenicians (= Canaanites) in America more than 2000 years before Columbus, and long before the Vikings. Their presence would account for the sudden appearance of writing, cylinder seals, and pyramids in central America in the Bronze Age. Two inscriptions from a silver mine at Kongsberg in Norway (Viking country!) are also possibly Canaanite. The Phoenicians certainly circumnavigated Africa around 600 BCE.

But I am supposed to be talking about Philistines, the people who came from the Aegean Sea and settled on the coast of Canaan, and this territory eventually became known as Palestine (named after them by the Romans).

Two inscribed pottery shards from archeological sites in Israel have been published in recent years, and various scholars have been trying to interpret the texts on them. It has occurred to me that both of them might refer to the giant Goliath, and this is not impossible, since one comes from the Philistine town Gath (the hometown of Goliath the Gittite) and the other from Khirbet Qeiyafa (apparently the place called Sha`arayim in the Bible), a fortress overlooking the valley of Elah, where David confronted Goliath.

One day, as I was leaving Steve's bulk foods barn on Albert Street in my little city, I met for the first time a man whose story I have been following for many years, namely Ahmed Zaoui (alias Ahmad Zawi). I gave him a Salaam greeting, and in the course of our friendly conversation I told him I was working on ancient documents mentioning Goliath. He has had a David versus Goliath experience in taking on the New Zealand security and immigration authorities (remember, David always wins); if he had been carrying a million dollars to invest in the country he might have been welcomed (truly), but he was put in prison; eventually he was committed to the care of Catholic Christians (and I remember that the Prophet Muhammad enjoyed the hospitality of monks on his caravan expeditions for his employer, his beloved wife Khadijah). Ahmed reminded me that Goliath, as Jâlût, is known in the Islamic tradition.

Goliath appears in the Qur'an (Surah 2:249-251).  So I opened up my big edition of the Arabic Scripture, with translation and notes by `Abdullah Yusuf `Ali, and here is my abridged rendering of the passage (as I was typing this out, by chance two women were singing in Arabic on the radio, from WOMAD in Taranaki):

"When they (the Israelites) advanced to meet Jâlût and his forces ... they routed them, by the will of God; and Daud (David) slew Jâlût; and God gave him the kingship and wisdom."

My interpretation of the text on the ostracon from Khirbet Qeiyafa shows similarities with this:

(1) The cursing of the `Anak against the servant of God:
(2) The servant of God has judged the warrior; Yah has judged
(3) Goliath; David is the master [evermore?].
(4) I rise up and  together we raise up the king;
(5) I raise up the people of my servant for his righteousness.

That is my drawing of it; photographs of the original can be viewed here.

Note carefully that there is quite a lot of guesswork in reading the faded ink, and deciding which letters are which; thus there are five examples of 'Aleph (Greek Alpha) with three different shapes or stances. Also, even if my reading of the Hebrew letters is correct, the words are not separated by spaces but run along breathlessly. Various interpretations are  possible: the first word could be 'L "god" or "unto " or "not"; if it is 'LT it could mean "goddess" not "cursing" (my choice).

In December 2011,  after studying this text for  a couple of years, and wondering why the divine name YHWH was missing, I finally realized that the name of God was hiding in the top right corner. My drawing shows a simple cross (+ = T) but it has more strokes to it (it is a reversed E, the sign for the sound /h/, originally representing the head and arms of a person celebrating, and eventually becoming E in the Greek and Roman alphabets). So we have YH, as in Hallelu-Yah, "Celebrate Yah(weh)".

 The Anaks (`Anaqim) were a 'tribe' of giants in ancient  Canaan/Palestine; Joshua had largely exterminated them when the Israelites took over the Promised Land, but some survived in Ashdod, Gaza, and Gath (Joshua 11:21-22), and it has been assumed that Goliath of Gath was one of them.

Here we seem to have (according to my interpretation) a record of a message from God (an oracle) through an unnamed prophet.

The first line is the title of the piece, referring to the cursing of the `Anaq; Goliath did curse David, when they met (1 Samuel 17:43); and David was known as "my servant" who saved his people from the Philistines and their other enemies (2 Samuel 3:18). Line 2 states that this servant has "judged' someone (meaning that he has caused God's punishment to strike that person), and God himself (YH, in the top right corner) has also judged this Anak. Line 3 shows that this was Goliath (GLYT), and David (DWD) is the servant of God who has defeated him. God speaks in the first person in lines 4 and 5, promising to work together with his servant.

The king who is mentioned but not named would be Saul, who was afraid to go out and face Goliath, but here he is raised up and his morale is restored, together with the army of Israel, who pursued the Philistines back to Gath (1 Samuel 17:50-58). Saul became envious of the popularity that David acquired, and made attempts on his life. Psalm 18 is attributed to David, "the servant of the Lord", and said to have been composed at the time "when the Lord delivered him from all his enemies and from Saul".

THIS IS THE ONLY MENTION OF DAVID FROM HIS OWN TIME, OUTSIDE THE BIBLE, AND SO IT IS AN IMPORTANT DISCOVERY, ESTABLISHING HIS EXISTENCE, AND ALSO CONFIRMING THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE STORY ABOUT DAVID AND GOLIATH.

The Gath ostracon  seems to record a lament for the fallen hero of the Philistines (called GLWT in their dialect of Canaanite, apparently):

"Woe, GLWT; and you have perished.
'YGLWT / WSPT

Note this curious detail: the head of Goliath is separated from his body; the G (a boomerang) stands above the L ('supralinear'), not preceding it on the line of script, keeping his head apart from his body, so that they might not be reunited, with the headbone connected to the neckbone, and the giant rearing up on his hindlegs again. Just a thought.

However, the archaeologists who discovered the document reject the W and the Y as not part of the inscription; they are not actually 'inscribed'; they are accidental marks (made by plant roots, or the excavater's tools) not intentional letters; and the proposed SP is more likely to be another L, and not to be broken up into two parts.

The inscription thus seems to give two words or names (reading from right to left): 
'ALWT / WLT
The first of these could be, nevertheless, an original form of the name which came out in Hebrew as Goliath. The second might be the name of his father.

For my fuller account of the scholarship that has been applied to these documents, go to:

http://cryptcracker.blogspot.com/ Two Goliath Ostraca, and Qeiyafa Ostracon

And most recently and thoroughly:

https://sites.google.com/site/collesseum/qeiyafa-ostracon-1

See Michelangelo's painting of David beheading Goliath, in the Sistine Chapel.

Phillis Wheatley (1753-1784) an African American poet (the first to be published) composed a heroic poem entitled Goliath of Gath.

In Gershwin's opera Porgy and Bess, the spiv known as Sportin' Life exclaims in a parody of the Afro-American 'spiritual' song:
De t'ings dat yo' li'ble to read in de Bible, it ain't necessarily so. Li'l David was small, but oh my! he fought big Goliath who lay down an' dieth....

Then there was the irreverent NZ camp song of the 1950s:
"Goliath of Garth with his helmet of brass (braath)...
and all Israel shouted: Goliath is dead."

OLD WINE

Fossicking about in old abandoned inscriptions (and many of them are located at and in old mines, and one from Sinai actually speaks of using a pickax to inscribe its words) I frequently strike gold. It has suddenly hit me that I seem to have discovered the earliest-known instance of the word "wine"; it occurs in a proto-alphabetic graffito from the Wadi el-Hol in the western desert of Egypt, near ancient Thebes. It is written simply with the letters WN (no vowels are supplied) but it would have been pronounced the same as English wine (wayn). The inscription dates from the 19th century BCE. It is on a rockface, and it indicates where the West Semitic goddess `Anat was worshiped with eating and drinking. The language is Canaanian (Proto-Hebrew) and eventually the W became Y in Hebrew (yayin); an example of it from later times is found in a riddle on an ostracon from Beth-Shemesh (Wine Whine, Carousing in the wine bar with a maid).

DIVINE EARACHE

Lately I have been reading for the second time one of the two books I have on cryptcracking (the other is by Simon Singh, see code cracking): Richard Belfield, Can you crack the Enigma Code? (Orion pb 2007). It describes many unsolved cases of encryption: the Voynich manuscript (possibly a work of Roger Bacon the 13th-century Franciscan scientist and cryptographer?); the 18th-century Shugborough monument (imitating Poussin's shepherds of Arcady, without the motto ET IN ARCADIA EGO, but with the enigmatic inscription
D     O.U.O.S.V.A.V    M); the Beale papers (19th century, there's gold in them thar hills in Virginia) possibly devised by Edgar Allan Poe, whose story The Gold Bug is one that I struggled with when I was very young, but it must have set me on this "cryptcracking" path (though I have never coveted gold).
   The title suggests that Belfield will talk about the World War II German Enigma Machine, but it is only mentioned in a sentence on page 17, depicted on a colour plate between pages 84 and 85, and this would be because the Enigma code was broken by the tireless workers at Bletchley Park (p. 16), and this book is "a celebration of those codes that have defeated human ingenuity" , even though Poe had declared in 1841 that "human ingenuity cannot concoct a cipher which human ingenuity cannot resolve".
   The Enigma that Belfield does examine is Edward Elgar's Enigma Variations (the underlying theme is still a mystery, though my proposed solution is presented here, as The Elgar regal enigma).
Note that as I write this I am listening to Bach's Mass in B Minor, for inspiration, since it is now known that this opus has a numerological and cryptographical system running through it.
   In my capacity as Cryptcracker, I receive mysterious inscriptions from interested readers of my site, and I trust that they have not forged them. But now a brand-new enigma book has been sent to me by its author (not an alleged medieval manuscript, as in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose):
even gods ears ache: poems by john patterson
(steel roberts aotearoa 2011).
 John Patterson (patto@inspire.net.nz)
   This particular John Patterson describes himself as a "retired philosophy lecturer", and he reminds us about his books on Maori/ Chinese/ environmental philosophy (all of which I possess and have studied). We were in the same department at Massey University in Palmerston North; his teaching-subject (in case you skipped over that bit) was philosophy (including logic and critical thinking) and mine was religion (illogical and uncritical). And here he is speaking in the name of god/ God! We shared a lot of laughter, and I remember one of his significant and quite innocent pronouncements intending no offence (made after reading the Qur'an from cover to cover): In the Bible the wages of sin is death, in the Koran the wages of death is sin [so to speak, alcohol is not forbidden in Paradise, and there are other seductive delights].
   When the little volume arrived, I was going to a funeral, so I took it along and recited aloud some choice verses from it, to my driver, my wife Helen.
   Let's start our analysis of the work with the sample on the back cover [51.4]:
take your time jack 
dont read this poem 
till your eyes find   
some hint some clue
   So, no capitals, no punctuation, and at the heart of the text its form is revealed as "this four word four line grid" [29.4]. And we are invited to look for clues to solve the mystery. Is this a cryptic clue: "code name zero zero four" [59.2].
   Incidentally, it is branded as an "anti poem poem book" [31.3]. The last words are: "stay here poet last  time your feet went down that road they came back very sore" [64.4]. Curiouser and curiouser. Well we are curious to know whether "last time" refers to his previous poetry book: cant find rest room (nagare press 1991), since he tells us this new one may be regarded as the second edition of that one (see 15.3 for that rest room).
   Each verse seems unrelated to the others in its set. One wonders whether each stanza was originally on a separate slip, in order, but a rogue wind blew them into an entirely new (and not logical) sequence. Perhaps it is  the reader's task to reconstruct this great edifice as an orderly pack of cards (though not a house of cards). He seems to say so: "card game pick card" [60.2].
   Anyway, the pattern of the poems is outlined thus:
lamp post poem went
down page like that
with each word over
last word then stop [54.4]
   There are 56 poems in the collection, each having four verses comprising four lines with four words.
   Probe deeper and you will find that the 56 x 4 verses (total 224, and 2+2=4) and the 224 x 4 lines (total 896) have 896 x 4 words (total 3584) and all 3584 of them are (by hook or by crook [400m, hada, itll] and forget apostrophes) four-letter words. However, the most notorious word in that category (which begins with the same letter as four) never comes up; sex only rears its head as make love [64.3].
    John was/is a mathematician, but his numerical system is here strictly limited: four and five and nine are the only permitted factors:
"shes bout five foot / four five five slim / deep blue eyes long / dark hair good legs" [12.2]; "nine mile" [14.20]; "back then when four  plus four made nine  folk took life easy  they were only kids" [55.1]. However, nought (0) makes an appearance in a profound problem: "zero over zero does  that make more than  zero dont know less  than zero dont know" [33.1].
   Mystic: from his Taoist practice (txting, txting): "mpty your head mpty  your mind each idea  will seep away sink  down past your toes" [33.2].
   Prophet: Not always with keen clarity: "mine eyes have seen  know that song mine  eyes have seen seen  what what came next" [42.1]. Sometimes lacks certainty: 'will that chap they  call lord come back  will that chap they  call king ever rule" [58.4]. However, there is certainty with regard to ecology: "axes bite thud sink  deep into soft wood  this tree will fall  tiny eggs will drop" [55.4]; "when that acid rain  gets here your skin  will burn away  even your soul will peel" [59.1]
  Theòlogist: deity is mentioned often, in a polytheistic fashion: "they have many gods  demi gods semi gods  hemi semi demi gods  many many many gods" [43.3]. On holy war: "army wins wars with  gods help plus guns" [12.3]; but "gods side lost this time" [25.4].
   John Patterson the practical person shines here: "your left foot goes  into your left sock  your left sock goes  into your left shoe" [61.2]. This great sage taught me how to tie up my shoelaces; my mother had ingrained a slippery granny-knot into my subconscious mind; John made me think what I was doing and I changed to a solid reef-knot (as I had learned in the Balmain Boy Scout brigade), and now I don't need to put another knot on top to keep the main one from untying itself.
   Boating: always one for "messing about in boats": "wide days warm days  sail boat days with sara" [52.1]; "boat plan nine foot  long four foot wide  tiny gaff sail uses  oars when wind dies" [21.1]; "fold that edge back  over this bolt rope  then hold them down  sail will stay flat" [36.2]; "head sail ties onto  fore stay main sail  ties onto boom then  that ties onto mast" [22.3]. You  can put these bits into the correct order yourself.
   Moviegoer: I have met John at the cinema at times, even at an opera movie: "seen that marx bros  film yeah well when  shes hada skin full  pams just like that" [56.4]; an allusion to A Night at the Opera? or the woman in the bath with Harpo in the first one I ever saw (Duck Soup?).
   There is a soap opera running through it all: "some half wits told  anna that kens been  seen with mary reid  poor kens real wild" [33.3]. It is a love story: "love your legs love  your arms love your  ears love your eyes  even love your nose" [17.4]
   Music: the title of the collection is found  in the first poem [9.4]; I sing in a five-part choir, and the extra unwritten part is often unwittingly provided by me: "when they yell that  five part hymn with  loud bass drum beat  even gods ears ache".
   Maaoritanga: as noted already, John ("Hone") has a deep appreciation of Maaori culture. His namesake in history is apostrophized: "chop down that flag pole hone heke" [58.1]. He mentions moko (tatoo) [64.2], and a playful "mock moko mark" [9.1, the first stanza in the book].
   Chinese: I will simply say that his every word is like a Chinese character, square script, and his syntax is simple, as in Chinese.
   Artist: "He also tries to paint". A striking example of his art is a large painting made up of little coloured squares (pixels); being a proper work of art it is meaningless viewed up close; but from the other end of the long corridor of our university department (now called the School of Etc Etc) the philosopher Bernard Russell meets our gaze (he is still there, John, and the colours have not faded). As an art critic, he opines: "paul klee ... cant even draw" [63.2]. The only illustration (a miniature on the back cover) is a cunningly constructed photographic portrait of the artist as a visionary poet (looking sideways into the future) and a pensive philosopher (with his thinking cap on) in an ecological setting (green grow the rushes).
   Let's try this hypothesis: John's poetry is created in the same way as his pictures, from small squares, which taken together give a complete view of life on Earth.
   The author is momentarily despondent: "they wont read this  dont even hope they  will itll fall upon  shut eyes dead eyes" [33.4]. I trust this reader has shown that his eyes have not been closed in the process. But I should have given a health warning at the outset: I could write a book about this book.
 E Hone, kia kaha, kia ora.

ELECTION QUESTIONS

Who put the Epsom Salts in the sugar bowl at the absolutely private but wholly public unholy tea-party, and caused them to get runs rather than win votes? ("It's not cricket!")
    Whose silly idea was it to have a tea-party when the term brings to mind the American extremist Tea Party (who have caused all the problems of the world), and also Wonderland's tea-party, which Alice (representing the populace) attended though uninvited? ("No room, no room!" "It's the stupidest tea-party I ever was at in all my life!")
    The Mad Hatter and the Mad March Hare talked about inconsequential matters, like ravens (portenders of doom) and writing desks (read: computers and blogs), twinkling bats (again, it's not cricket), but did the two Aucks discuss the future of the BANKS (such as the Kiwi Bank) and the KEY to winning power by selling power companies (any advance on 49%? 99%? Going, going, gone!) and dividing the wealth among the deserving poor, such as plutocrats and politicians, but not proletarians and poverty-stricken people (defrauded by finance companies), who would only squander it? ("How I wonder what you're at.")
   Was the subject of exchanging seats (which was basic to this and the Mad Hatter's party) even mentioned at all? (All move up one, but the person at the head of the table always gets the clean cup.)
   Was it necessary to summon the police force to apprehend the eavesdroppers at the open but shut conversation, starting with the sleepy and forgetful dormouse? ( 'I wasn't asleep,' he said in a hoarse, feeble voice: `I heard every word you fellows were saying.' "Off with their heads!")
    What are we to think about the motives and motions of those who would rule over us? ("You're nothing but a pack of cards!")
    Does the "first past the post" election system provide (as in Rob Muldoon's glorious reign, and Roger Douglas's  regime of terror, not to mention Ruth's ruthless period of slashing and burning) strong government or dictatorial tyranny? (`Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said.`No, no!' said the Queen. `Sentence first--verdict afterwards.' 'How dreadfully savage!' exclaimed Alice.)
     Can the Australian system for the lower house (the upper house is chosen proportionally), whereby preferences are counted if the first candidate past the post has not attained at least half of the votes, bring stable government? ('I vote the young lady tells us a story.' ) Well the lady who leads the Labor government in Australia has a coalition government, with the balance of power held by an independent dormouse; and the Liberal Party has usually needed the Country Party (now the National Party) to form an alliance government. And it would be illegal here but every party in every electorate has a member standing outside each polling booth handing out cards giving instructions on which numbers to put in the boxes, because you have to rank the candidates, or your voting paper is invàlid.

    `And they drew all manner of things--everything that begins with an M--' (such as memory and "muchness", including MMP?)
Does the "mixed member proportional" system give everyone a fair go, and make them feel that at least one of their two votes has not only been counted but has actually counted? (`Why not?' said the March Hare. Alice was silent.)
    But MMP has some little anomalies, and the Epsom Salts tea-party has highlighted them.

   Well, now, I trust that has made things clearer. (Alice sighed wearily. `I think you might do something better with the time,' she said, `than waste it in asking riddles that have no answers.' )

ELECTION 2011

ELECTION IN NEW WONDERLAND

Before the previous NZ election in 2008 I commented on the promise made by the National Party that they would not sell public assets in the first term (political manifesto). I asked whether this meant the first school term, or university semester, or three-year term of government. Well, it turns out that the pragmatic John Key has kept his word and not interfered with Kiwi Bank (he did not buy it with his own fortune and call it the Key Wee Bank, as I had suggested) or sold the power companies.

However, despite assurances that taxes would not rise, there was an increase to 15% in the only tax that everyone pays (GST, the Goods and Services, the one that is often double taxation, when it is added to local council rates, for example). For some of the wealthy individuals this is the only tax they ever pay (they have diabolically clever accountants who show them how to avoid all the other taxes). Unfortunately it is a heavier burden for those who are not rich than for those who have heaps of money with which to make necessary purchases, particularly food and clothing.

Now, at the 2011 election, the subject of asset sales is on the agenda ("things to be done"), but it will only be "partial"; only a part of each power company will be sold, a mere 49%, and the proceeds will be used to fund the education and health systems, so that we can ease up on borrowing from foreign sources and reduce our deplorable debt. However, the deal is said to be that ordinary New Zealanders (who certainly need to save more) will be the investors who will purchase the shares, and Mâori are already  lining up at the counter (but they would rather see the assets remain in public ownership). It sounds reasonable, but a majority of citizens oppose the idea; it seems like selling half your house to pay off the mortgage, and then having the buyers live in that part of your home without paying rent, or watching them rent it out to others, who would not take proper care of it. We have not forgotten the mess that was made when the railways were sold.

On the other hand, there are some good reasons for selling the power corporations off completely and quickly, and both are related to the sun. First, solar flares are threatening to damage power lines (as they did to telegraph lines and machines in the middle of the 19th century), plunging the world into darkness and frigidity, and general powerlessness. Second, householders should be making their own arrangements and drawing on the solar energy that is poured forth every day from that great nuclear powerhouse in the sky. Smart people in Australia are able to sell their surplus of home-made electricity to the power corporations, feeding it into the national grid.

After the previous election,  I wrote about John Key being another public figure in NZ history who is Jewish, and I wished him well as prime minister. He has impressed us as a leader. I have just seen him being interviewed about the National government's work for Pasifika people. He knew what the facts are and he presented them lucidly and caringly. But the irony is that he was doing it on TVNZ7, which he is going to close down shortly and abruptly. He is the smiling human face for the National Party, but behind him atrocities are being committed.


The Mad Hatter's tea party has not helped the campaign, with the Hatter and the mad March Hare talking nonsense in a public place, and expecting privacy ("No room!" they said to Alice), and an eavesdropping device disguised as a dormouse was shoved into the teapot. Remember, the original hatter's tea party also involved an exchange of seats! Worse, this Alice in Wonderland scenario (Off with their heads, the Queen said to her police force) will associate the National Party in voters' minds with the crazy American extremists of the Tea Party.

We thought we were heading for good strong government under genial John Key, such as we enjoyed in Rob Muldoon's glorious reign. The National Party, like the All Blacks in the Rugby Cup competition, has been ahead on the points table all the way, but the fear is spreading that they will "choke" in the final test.

So then, we might have a coalition government, and the best alliance would surely be the two large parties, National and Labour together. When it came to the point of selling some assets, because food is not involved Labour would allow National to impose 15% G&S Tax (where have we seen that combination G&S before?).  Labour would also insist that a 15% capital gains tax (or similar) should be paid by the buyers. Imagine all those billions of dollars going into consolidated revenue, and all the wonderful services the government could provide with them. The great majority of the people would be pleased with their politicians. It would truly be one of those win-win situations, if both Labour and National win the election together.

DATING

If that headline has led you to think you can find the great love of your life here, I am sorry to say that you are tuned to the wrong channel. I am sure that the photograph beside this essay will convince you that there is nothing for you here, unless you are interested in the way we measure time on calendars; that is what I mean by dating. But reading what follows will be like being on a "date"; you will need to keep your wits about you and concentrate hard on what is being said (though there will be no body language or subliminal signals to distract you).

In November it is customary to observe Armistice Day on the 11th of this month; it now goes by the name Remembrance Day (since 1946); in North America (since 1954) it is a holiday and it is known as Veterans' Day (on 11/11, and as in the USA's 9/11 for the eleventh of September, the month is the first figure, which is quite illogical). All these names indicate that it commemorates war and fallen soldiers; in fact it stems from the signing of the armistice (armistitium, "arms standstill") at the end of World War I, at 11 a.m. (ante meridiem, "before midday") on the 11th day of November 1918. An annual silence of II minutes should occur (that's two in Roman numerals, not eleven, 11 or XI). In 2011, the 11 o'clock national news on Radio New Zealand was preceded by a moment of quietness, but the vehicular traffic roared on out in the streets. By contrast, on the first Tuesday in November, everything stops in Australasia for the running and broadcasting of the Melbourne Cup horse-race; my bike and I then have the road to ourselves, as I do not gamble.

The 11th of November has even more significance for me, as it is the anniversary of the birth of my Kiwi granddaughter Amanda Colless  (her elder brother Adam was born on Waitangi Day, 6th of February, so it is easy for me to remember their birthdays; for the record, Nigel and Dawn are her devoted parents). A machine which thinks it can think (it is in America on the other side of the date line) has put the wrong day and date on this message;  I am actually writing this on the 18th of November in the year 2011 A.D. (that is, "in the year [anno] of the Lord [Domini] two thousand and eleven", or "twenty-eleven", short for twenty hundred and eleven). Amanda has had her 15th birthday celebrations (spread over a dozen days, as with Jesus and the twelve days of Christmas) and right now she is undergoing a surgical operation. Some other person will be having their birthday today, so my best wishes go out to them.

This year, Amanda's birthday could be codified neatly as 11/11/11, to be deciphered as "the eleventh day of the eleventh month of the eleventh year of the twenty-first century, which is the first century of the third millennium of the current era". I refrain from saying "the 21st century A.D.", which makes no sense if anno Domini really means "in the year of the Lord"; but if it could be construed as "from the Lord's year" (from the year in which Jesus of Nazareth was born) it might work. The opposite of A.D. is B.C., which is not Latin but English, an abbreviation of "before Christ". However, there is now an international and inter-religion convention whereby we write CE (not Church of England but "Common Era") instead of A.D., and B.C.E. (before the Common Era") in place of "Before Christ" (which is not acceptable to Jews). Christians could still read it as "Christian Era", if they like. "Common Era" means "according to the dating system held in common". I prefer to say "current era".

Traditionally, on Remembrance Day, the silence descends in the first two minutes of "the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month". That is a logical progression, and that is why I say the American way (which converts 11th of September into 9/11) is perverse and confusing. Nevertheless, one of the three items in that sequence of elevens is incorrect: "the eleventh hour". November is certainly the eleventh month of the year, which has twelve months; the eleventh day is straightforward, but "the 11th hour" is backward, or not forward enough. Can you see what is wrong with it?

A similar confusion hangs around the ominous "11th hour", which is commonly supposed to mean the short time available before high noon arrives or doomsday begins. But stop to think about it: between the start of the 11th hour and 12 o'clock there is a total of 120 minutes, two whole hours. Can you grasp it? The 11th hour begins at 10 o'clock (this is undeniably true); and so at 11 o'clock which hour begins? The 12th hour, of course. The 12th hour, not the 11th hour, is when time is running out. When the clock strikes 11, it is signalling the end of the eleventh hour, not its beginning; 11.01 is the start of the twelfth hour, whether a.m. or p.m. Similarly, "23.00 hours"is the dividing line between the 23rd hour and the 24th hour of the day, which ends at midnight, which is not 24.00 but 00.00. When the big hand of the clock is on 12 and the little hand is on 1, it is showing us that the first hour has ended (all 60 minutes of it), and the second hour is beginning. Got it? (By the way, when I was a wee wee tot, and they would take me from my warm warm cot, to sit me on a cold cold pot, to make me do what I could not, namely weewee, I was in Balmain hospital for a tonsillectomy operation, that is how I relayed the time of day to an older boy in another bed; he could not see the clock, and although I knew my numbers I could not "tell" the time as he could, but that is how I could tell the time to him, by saying "the big hand is on ...".)

Do you remember the fuss about the millennium? I don't mean the vain hoping that this would be a century and even a thousand years of peace and prosperity, or the fear that our computers would not crash heavily on the first day of January 2000. I am thinking about the silly argument over when the 21st century and the 3rd millennium of the current era actually began.

Well, it was not a problem; there was no contest; the people (that is, everybody but me and a few fellow-pedants) who celebrated the arrival of three noughts, when 2000 came up, were toasting nothing, nought in triplicate, in reality. They had been accustomed to watching mile-ometers (and kilometer-ometers) and when 1999 changes to 2000 it's "jackpot!" and 2000 miles have actually been traversed.

However, with years on calendars it is different. The 10 years of a decade have not been fulfilled till year 11 starts, and year ten, the tenth year of the decade, has ended.

It is the same with birthdays. There is no year 0 (zero) in a person's life; the day of birth is 1/1/1, the first year of the first month of the first year. And so (without bringing in the date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth, which is not known, actually, not yet) the 20th century ended when the numbers 1/1/2001 came up, and the 21st Century and the 3rd Millennium began. (Incidentally, "20th Century Fox" then had a big problem with updating their title.)

Here are a few footnotes to the discussion. They could be brain-teazers

1 CE = ‘the first year of the current era’
1 BCE = the first year before the current era
but it is also the last year of the 1st Century BCE and of the 1st Millennium BCE
2 BCE = the second year before the CE
The 2nd century BCE begins in 100 BCE
The first day of 1 BCE is 1 January (1.1.1), not 31 December!
Only the years go backwards, not the dates within the years.

2001 CE is the first year of the 21st Century
and of the 3rd Millennium CE.
2001 BCE is the last year of the 21st Century
and of the 3rd Millennium BCE
2000 BCE is the first year of the 20th Century BCE.
The second year is 1999 BCE.

CE years:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | >>>>>
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 | 21 >>>> 1999 2000 | 2001
BCE years:
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 | 21 <<<< 2000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 | <<<<<<
Count by decades, also, to see the principle; centuries likewise.
BCE: the first year of the decade/century/millennium ends in 0 (zero) 
CE: the last year of the decade/century/millennium ends in 0 (zero)

In 2007 I  wrote another account of ancient dates, which says the same thing only different.

TRUMPETING

 I am speaking as a trumpeter who started as a bugler, but did once have a turn at playing what we called a trumpet-bugle (simply because it did not have valves, and you know that the valves add extra lengths of tubing when you press the pistons down singly or in combinations, turning it into an instrument that can produce all the notes between C G C E G, and above and below those basics).

Peter Daniels has given us succinctly the correct technical distinction:

"A bugle has a conical bore, a trumpet a cylindrical bore."
"There are keyed bugles, and valveless trumpets."

The point is: the bugle belongs to the horn family, not the trumpet family (trumpets and trombones).

I won't say that a person who gives the word "bore" in their definition without defining it (not in the Oxon lexicon, except with reference to guns and engines and calibre) is worthy of another usage of that word (or rather a homophone) which Oxford recognizes; but having had this answer given to me politely for fifty years, with the expectation that I know precisely what the difference is, I suppose it is about time I could distinguish cylindrical and conical bores (and it is not the shape of their hat which does it). (-;

I see the Oxford lexicon gives *bugle-horn as a synonym; and *clarion is another word, but having a narrow tube and a warlike shrill tone it must be that "trumpet-bugle" I mentioned (which is really a valveless trumpet).

What have we got in the Bible?

Daniel 3:5, at the court of King Nabu-kudurrru-us.ur (pronounced Caractacus, or Nebukadnessar),
Aramaic QARN 'horn' or 'cornet' (King James version)

Joshua 6:5-6, at the battle of Jericho, Hebrew QEREN 'horn' or trumpet' (KJV) together with SHOFAR, 'ram's horn)
It seems that here the words refer to the same object, the horn of a ram used like a conch shell or Siegfried's bovine (I presume) horn for getting attention.

H.aS.oS.eRa (passim): reed, tube, trumpet.
This sounds nicely onomatopoeic to me: KH introduces the breath; TS, TS the tonguing behind the teeth and the spittle that accompanies the breath (a good argument for TS as the ancient pronunciation, it occurs to me right now!); and the tongued or trilled R is part of the mix that goes into the mouthpiece and is amplified in the metal tubing.

Now, in brass bands and orchestras two similar instruments are the *cornet and the trumpet.
The cornet is squatter but they both have the same length of metal, wound around so that it is not disturbing the player in front of you (prodding his back or blasting right in his ear). The cornet is sweet-singing the trumpet is brassy brash.

And whether it is a conical horn or a cylindrical/tubular trumpet it has a bell (they all open out like a cornucopia).

So the ancient Israelite metal instruments were 'trumpets', and the others were animal 'horns'. The word 'cornet' does not apply, nor 'bugle', I would think.

Recently, after an early music concert I was allowed to hold a bent wooden (!) 'trumpet' (as used by Monteverdi and Gabrieli).

Still, someone could clarify conical and cylindrical for us. Does it mean that the bugle and the cornet and the French horn are widening their hole all the way to the bell, while the trumpet keeps the same width most of the distance?

Some time ago, Helen and I, and our grand-daughters Olivia and Julia, with their mother Laurel Colless of Virginia Tech, and their father Pekka Lintu the Finnish ambassador to Washington, marched round our house each with a percussion instrument, while I used a trumpet as a valve-trumpet to play the Grand March from Aida, but also playing bugle calls, which did not need any fingerwork, only tongue and lips and spit. Then they went back to D.C. for the Presidential Inauguration, and the Ball. Did you see them there? They have now moved to the Finnish embassy in Athens, to ask the Greeks why they can not live within their means as the Finns do.

fff >ppp

Brian Colless

RUGBY HEAVIN'

In recent weeks, here in Aotearoa alias New Zealand (Mâori name Niu Tireni, as in New Tyranny) we have been invited to believe that we are in RUGBY HEAVEN, as that heading was affixed to a supplement published in the newspapers every day.
    We have always known that we live in Paradise, with the whole country being a scenic garden, though the forces of Hades sometimes cause the earth to HEAVE (a geological term for "a sideways displacement in a fault", but generally meaning "rise and fall rhythmically or spasmodically"). Such ground-shaking has made life Hell for the citizens of Christchurch (incidentally, or digressively, the churches of Christ have not been immune to damage there, and the centres of Catholicism and Protestantism have been equally laid low and waste). Cantabrians (denizens of the province Canterbury) were not able to take part in the Rugby World Cup tournament, because their most sacred edifice of all (their stadium in Christchurch) had been wrecked in the upHEAVals. However, their Rugby football team (the Canterbury Crusaders) had been winners all the way in the competitions.
    While I am in digression mode, but actually in the throes of getting to the point (who scored the most points in the World Cup series?) I will reminisce about my five  years at Fort Street High School (Faber est quisque suae fortunae, Maker is each of his fortune, but since that seemed to refer to making money, it is translated as Everyone is the architect of his or her own destiny).
    My chosen winter sport for Wedensday{spellchecker, I am not going to alter that to your nonsensical orthography}) was softball (rounders), which eventually became the lunchtime game, after diminutive Headmaster Mearns reared up on his hindlegs and roared at the assembly: Every boy will play rugby, and learn to give a a knock and take a knock. This was an open admission that we are dealing with a violent recreation here, involving frequent re-creation of body parts, such as noses and knees. At Balmain primary school I had been coached in Rugby League by a famous player named Duckworth (right?), but this was Rugby Union, which only toffs engaged in. My most vivid memory is being in a match and seeing the ball on the ground, unguarded, and snatching it up and running with it, doing my hundred-yard sprint and scoring a try. (I once did it in 13 seconds at the athletics day, in the novice section, but then it was discovered that the finishing tape was 10 yards short of 100 yards; and some spoilsport is going to tell me now that I was off side when I scored.) The only other time I ran towards the try-line two burly chaps gently directed me over the sideline. (Where are you now Wilson? So many of my friends are not in the list of active alumni.)
    In my first year I scored almost 100% in the final examination in Latin (and I was in the 1B class not 1A). Our teacher required that our workbooks should contribute to our final mark, and I was downgraded for deficiency in neatness. In 1951,  at the end my year in 3B, he said to me in the presence of my peers that he hoped I would not be in his fourth-year class. I turned up there (my home class was 4C), smirking in all humility, and earned Honours 1 for him at the Leaving Certificate (Matriculation).  You may know that my dear friends Taylor and Willis and I kept in contact with him afterwards, and I often think of him, especially with regard to his love of music (Britten's opera Peter Grimes, for example, and Schumann's piano concerto). The Old Boys' Union prize for Latin came my way; I bought Knaurs Lexicon (in German) and it is autographed by Headmaster Shaw (14-12-54); I still keep it handy and use it as my basic encyclopedia.
     The moral ("lesson at the end of a fable") of that ramble is that I had a strong dislike of the year's work counting towards the final mark. The idea made me want to HEAVE (call for Herb or cry Wretch, in Oz-speak).  At Sydney University you were expected to do all the assignments throughout the three trimesters, but they did not contribute to the final grade. By the way in my long vacations, I did a lot of HEAVING, of barrels of beer and bags of oysters, loading and unloading trains for the NSW railways. Though I began as a high-school  teacher of languages, I eventually became a university teacher of Religious Studies (history of and phenomenology of and sociology of religions) at Massey University in Palmerston North in New Zealand. That institution manages to fit three separate semesters into one academic year! The students there had insisted that their labours in each course should be included in the final summation. I tend to agree, because I did much better in degrees where I had to write a thesis, which I could ponder over for a long time, not regurgitate in a three-hour exam. (I failed M.Th because it was solely by examination.)
    The climax is starting to HEAVE in sight (nautically and naughtily speaking). The New Zealand All Blacks (who really know how to HEAVE a haka war-cry) have triumphed. And NZers have LABOUR DAY to celebrate, while I put my thoughts on record.
    If we scrutinize the whole gamut of the games, Aotearoa had beaten Australia even before they met in the semi-final. There was no need for all these quarter- and semi- and grand finals.
   Add up the scores and the points of the three medal-holders.
    NZ: 41 83 37 79 = 240; 20/20
    Oz : 32 6 67 68 = 173; 15/20
    France: 47 46 17 14 = 124; 11/20
If France had managed to score more than 7 against the surprisingly meagre 8 of the NZ All Blacks, they would have been the winners of the World Cup, and that would have been a HEAVING travesty of justice, a HEAVY blow of fate.
   Never mind! Niuzilderz have moved HEAVEN and earth to achieve this goal (a different kind of home goal, including a field goal against the Wallabies by our local boy Aaron Cruden before the Frogs pounced on him and wrecked his kicking leg) and now they can HEAVE to. They have capitalized on this HEAVEN-sent opportunity, and they are in seventh HEAVEN (Saint Paul only attained third heaven, 2 Corinthians 12:2-3).
    We NZ Collesses have the name Australia on our passports, and we still call Australia 'ome, but we know how to pick winners.
    HEAVE-HO!

U3A KANGGA FEST

On the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Manawatu University of the Third Age

An old Australian member of the University of the Third Age was
lying (through his teeth)
dying (the ground red with blood from his haemorrhaging haemorrhoids; he loved big words and technical terms)
worrying about the future for his pet kangaroo named TED;
he gathered all his fellow-students around him and affirmed:
We all know that the purpose of our venerable institution is learning;
it is about discipline and edification, not pleasure and entertainment;
and so I have an educational task for you all; it will involve allocation of much of your time and energy to studying the habits of an exotic marsupial, a creature ruled by its natural instincts; all animals make messes, so be ready for the clean-up afterwards, and try not to be embarrassed by its crude behaviour, as this is Australia, where crudity and rudity reign. And with regard to the presentation of your results, I  am not offended by paronomasia and rhymistics (punning does not merit punishment, and sublime rhyme, be it simple or complex rhyme, black or white rime, deserves better than a frosty reception).

FREDA LARSEN
You get mentioned first, but only in PASSIN’, Mrs LARSEN,
but you always were a model student and a LEADER, FREDA;
unfortunately Ted is often guilty of LARCENy,
but you can handle him like a stern Anglican PARSON;
put the fear of God into him and make him quake,
you can FREE DA beast of all his hangups and make him a Quaker,
and write a thesis on the phenomenology of kangaroo religion.
And you must have it bound, as in: Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....

EDNA DOWNEY
Well now, you would not call TED A TOWNY, EDNA DOWNEY,
he wants to be in a natural native bush setting;
so when the sun goes DOWN HE would like to go to your pit park,
if you can get him past the Rottweiler guard HOUND EEEEE;
if you put TED IN A BED IN THE GROUND HE would be glad;
GET DOWN on one KNEE (on two, you might not get up again)
and tuck him in, so he learns respect for the U3A FOUNDER,
because he is all leaps and bounds, a regular BOUNDER;
give him a play-reading: tales of Winnie the Pooh, Kangga, and Roo;
and for a lullaby, some of your Hell’s bells,
to make him keep his HEAD IN A DOWN ON KNEE position all night.
Nevertheless, you might need to:  Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....

ROLF PANNY
Ted needs someone to be his NANNY, Herr PANNY,
to empty his bed PAN EEEEE, for good SANItation, Mister PANNY.
No! You are clearly over-qualified for that position.
However, it really is un-CANNY, Monsieur PANNY,
that you can speak three languages at once,
they just roll on your tongue and ROLL OFF, ROLF,
and you philosophize in every one of them;
but philosophy is not for a kangaroo,
though perhaps suitable for a cunning dingo or a wiley WOLF, ROLF;
still, a KANGGA might take to KAFKA,
to help him hop over the Great WALL OF China, ROLF.
So that’s why it would be best to: Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....

JOHN GARNER
John, you could GARNER in some bonza tucker for Ted,
there’s nothing he likes more than a beaut BANANA, JOHN GARNER;
what will you do when he wants to skip to the loo,
when he gets his mind set on hopping to the JOHN, JOHN?
Turn a blind eye? Being tied up having to mind a roo can be a bind;
I dunno about this book-binding stuff suiting kangaroo paws;
but give him a big book to squat ON, JOHN,
like the dog that sits on the tucker box, five miles fro GANAdagai.
At bedtime you could tell him some of your tall tales,
because you have always been a très BON YARNER, JOHN GARNER.
And for safety’s sake: Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....

CHRIS PHILLIPS
Still needing someone to help with his toileting, President PHILLIPS,
so perhaps you could give him some FILLIPS, incentives,
to be hygienic, CHRIS, when he wants to ... FILL UP Some holes.
He is itching to get his paws on your computer keyboard,
and show you his pictures on the screen; but be careful,
for a reward he likes to KISS FULL LIPS, CHRIS PHILLIPS.
So if you want to give that a MISS, CHRIS, you had better:
Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....

DAPHNE KYNE
You could invite him to HAVE TEA or DINE, DAPHNE KYNE,
(So KIND of you to come)
but not like the statue in Mozart’s Don GioVANNI, DAPHNE,
who wreaked havoc in the power LINE, and raised Hell;
to keep him occupied you could play him an opera, or NINE
(he likes Wagner’s one about the gold of the RHINE)
and revel in ecstasy till the cows, the erstwhile KINE, come home.
But when the time arrives: Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....

ALEC RAINBOW
I have heard you say you have plenty of empty hours to spare,
in your retirement, so caring for a kangaroo is just the thing for you;
but you need to KNOW, Alec RainBOW,  Ted is a smart ALEC, too;
sometimes I wish I could send him somewhere over the RAINBOW,
though not to the land of Oz, coz he’s there already;
but if you could fly him through time to Dr Who,
you could scare him into submission with a DALEK or two.
By the way, if you are an expert on the RAINBOW,
maybe you know how to make the RAIN GO away.
In any case, be on guard: Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....

DAPHNE STEELE
Your grandchildren would like him, GRANNY DAPHNE;
actually this job is a bit of a STEAL, though sometimes he gets DAFFY
and it requires nerves of STEEL, to REEL him in;
he has been known to STEAL grub, for his next MEAL,
but he draws the line at witchety grub;
so, keep the walking stick handy, Daphne, and give him a quick flick
to bring him to HEEL, Mrs STEELE.
Sometimes he needs to be restrained: Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....

DIANNE AND LARRY HAIST
Larry Haist, you gave us our logo of three or more people at a table,
and whatever you are having, Ted will be in a HURRY and in HASTE
to join in and have a TASTE, leaving no WASTE.
You know that good-looking sheila you were glad to MARRY, LARRY,
well Ted is DYIN’ to get his arms round her in a wed-lock, too,
he wants to carry her around his WAIST;
but he’s the kind that MARRY and don’t TARRY;
no problem, though, because he is easily distracted,
with anything you can BUY AN’ CARRY, DI AN’ LARRY,
from a Chinese department store or takeaway food shop.
Pourtant, Cependant, Néanmoins, you might need to take out a restraining order against him and thus: Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport

MARGARET CANNON
It’s no SECRET, MARGARET,Ted needs your loving psychiatric care, but not too loving, as he’s likely to get amorous and voluptuous,
like the randy kangaroo in the news, accosting a woman with a view to contracting a temporary marriage; they put a BAN ON him.
Don’t let yourself be Ted’s TARGET, MARGARET,
he’ll be at you like a shot out of a gun, or a CANNON,
hopping into your CAR TA GET a ride, MARGARET;
and AFTER IT, MARGARET, he’ll want to have a CIGARETTE;
phew! it’s getting hot and steamy, you’ll need to turn the FAN ON.
And fasten his seatbelt securely : Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....

BRYAN IBELL
Brother Bryan Ibell, you are diVINEly reLIABLE, and you are aware
that the things that you’re LIABLE to read in the BIBLE
are not necessarily so, but open to discussion, everyone having a say;
accordingly, I trust there will be no grounds for a LIBEL suit here;
I have to tell you, without a word of LYIN’, BRIAN,
this lowdown marsupial of mine is LIABLE to follow his base instincts
(E flat bass, like you and me)  and engage in current affairs,
involving seminal issues with infantile outcomes (joeys in the pouch);
don’t think about FRYIN’ his bacon, BRYAN (but it’s cholesterol-free)
just confront him EYEBALL to EYEBALL, and keep on TYIN’ him;
tether him to HIGH HELL, or make him wear a HIGH BELL.
The best way to keep track of him is: Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....

EUGENIE WALDTEUFEL
You wood-devil (Wald-Teufel), from the wild dark woods,
I’ve seen you lurking around the redwood forest on the hill;
YOU ‘wicked’ GENIE (not one that comes out of a bottle),
in nature’s realm you could teach him to do what comes naturally, waltzing, to the music of WALDTEUFEL, not as in ‘Waltzing Matilda’ (carrying a swag, also  ‘humping Matilda’, and ‘being on the wallaby’); and also, naturally, drawing; he could hold a pencil in his little paw,
but if he starts to paw you with his TEENY WEENY claws, Eugenie,
it will definitely be time for a pause : Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....

FRED SYMES
Mate, you have dallied so long in Australian CLIMES,
and been such a good sport  in the land of the mozzie,
that Ted might even accept you as a dinkum Ozzie,
and it will be just like old GLAD TIMES, Fred Symes;
now there’s a philosophcal question: TIME.
with that you could have the TIME of your life, and you did.
Creative writing would not be for Ted, Fred
(after all, how many RHYMES can you find for SYMES?);
Combative fighting is more his style, boxing with the gloves on;
but when into the ring with you he CLIMBS,
he could knock you DEAD, FRED SYMES;
so watch miy wallaby’s feet, as Rolf Harris SAID, FRED,
and for the very last TIME: Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....


MARGARET HAZELTON
Ted would not wish to FORGET, MARGARET, to say to you:
This was one of those great DAYS : WELL DONE;
and he wants you to write his biography;
that will be fine, provided you can Tie miy kangaroo down, Sport ....

SPRING BULL FALL

On 2/04/2010, at 5:17 AM (though it was still the 1st day of April in the US of A) James Spinti wrote:

Spring is finally here, and the many avid gardeners among us are turning over a new leaf - quite literally, in the case of our compost piles. With that in mind, we bring you four new products from partner Winged Bull Press on the themes of "green" and "compost." Happy digging!

Find ... all the latest Winged Bull Press titles here:
https://www.eisenbrauns.com/ECOM/_2WR17OVB9.HTM


Regarding the Winged Bull Press, it brought to mind a pseudo-documentary that our celebrated Peter Jackson made, named FORGOTTEN SILVER, about an early film-maker in NZ; a Biblical epic (and moving pictures of the NZ aviator who actually got off the ground before the Wright brothers) was found in a chest with a magnificent bull pictured on its lid; it was a hoax that fooled us all; but in the subsequent public analysis nobody but myself, it seems, picked up his bull-reference. So I was ready for this winged bull of James Spinti.

Movie-critic Leonard Maltin was included as an authenticating witness; and when it was later shown on Australian television, I happened to be there; advertisements for its coming had NZ prime minister David Lange (he was always a good joker) urging people not to watch it! At that time my son Michael and I went to an Australian film commission building (or whatever) in Canberra,  and we discovered that the name of an Australian prominently on show was the same as the name PJ has chosen for his fictional NZ film-maker. Not many people know that. Somebody might like to tell Peter that his secret is out.

The 1st of April was the date on which Helen and I had our first conversation and our first misunderstanding, at a Methodist youth camp, in 1956.

This year, on the 2nd of April, Good Friday, I did a church crawl (analogous to a pub crawl, which I have never done) involving 9 church services (9.30 -5.00); I sang Isaac Wattsisname's "When I survey the wondrous cross" four times, and at the first one (at Wesley Broadway ... that leads to destruction) I declaimed my own translation of The Servant Song (Isaiah/ Yesha`yahu 52-53) in which I boldly changed 'They made his grave with the wicked and a rich man in his death' (which some Xns take as meaning Joseph of Arimathea; but the parallelism seems wrong, unless we allow that the wealthy are villains, and there have been plenty of them robbing me of my savings in recent years) to "He was given a grave with the wicked, a burial place with evil-doers" (turning `$yr into `sy r`).

I gave my black compost  boxes an autumn (or 'fall') shake-up, and scattered the results on the garden, on Saturday 9th of April.

There was a farmer who was showing off his bumper crops to some visitors, and repeatedly attributing his success to 'manure'. One sensitive soul asked his wife if she could persuade him to use the term 'fertilizer' instead. Her retort was: It has taken me 30 years to get him to say 'manure'.

Brian Colless

NAZARETH

Just in time for Christmas, the Israel Antiquities Authority has announced that a house from the time of Jesus of Nazareth has been uncovered on the site of the ancient Jewish village of Nazareth. This is the first of its kind (hitherto, denialists have had a merry time with the lack of archaeological evidence from this area and era). It was discovered right next to the Church of the Annunciation (where Gabriel told young Mary a secret). That church was erected in 1969, on the site of a Crusader church, and an even earlier Byzantine building of the 4th century CE; all were supposed to mark the home in which Mary/ Maryam lived. There is a cave underneath the church, which has traditionally been identified as the dwelling of Joseph and Mary, and Jesus (till he moved to his mission-base in Capernaum, in the home of Peter).

It has been estimated that the village at that time would have had about fifty people in it. But if you are wondering what Joseph and Jesus did for a living, I would suggest that there was plenty of building work available for carpenters in the nearby city of Sepphoris.

So, all that nihilistic discussion we hear about no inhabitants in Nazareth at that time has been nullified. (That makes 3 negatives, so they produce a positive result, right?)

The sceptics will simply dismiss it (60 CE not 20 CE); the simple will septicly break out in pious stigmata, rejoicing because this house is right next to the Church of the Annunciation, and the original Christmas Mother might have lived there.

When I did the grand tour of the Holy Family's movements (Bethlehem, Cairo, Egyptian Desert, Nazareth) I was taken to a cave in each case, so I started to think they were troglodytes.

Still, (as in Stille Nacht) it all adds up to a verily verily merry Mary Christmas to all.

http://www.antiquities.org.il/about_eng.asp?Modul_id=14

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1136599.html?

GENESIS

CREATION

Blessed are you, O Lord our God, King of the universe.

You fashion light and you create darkness,

you make peace and create all things.

You mercifully give light to the earth and to those who dwell on it,

and in your goodness you continually renew the creation day by day.

How manifold are your works, O Lord,

in wisdom you have made them all . . . .

Cause a new light to shine on Sion;

may we all be worthy to behold its radiance soon .

Blessed are you, O Lord, Creator of the heavenly luminaries.

Blessed are you, O Lord our God, King of the universe.

Your word brings on the evening twilight,

your wisdom opens the gates of heaven; (a new day)

your foresight ordains the passing of time

and the succession of seasons.

You arrange the stars in their courses in the sky according to your will.

You create day and you create night,

rolling the light away before the darkness

and the darkness before the light. . . .

May the ever-living and eternal God reign over us for ever and ever.

With deep love you have loved us, O Lord our God,
with great and overflowing compassion you have taken pity on us.

You taught our forefathers the laws of life,

and they trusted in you, our Father, our King.

For their sake be gracious to us also, and teach us.

Our Father, merciful and compassionate Father, have mercy on us. . . .

Enlighten our eyes in your Torah,

open our hearts to your commandments. . . .

Blessed are you, O Lord, in your love you have chosen your people Israel.

These are selections from Jewish daily prayers, namely the Shema‘ and its Benedictions:

(1) first morning benediction, (2) first evening benediction, (3) second morning benediction.

The third of these shows that Jews (as well as Christians) address God as "Our Father", and rejoice in the love of God. Notice the epithets merciful and compassionate, also applied to Allah in Islam. Here we see two aspects of the Fatherhood of God: Father (progenitor) and Creator (generater of life); this divine role of creation (genesis) is described. in Genesis, which is the first book in the Jewish Bible, where it is entitled Bereshith ("In the beginning").

THE COSMOGONY OF JERUSALEM

Genesis 1-3

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.

1:2 The earth was then barren and bare1, with darkness over the face of the deep, and the spirit of God2 moving over the surface of the waters. 1 tohu wa bohu, in utter chaos 2 or: a mighty wind

1:3 Then God said: Let there be light. And light came into being.

1:4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.

1:5 God called the light day, and the darkness he called night. So evening came and morning came, the first day.

1:6 God now said: Let there be a vault in between the waters, and let it separate water from water.

1:7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above the vault. That is what happened.

1:8 God called the vault heaven. So evening came and morning came, a second day.

1:9 God then said: Let the waters under heaven be gathered into one place and let the dry ground appear. And that is what happened.

1:10 God called the dry ground earth, and the gathered waters he called seas. And God saw that it was good.

1:11 God also said: Let the earth produce green growth, with plants bearing seed; and also on the earth, fruit trees bearing fruit with their own kind of seed in it. And that is what happened.

1:12 The earth brought forth green growth, with plants bearing their own kind of seed, and trees bearing fruit with their own kind of seed in it. And God saw that it was good.

1:13 So evening came and morning came, a third day.

1:14 Next God said: Let there be lights in the vault of heaven to separate the day from the night, and let them be signs for set times and for days and years.

1:15 Let them be luminaries in the vault of heaven to shine upon the earth. And that is what happened.

1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night, and also the stars.

1:17 God put these in the vault of heaven to shine upon the earth.

1:18 They were also to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

1:19 So evening came and morning came, a fourth day.

1:20 Then God said: Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let winged creatures fly above the earth across the vault of heaven.

1:21 So God created great sea monsters and every kind of living creature that moves and swarms in the waters, and every kind of flying creature with wings. And God saw that it was good.

1:22 God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas; and let the winged creatures multiply on the earth.

1:23 So evening came and morning came, a fifth day.

1:24 God now said: Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature, cattle and reptiles and beasts of the earth. And that is what happened.

1:25 God made all the different kinds of beasts of the earth, of cattle, and of reptiles that crawl on the ground. And God saw that it was good.

1:26 God then said: Let us make humankind (adam) in our own image and likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of the sky, and over the cattle and over all (the beasts of) the earth, and over all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth.

1:27 So God created humankind in his own image; in the image of God he created humankind; male and female he created them.

1:28 So God blessed them, and said to them: Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the flying creatures of the sky, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.

1:29 God also said: I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the whole face of the earth, and every tree with seed-bearing fruit; they shall be food for you.

1:30 To all the beasts of the earth, to all the flying creatures of the sky, to all the living things moving upon the earth, I have given all the green plants for food. And that is what happened.

1:31 God then looked at all that he had made and saw that it was very good. Evening came and morning came, a sixth day.

2:1 Thus heaven and earth and their whole host were completed.

2:2 On the sixth day3 God had completed all the work he had been doing, and on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on that day God rested from all the work of creation that he had done.

2:4 Such was the genesis of heaven and earth ...

NOTES

The first chapter of The Bible describes the origins of the world in terms of a divine week of work at the beginning of time. Throughout this account God the Creator is called Elohim, (literally ‘gods’ in Hebrew; this is to be understood as a royal plural, or plural of majesty). Creation is accomplished simply by divine decree: it is the Word of God which creates (God said: Let there be ...).

The account of creation is rounded off in 2:1-4. The origin of the seventh day as a day of rest, the Sabbath, is there traced to God’s cessation of work after his six days of activity (as in ‘the ten commandments’, Exodus 20:11, though not in Deuteronomy 5:15, as a reminder that they had been slaves in Egypt with not many holidays).

When God says ‘Let us make’ (1:26) is he talking to himself, to his heavenly host of angels, or, as some Christians would take it, to the other two members of the Trinity (namely the Word, 1:3, and the Spirit, 1:2)? Incidentally, ‘the spirit of elohim’ (in 1:2) might simply be ‘an almighty wind’ or ‘divine breath’. Another agent of creation was Wisdom (Proverbs 8:22-31). Note that in Hebrew ‘Spirit’ and ‘Wisdom’ are of feminine gender.

It is often claimed that Genesis Chapter 1 is a demythologized version of the Babylonian myth of creation (Enuma elish). Certainly, the Hebrew word for 'the deep' (1.2) is tehom, cognate with the name Ti'amat, applied to the dragon-like goddess of the ocean in the Babylonian story, who is killed by the young god Marduk. The Bible does have allusions to battles between Yahweh and sea-monsters, though these are to be compared with the struggle between Ba‘al and Yam in Canaanite mythology, but Ba'al is not the creator of the world.

Are there any echoes from Egyptian mythology? Where do we see a battle between a god and a sea-monster, together with a characterization of humans as images of God, issuing from his body? (Instruction for Merikare) That humans (adam, humankind) were created in the divine image (1:26-27), male and female, suggests an androgynous image of Deity, like Hapy, the god of the Nile; but in any case it shows that both sexes have equal dignity before God (1:27; 5:1-3). The idea that the dry ground emerged from the universal water has an Egyptian parallel in the primeval hill. Creation by the word of God, divine decree, has a counterpart in the theology of Memphis, where the 'heart' (mind) of Ptah conceives and his 'tongue' (speech, word, command) creates, brings into existence, without the use of hands. In Genesis 2:7, Yahweh fashions a human, like Khnum the potter god.

This ancient picture of creation bears a marked resemblance to the modern scientific view of the genesis of life on planet Earth. But if ‘day’ is taken literally, the two accounts will be completely at variance. (And dinosaurs seem to be missing). Perhaps the writer was simply directing the readers’ gaze to the world around them and inviting them to appreciate that God was the maker of it all, and that when it was first created it was perfect and good (1:4, 12, 18, 21, 31). It was also orderly, with all the species separated (1:21, 24, 25, where ‘every kind of’ is often interpreted as meaning that they will go on to reproduce ‘after their own kind’, as the plants and trees do in 1:12). Humans and animals alike were vegetarian in the beginning (1:29-30; contrast 2:9, 16; 3:18; 4:3; 9:3; Leviticus 11). How sea creatures were nourished is not stated here, but the principle of ‘big fish eat little fish’ was probably meant to be excluded in this paradisical view of the world in its pristine purity.

THE CREATION OF HUMANKIND

2:4 On the day that YHWH God made earth and heaven,

2:5 there was then no plant of the field in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up, for YHWH God had sent no rain upon the earth, and there was no human to till the ground.

2:6 A stream (or mist) was coming up out of the earth and watering the entire surface of the ground. 2:7 Then YHWH God formed a human (adam) from the dust of the ground (adamah), and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. Thus the human became a living being*.. *nephesh, 'soul' 2:8 Next YHWH God planted a garden in ‘Eden, over in the east, and there he placed the human that he had fashioned.

2:9 And out of the ground YHWH God brought forth every tree that is pleasant to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life in the middle of the garden, and also the tree of knowledge of good and evil . . . .

2:15 YHWH God took the human and settled him in the garden of Eden to till it and tend it.

2:16 YHWH God directed the human thus: You may eat freely from every tree in the garden.

2:17 But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for on the day that you eat from it you shall certainly die.

2:18 Then YHWH God said: It is not good for the human to be alone; I will provide him with a suitable partner*. *or: a counterpart helper

2:19 So out of the ground YHWH God formed every animal of the field and every flying creature of the sky; he brought them to the human to see what he would call them, and whatever the human called each living creature, that was its name.

2:20 The human gave names to all the cattle, to the flying creatures of the sky and to all the animals of the field; but for the human himself no suitable partner was found.

2:21 And so YHWH God caused a deep sleep to fall over the human, and while he slept God took one of his ribs * and closed the flesh over the place. *or: sides 2:22 And YHWH God turned this rib, taken from the human, into a woman; and he brought her to the human. 2:23 Whereupon the human (ha-adam) declared: This time it is someone of my own bone and flesh; she shall be called a woman (ishshah) because she was taken from a man (ish). 2:24 Hence a man (ish) leaves his father and mother and unites with his wife (ishshah), and they both become one flesh. 2:25 Now, the human and his wife were both naked (‘arom) but not ashamed.

3:1 The serpent was the most cunning (‘arum) of all the wild animals that YHWH God had made. He said to the woman: So God has told you both that you must not eat from any tree in the garden?

3:2 The woman replied to the serpent: No, we may eat from any tree in the garden.

3:3 But God has told us that we must not eat fruit from the tree in the middle of the garden, nor even touch it, or else we will die. 3:4 But the serpent said to the woman: You will not really die. 3:5 God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God*, knowing good and evil. *or: gods 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for eating and pleasing to the eye and desirable to contemplate*, she took some of the fruit and ate it. She also gave some to her husband3, and he ate it with her. 3.:7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked (‘erom); so they stitched fig leaves together and made loin-coverings for themselves. 3:8 When the man (ha-'adam) and his wife heard the sound of YHWH God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, they hid themselves from YHWH God among the trees of the garden.

3:9 But YHWH God called out to the human and said to him: Where are you?

3:10 He answered: I heard you walking in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, and so I hid myself.

3:11 He replied: Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from he tree I ordered you not to eat from?

3:12 The human said: It was the woman you gave me as my companion; she gave me some of the fruit of the tree and I ate it.

3:13 Then YHWH God asked the woman: What is this that you have done?

The woman replied: The serpent tricked me and I ate.

3:14 So YHWH God said to the serpent: Because you have done this you are accursed above all cattle and above all wild animals.

On your belly you shall crawl, and dust you shall eat, all the days of your life.

3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring*. *seed They will strike you on the head, and you will strike them on the heel.

3:16 To the woman he said: I will make your labour pains very severe; you shall suffer pain when you bring forth children.

Yet you will have a desire for your husband, and he will rule over you.

3:17 And to the human (or: Adam) he said: Because you have listened to your wife’s voice, and have eaten from the tree that I ordered you not to eat from, the ground shall be cursed on your account.

You shall suffer pain when you eat from it, all the days of your life.

3:18 It will grow thorns and thistles for you, and you shall eat the plants of the field.

3:19 In the sweat of your brow you will eat bread, until you return to the ground from which you were taken; for you are dust and to dust you shall return.

3:20 The human called his wife by the name Hawwah (Life), because she was the mother of all who live. 3:21 And YHWH God made garments of skin for the human (or Adam) and his wife, and he clothed them.

3:22 Then YHWH God said: The human has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. If he also reaches out his hand and takes fruit from the tree of life and eats it, he will live for ever.

3:23 So YHWH God drove him out of the garden of ‘Eden, to till the ground from which he had been taken.

3:24 He cast the human out, and to the east of the garden of ‘Eden he stationed kerubim3 and a blazing sword whirling around, to guard the way to the tree of life.

NOTES

In Genesis 2 we find a reiteration of God’s creation of the world. The focus here is on individuals rather than on species. And God’s personal name ‘Yahweh’ is used. The narrator calls God ‘YHWH Elohim’ (which English versions usually render as ‘the LORD God’, following the Jewish practice of refraining from pronouncing the sacred name ‘YHWH’). This personalising procedure continues in Genesis 3, though earthly creatures there refer to God simply as ‘God’ (Elohim) rather than ‘YHWH God’. And the human characters, namely the man and the woman do not receive personal names till late in the piece.

‘The woman’ is eventually given the name Hawwah by ‘the human’ (3.20), because she is ‘the mother of all living’. The name Hawwah is difficult to explain: commentators ancient and modern have noticed its similarity to the Aramaic word for ‘serpent’ (she too acted as a temptress); but the best view is probably that it means what the added explanation says in (3:20, perhaps ‘female giving birth and bringing to life’, or something like that, as also implied in the curse, 3:16). The English form ‘Eve’ comes through Latin ‘Eva’ as a transcription of Hawwah. The ancient Greek version has ‘Eua’ in 4:1, but chooses to translate the name here (3:20) as ‘Zoe’, (‘Life’), a name also found in English usage. ‘The man’, ha-’adam, is properly ‘the human’, a creature assembled from components taken out of the ground (Hebrew ’adamah; the root ’dm means ‘be red’). The picture here is of a potter-sculptor moulding brownish-red terracotta clay (‘dust’) and imparting the breath of life to his creation (2:7). But ‘the human’ is not named Adam (‘Human’ or ‘Man’) until 4:1 and 5:1-3. Even in the latter case there is an ambivalence: ‘God created them male and female ... and called their name Adam ... When Adam had lived 130 years he procreated a son in his own image and likeness and called his name Seth’. Such apparent confusion leads modern scholars to assume that two or three different documents have been combined in Genesis by a final editor.

It is thus assumed that the two accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 are from different sources. For one thing they seem to have creation in opposite chronological order: in the first, ‘humankind’ is the last creation of the word of ‘Elohim’; in the second, ‘the human’ is the first living creature put on the earth by the hand of ‘YHWH Elohim’ (2:7-8). The two accounts could be harmonized by accepting the order of the first, and interpreting the second in accord with it. Generally speaking, this would mean using pluperfect tenses at the critical points (2:19, for example, ‘YHWH God had formed every animal of the field ... and now he brought them to the man’). It has to be admitted however, that this procedure is very forced, since the Hebrew verbs are really describing consecutive actions, just as they do throughout the first chapter. The first account describes creation in six days; the second has everything created in one day (the evening of that day comes in 3:8). It might be better to ignore chronology in both accounts and see them as set in mythical time beyond history, or in divine eternity. They would thus be parables to illustrate the place of humankind in God’s world. In both cases humans are at the apex of creation, and they have the God-given task of tending the earth. The second account is more anthropomorphic than the first, in that God appears to possess hands with which to create, (2:7) and feet on which to walk (3:8). Nevertheless, if the idea of ‘image and likeness’ (Adam as the image of God in 1:27, ‘Seth’ as the image of Adam in 5:3) were taken literally and logically (as by Mormon theologians) then God would be the possessor of a body. (In this connection note that there is no Hebrew term for ‘body’ in the Bible; the word ‘flesh’ is used where necessary, but not with reference to God.)

The origins of various aspects of the human condition are presented in Genesis 3: toil and travail in work, labour in childbirth, sexual attraction, sense of shame over nakedness and need to wear clothing, antipathy between humans and snakes (and a reason for snakes not having legs whereas other animals do). The concept of sin (which means breaking one’s covenant with God through disobedience to God’s commands) is introduced in a story which is mythical or allegorical rather than historical. A doctrine of ‘original sin’ (inborn depravity, innate propensity towards sinning) does not have to be extracted from this, though many Christian theologians have done so. It is also inappropriate to characterise ‘womankind’ as the cause of all human troubles on the basis of this story. Furthermore, the snake is not identified as Satan, the adversary of humans (Job 1-2; 1 Chronicles 21:1; Zechariah 3:1), until Revelation 12:9 in the New Testament.

However, fundamentalist Jewish and Christian exegesis (scriptural exposition) will take most details of these chapters literally (including six days for creation, the first woman created from one of the man’s ribs [or: sides], a talking serpent, and a paradise garden somewhere on the earth guarded by angelic creatures with a fiery sword). But a new sophisticated interpretation of the story has it describing the socio-political situation in the kingdom of David (10th century BCE): the peasants were rebelling against the nobility.

Incidentally, a kerub (plural: kerubim) is not a winged infant angel (the cherubs or cherubim of European art) but a winged sphinx (an animal, usually a lion, with a human head).

Translations from Hebrew are my own.