Arete [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

christopher r. vianzon

05-12-2004, 02:36 AM

The most articulated value in Greek culture is areté. Translated as "virtue," the word actually means something closer to "being the best you can be," or "reaching your highest human potential." The term from Homeric times onwards is not gender specific. Homer applies the term of both the Greek and Trojan heroes as well as major female figures, such as Penelope, the wife of the Greek hero, Odysseus. In the Homeric poems, areté is frequently associated with bravery, but more often, with effectiveness. The man or woman of areté is a person of the highest effectiveness; they use all their faculties: strength, bravery, wit, and deceptiveness, to achieve real results. In the Homeric world, then, areté involves all of the abilities and potentialities available to humans. We can, through the frequent use of this term in Homer's poems, make some tentative conclusions about the early Greek world view. The concept implies a human-centered universe in which human actions are of paramount importance; the world is a place of conflict and difficulty, and human value and meaning is measured against individual effectiveness in the world.

Greek Philosophy

Aristotle
Plato
Socrates

Aristotle, areté is explicitly linked with human knowledge. Plato repeatedly returns to the question of areté , and the evidence of his earliest writings suggest that Socrates, Plato's teacher, was equally obsessed with the question. Various Platonic dialogues deal with questions such as: Can areté be taught or learned (Meno )? What is areté (The Republic )? The famous Socratic paradox, "Virtue is knowledge," is in Greek, "Areté is knowledge." This would be the foundation of both Socratic and Platonic philosophy: the highest human potential is knowledge and all other human abilities are derived from this central capacity. Aristotle also locates the highest human potential in knowledge: theoretical knowledge. If areté is knowledge and study, the highest human knowledge is knowledge about knowledge itself; in this light, the theoretical study of human knowledge, which Aristotle called "contemplation," is the highest human ability and happiness.

Arsenios

05-12-2004, 03:55 AM

Arete is virtue, and excellence...

And virtue is the action that obtains and/or preserves/keeps a value...

The values of Christians are spiritual, and repentive - So that prayer and fasting according to the Church, turning away from sins, repentance, confession, attending services, giving alms to the poor, loving one's neighbor, turning away from all manner of evil, not judging one's neighbor, attaining humility, praying without ceasing, remembering God in all things, giving to the Church... Truthfulness, honesty, kindness, lovingness...

My goodness! All manner of good things that one can do to supplement one's faith in Christ...

All of it arete...

Arsenios

W. Lindsay Wheeler

05-12-2004, 08:06 PM

I was told that the Orthodox church has never lost any teaching. There is an Orthodox priest here as a member of the forum.

What has he done to teach his faithful "arete"?

What quotes from the church Fathers can teach me what arete is?

Again, the verse.

"...make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue (arete), and virtue with knowledge (gnosin),"

If arete is "knowledge" then St Peter seems to say that "...make every effort to supplement your faith with knowledge (arete) and knowledge (arete)with knowledge (gnosis),..."

This doesn't make sense. Knowledge is an attribute of the meaning of the word arete but the essence of the word arete, I don't think, means, knowledge.

"values of christians" is that what "arete" means? Is "arete" values? Is prayer "arete" or is prayer "pistei" faith? Are we again confusing meanings of words together? Is "giving alms" arete or a command of "pistei" faith?

Someone quoted from Plato and Socrates, but I was told no classical or Greek stuff in the Orthodox Church. Arete has a specific meaning that is not from the Classical Greeks. If I am not to use Greek philosophy at all or to take anything from the ancient Greek thought and practices, What is the meaning of "arete" in the church, through the Fathers of the Church.

They must have left specific instructions on how to accomplish supplementing "Faith" with "Arete". I see someone referenced Plato and Aristotle but noone has referenced any Church Fathers in this regard? In a little po-dunk town, I don't have access to any real good Orthodox library to come to this information. So someone out there should be able to handle it for us. If this happens all the time in the Orthodox church because it hasn't lost any teaching, then this should be common knowledge. George's post notwithstanding. George, research the linguistics of the word "virtue"? What language does it come from? What does the original language tell us about the word "virtue"?

Yes, this is what one calls a 'guided discovery'.

I find this odd noone has quoted from the Old Testament. Is it there?

matt

05-12-2004, 09:27 PM

I write this not in direct reply to Lindsay, but just as further info that happened to be at the elbow. It is from the glossary of Pelikan's "CHristianity and Classical Culture".

"Jaeger 1939,1:5: "we can find a natural clue to the history of greek culture in teh history of the idea of arete, which goes back to the earliest times. There is no equivalent for the word arete in modern English: the oldest meaning is a combination of proud courtly morality with warlike valor. But the idea of arete is the quintessence of early greek aristocratic education." He goes on to say that arete is used to describe the nobility of the gods and even non-humans like horses that have great spirit. Men who are of nobility and later enslaved lose half of their arete. SInce its root has to do with superlative ability, the greeks eventually used it to rank the highest of abilities from gods to men to bows. It also is used to describe the teleological end of things. If something does what it is meant to do, it has arete.

matt

05-12-2004, 09:32 PM

St. Gregory of Nyssamakes much use of it, but I dont feel like typing it all out. if you want references, let me know or just buy the Pelikan book, which would address many of the questions and problems that Lindsay has with the Church.

Owen Jones

05-12-2004, 10:05 PM

What Christ does is He takes the classical power of arete, once reserved exclusively to the nobility and to the warrior class, which everyone in the culture of his day would have been familiar with, and gives it to the believer of low estate, so that we all now have the capacity to rise to the level of nobility. This does not sum up Christianity en toto, but it goes far toward understanding the power of Christian faith during that era, a sense of power that falls on deaf ears in our culture today which extols the virtues of the "common man" and rejects the virtues of nobility. As a consequence, Christian faith today is perverted into a doctrine of right belief only that secures salvation. Which is why we have so much sectarianism destroying the spirit of the Gospel.

One of the virtues of nobility is that one has the luxury of taking the long view of things. Because the man of noble birth and distinction realizes he is part of a continuum, and he has an obligation not to bring dishonor to his name and to preserve the value of his estate for future generations in his family. The Gospel geneology is a symbol of the nobility of Christ, despite his current low estate. He identifies with our low estate, despite his royal lineage, and turns upside down (without negating) the classical doctrine of arete. Christianity is unique in this sense, not in the sense that we have a doctrine of immortality, or of incarnation, of divine sonship, or of resurrection, since many religions, and pre-religious cultures taught this. The Pharoah was a divine son.

The difference is that Christ universalizes what was before only tribal and particular. Even the truths expressed in philosophy were limited to the philosophical type, and even then, the prospect for a non-Greek to acquire the philosophic virtues was not there. But now we are all in Christ, and in Christ we are all raised, regardless of the depth of our sin, or the low estate of our birth. This was the truly new, revolutionary, unique teaching of Christ, which has been lost in the modern, homogenous world. It is why we are commanded to take the message of the Gospel to the powerless, to the infirm, the cast-offs, those in prison, not just to help them, but to demonstrate to a world that still prizes prestige, wealth and worldly power, how the Gospel works and how it is more powerful than any earthly force. Before the altar, slave and Lord are at the same level. The Lord is made humble, and the slave is given noble rank.

Irene

05-12-2004, 10:36 PM

Dear Mr Wheeler,

There are several members of the Orthodox Clergy on this list and this being lent they would be even busier than usual.

Is your parish Priest Father Mark? You are Greek Orthodox aren't you.

In Christ
irene

Fr Raphael Vereshack

05-12-2004, 11:16 PM

Dear Mr Wheeler,

Forgive me for not posting earlier. I do read the posts at monachos daily but do not always have the opportunity to make a point or reply. I also have my own sheep to attend tohttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif.

In any case the question of virtue is obviously central to our life as Christians. If we have no virtue or are not striving for it how can we be considered Christians? Indeed many who are wise say that if we were more virtuous many more people would approach the Church of Christ to obtain their salvation.

In any case we can only learn what virtue is by following Christ's commandments. In the doing we will learn. In our time if I may say so I would also say that we must strive with all of our might for humility, its companion compassion and repentance when we see how poor we are in attaining these virtues. Since virtues are the grace of God at work in us we must above all check that we are being humble- anything else and our 'virtue' is empty at best & demonic at worst.

The holy fathers speak of all of this in their typical grace-filled manner for our instruction & consolation. Here for example is something from St Maximos the Confessor: "Virtue is a stable & utterly dispassionate state of righteousness. Nothing stands opposed to it, for it bears the stamp of God, and there is nothing contrary to that. God is the cause of the virtues; and a living knowledge of God is realised when a person who has truly recognised God changes his inner state so that it conforms more closely to the Spirit." (5th Century Various Texts #2).

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Owen Jones

05-12-2004, 11:22 PM

This should be helpful. It's from St. Basil

http://www.angelicum.net/html/basil_the_great.html

W. Lindsay Wheeler

06-12-2004, 06:54 PM

Christopher r. Vianzon is absolutely right in his post so are many others especially Mr. Jones. I too have read Jaeger's Paedia.

There are three senses of the word arete. Mr. Vianzon hit upon two of them and Mr. Jones hit upon the third sense.

All these posters and I am saddened that no one quoted from the Bible. This is why I look at Protestantism so favourably. The Protestant laity know so much about scripture that I admire them. I am scandalized by the Protestants in their knowledge of scripture.

The Book of Wisdom in the Septuagint was written under the Hellenistic age under Greek influences.

Wis. 8.7. And if a man love righteousness, her labors are virtues (arete) for she teacheth temperance and prudence, righteousness (dikaios) and manliness (andrea).

What did Adam fail to do? Did he fail at having faith? Did he fail alms giving? Did he fail at prayer? Did he fail at taking the eucharist? Did he fail at attending services? Did he fail at truthfulness or lovingkindness?

What did Adam fail to do?

If we refuse and reject the Classical Greeks and refuse to know them, how can we understand the word arete and malakos and how important they really are.

Adam walked and talked with God everyday in the Garden of Eden, Adam's failure wasn't because he didn't have faith. He knew God personally. What is the fault of Adam?

Arsenios

06-12-2004, 07:09 PM

Dr. Wheeler wrote:

> [What does an Orthodox priest do]
> to teach his faithful "arete"?

Counselling, confession, homilitic teaching, encouragement, admonishment, example, obedience, faithfulness, silence... The list is endless

> What quotes from the church Fathers
> can teach me what arete is?

All those that motivate your faithful actions...

> Again, the verse:
> "...make every effort to supplement
> your faith with virtue (arete), and
> virtue with knowledge (gnosin),"

> If arete is "knowledge"

It is not. Knowledge *supplements* virtue. Plato thought that knowledge IS virtue. Christians are different - The demons have knowledge, and DO NOT DO what they know...

> then St Peter seems to say that
> "...make every effort to supplement
> your faith with knowledge (arete)
> and knowledge (arete)with knowledge
> (gnosis),..."

So he is obviously not saying THAT!

> This doesn't make sense.

Exactly...

> Knowledge is an attribute of the
> meaning of the word arete but the
> essence of the word arete, I don't
> think, means, knowledge.

The choir sings: "Amin!"

> "Values of christians" is that what
> "arete" means?

No. Virtue IS a Christian value, but virtue is the action of acquiring and keeping Christian values. There is a way you can say that without Christian virtue, one can have no Christian values...

> Is "arete" values?

No. Arete is the action of value, is itself a value, but is not the value of/for which it is the action. That is why Christ says: "IF anyone is WILLING after Me to follow, let him take up his own cross and be following Me." It is *willingness* that crosses over to both sides of the virtue/value differentiation and ties them together into one ontology...

> Is prayer "arete" or is prayer "pistei" faith?

Praying is virtuous, for it acquires the value that prayer is. Prayer is the value, praying is the virtue of it...

> Are we again confusing meanings of words
> together?

They overlap, because virtue is valuable, and virtues are values because they acquire values. In utterly mundane terms, air is an essential human value, and breathing it is therefore a valuable virtue, so that the virtue is itself value.

Without this, we would have valueless virtues... And we cannot have that because of the relationship of value to virtue.

> Is "giving alms" arete or a
> command of "pistei" faith?

Yes.

Arsenios

Gregory Erickson

06-12-2004, 07:27 PM

Dr. Wheeler,

I suppose to answer your question on Adam's fault it was that he did not believe God. He expressed his disbelief by judging his own perceptions and reasonings to be of more worth than the commandment of God. So then, he ate of the fruit that his wife offered him.

Arsenios

06-12-2004, 07:31 PM

Dr. Wheeler wrote;

>>>Wis. 8.7. And if a man love righteousness, her labors are virtues (arete) for she teacheth temperance and prudence, righteousness (dikaios) and manliness (andrea).<<<

What did Adam fail to do? Did he fail at having faith? Did he fail alms giving? Did he fail at prayer? Did he fail at taking the eucharist? Did he fail at attending services? Did he fail at truthfulness or lovingkindness?

> What did Adam fail to do?

He failed to DO what God told him to do.

> Adam's failure wasn't because he didn't
> have faith. He knew God personally.

He didn't have faith.

If you have faith, you do not turn away from God, call him a liar, believe the father of lies, and try to become like God by believing the serpent...

By doing that, Adam, in that action, lost his knowing God, and was thereby dead that very day...

> What is the fault of Adam?

He has been restored...

His fault was the malakos of turning away from God...
Redemption for us is the action of turning back toward God -
This action is Christian virtue [arete]...

"If anyone is willing..."

What's the big deal, Dale? You seem all wrought-up over this...

Christian virtue is not etheric and esoteric rocket science... It is mostly just Christ crucified and thereby our repentance from the flesh and our turning unto God in Spirit and Truth...

Arsenios

Owen Jones

06-12-2004, 07:33 PM

<plato>

Plato did not think this or say this or teach this.

Gregory Erickson

06-12-2004, 07:38 PM

Dear Owen,

We actually agree on something!

What Christ does is He takes the classical power of arete, once reserved exclusively to the nobility and to the warrior class, which everyone in the culture of his day would have been familiar with, and gives it to the believer of low estate, so that we all now have the capacity to rise to the level of nobility. This does not sum up Christianity en toto, but it goes far toward understanding the power of Christian faith during that era, a sense of power that falls on deaf ears in our culture today which extols the virtues of the "common man" and rejects the virtues of nobility. As a consequence, Christian faith today is perverted into a doctrine of right belief only that secures salvation. Which is why we have so much sectarianism destroying the spirit of the Gospel.

We agree that Christ gives to all "nobility" and that as manifested by arete.

I'm not quite sure I follow you about this being reserved for the nobility and warrior classes until Christ. The way it sounds is virtue was exclusive to the Greeks until the Advent.

Also, there is the matter of the Law. Did that not espouse virtue? Weren't the requirements of the Law established for everyone under the law, be they warrior, noble, or ditch-digger?

Owen Jones

06-12-2004, 08:19 PM

As to Arete, my understanding is that the Greeks generally believed that arete was reserved to Greeks, not barbarians.

As to the Law, no, I think the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that there was a huge double standard in the Law that had developed within Judaism. Also, the Law was given to the Jews and applied to the Jews. In theory, of course, it applies to all Jews, and not a certain class of Jews. But this discussion started over the Greek concept of Arete, so that was what I was trying to comment on.

You can see both in classical philosophy and Judaism a pushing toward a universal concept of humanity, but Pentacost first revealed this in reality. The Church becomes the symbol, not only for Christ's body in the world, but as representative of humanity. Communion is not just between the individual believer and Christ, but of all humanity and Christ. The liturgy is for the salvation of all of creation, it is the mediator between God and all of creation.

Gregory Erickson

06-12-2004, 10:32 PM

Regarding the Greeks I see your point.

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer earlier. I was more interested in understanding the virtues found in the Law i{a se}, not as the later Jewish sects interpreted them.

And I see your third paragraph agrees in principle to Fr. Raphael's most recent post in the Septuagint thread. I appreciate your use of symbol.

And please, if I may be so bold as to ask you to remember this Pharisee when you pray.

W. Lindsay Wheeler

07-12-2004, 05:11 PM

George Blaisdell wrote:

And virtue is the action that obtains and/or preserves/keeps a value...

The values of Christians are spiritual, and repentive - So that prayer and fasting according to the Church, turning away from sins, repentance, confession, attending services, giving alms to the poor, loving one's neighbor, turning away from all manner of evil, not judging one's neighbor, attaining humility, praying without ceasing, remembering God in all things, giving to the Church... Truthfulness, honesty, kindness, lovingness...

That is not the definition of arete. Arete is a specific word meaning a specific thing. Why is the book of Wisdom's definition different from George Blaisdell? How come George Blaisdell's answer doesn't match or include any of the words from the Book of Wisdom which is Christian Scripture???

Historian Gertrude Himmelfarb has written an excellent volume entitled The De-moralization of Society in which she traces how the word "virtue" slipped out of parlance and was replaced by "values." She contends that a decisive shift took place when:

Friedrich Nietzsche began to speak of 'values' in its present sense . . . not as a verb, meaning to value or esteem something; nor as a singular noun, meaning the measure of a thing (the economic value of money, labor, or property); but in the plural, connoting the moral beliefs and attitudes of a society. Moreover, he used the word consciously, repeatedly, indeed insistently, to signify what he took to be the most profound event in human history. His 'transvaluation of values' was to be the final, ultimate revolution, a revolution against both the classical virtues and the Judaic-Christian ones. The 'death of God' would mean the death of morality and the death of truth . . . above all, the truth of any morality. There would be no good and evil, no virtue and vice. There would be only 'values.' And having degraded virtues into values, Nietzsche proceeded to de-value and trans-value them, to create a new set of values for his 'new man.'14 (This is referenced from another site.

It is clear that George Blaisdell's comments come from Nietzche, He uses the word "values" many times. Arete is NOT a value. Yet from the stance he gives and with what force he proclaims his "opinion" as the gospel truth of the Orthodox church. Is George Blaisdell's opinions, which he never quotes and he never references to anything, is the teaching of the Orthodox church? Why then does he use the words of Neitzche and not the classical termninology?

You know what I find amazing. My personal opinion is that I see a great hatred among Orthodoxy for Classical teaching, for the Old Testament and for the Catholic church but what I do find is that what I hear from Orthodox people is socialism and communist and secualar definitions and speech and they think they are Christian. The word "values" is a socialist word and meaning. Arete is not a "value". Arete is not a "Christian value" as the god-hater, Neitzche wanted.

So, I gather that Orthodoxy takes its language and meaning from Fredrick Neitzche but refuses to take the meaning from the very people that coined and used the term.

Does this man have "knowledge" or does he have "opinions"? Is he deceived? Is he ignorant? Who taught him? Is he an example of how well the church does its job? We don't even know what is in our own holy scriptures.

Gregory Erickson

07-12-2004, 05:45 PM

W. Lindsay,

It is hard to not think of these things as elements of what some call the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Truly, these kinds of things are not taught in any kind of catechism, or Synodal encyclical. However, we must make a distinction between knowledge that is common to all -- as being made in the image of God -- and knowledge that comes from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit -- the likeness of God.

If nothing else, these conversations help us to sort out the tares from the wheat.

... and many who engage in these conversations here are academics who are obliged to make sense of these things, considering their environment. We are all growing in knowledge and grace, regardless of our vocations, yes?

I was an academic myself, who abandoned these pursuits because they inflamed in me the pride of mind that so many Fathers warn against. But that is my problem, not necessarily anyone else's problem here.

So breathe for a bit. And pray for God's grace for everyone here. I covet your prayers, certainly.

W. Lindsay Wheeler

07-12-2004, 07:12 PM

What was the fault of Adam? It was the same fault as Lucifer. They both had 'theosis'. Adam walked with God in the cool of the evenings in Paradise everyday. Adam had a sure knowledge of God. So did Lucifer. He was the highest angel living in heaven with God.

What were their faults? Adam failed at being a man. As a Protestant preacher said of him:

The effeminated Male Apple eater [Adam] (OED, Oxford English Dictionary, 1726 DE FOE Hist. Devil I. Iv

How do we know this? Because of the punishment God gave him. What did God do to Adam other than kicking him out of the garden of Eden which was the spiritual death and then, assigning to the body of Adam physical death? God Cursed the Ground. I saw this while studying the Protestant Work Ethic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic). God cursed the ground. Why did God cursed the ground? God said, that man should only get his bread "by the sweat of his brow". Adam was effeminate. He wasn't a true man.

Who are we, as men, made in the image of? What is the title of Jesus in the Gospels?--"Son of Man."

God hardened the ground in order that man should be hardened. Iron sharpens Iron. Adam failed in his leadership because Adam failed to be a man.

Onto Lucifer: Why do fundamentalist Protestant preachers fulminate against music as demonic? (I found this quite interesting.) In the book of Isiah chapter 14.11, (Masorectic Text not Septuagint) it has

Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, and the sound of your harps..."

Music was the downfall of Lucifer. Lucifer was a partying soul.

Deut 32.15. "When one grows fat--one forgets God".

Again:

1676 SHADWELL Libertine iv. II, Luxurious living…Effeminates fools in body. (OED)

Soft living breeds soft men. The law is hard. Only the hard can obey. The problem is not in Free Will as Owens posted way earlier in one thread it is effeminacy. Both Adam and Lucifer became effeminate through soft living. I can't seem to find it but there is a verse in Scripture where Lucifer is surrounded by gold and diamonds and precious rocks. As the highest angel, he filled his life with luxury. This luxury breeded arrogance which breed disobedience.

Virtue is from the Latin. From the Latin word "virtus". V-I-R means man in Latin therefore virtus or virtue means to be a man. Without "arete" there is no such thing as a man. How can one be a man, if he even doesn't know the first four virtues? These are not 'values' which are picked and chosen as if one is in a grocery store picking fruit for the dinner table, Arete is a necessity for manhood without which there is no manhood!

Arsenios

08-12-2004, 03:55 AM

Dear Dr. Wheeler -

Please accept my apologies for any offence I may have given you, and please forgive me...

Arsenios

christopher r. vianzon

08-12-2004, 09:34 AM

I wish you to log-0n to this website Arete on line Academy-Classical Christian Tutorials

http//www.biblicalgreek.org/tutorial/arete/ (http://www.biblicalgreek.org/tutorial/arete/)

Areté Academy is a unique online tutorial service dedicated to equipping Christians
with essential tools to clearly understand the Bible

Irene

08-12-2004, 09:54 AM

Adam's main fault was not that he sinned, it was that he did not acknowledge that he had sinned and ask God for forgiveness, he was not humble, rather, he tried to pass the whole blame on to Eve, "And the man said, the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat?" (KJV Genesis 3:12) and then she in turn tried to pass the blame onto the snake, "The serpent beguiled me and I did eat". (KJV Genesis 3:13) This is what I have been taught and told many times as an Orthodox convert.

Adam and Eve did not want to get into trouble and so tried to blame another for their own faults - they were childish.

It is true that easy living causes men AND women to be soft and lazy. One of the reason as a former Protestant I love how hard being Orthodox is: The frequent strict fasting from food and entertainment, the longer prayer rules, the standing in Church, on some occasions for hours. It is too difficult to explain to my Protestant relatives how uplifting these acts are. How forcing ourselves to endure what others say is "too hard" "not necessary" is so strengthening to our souls, our minds, our characters.

Husbands and Wives have for centuries toiled along side each other to feed their families. My own grandparents lived this life. Now that lives in affluent countries (for some)are easy. (Some/Many) Husbands can't cope with wives and children and mortgages and long for the freedom of their bachelor days. (Some/Many) Wives complain about their husbands and children and long for the old days and "romance". Families are breaking down, women are often bringing children up on their own and many don't have the strength to take on the role of "man of the house" as well as the mother and aren't strict enough on children. Boys who have missing fathers are rebelling because they have unclear role models.

If the role of the man as the leader, head of the family, the rock, and he fails that role through whatever weakness and leaves the woman to be the one and only parent of the children. Is he effeminate or is he childish. Those who don't accept their roles, their duty in life remind me of a spoilt child.

What is encouraging society to change from being moral and virtuous to being self centred and lazy?

The entertainment of our society (music, television, theatre, books) is sending messages to us saying "What about me" "Do what you want to do, be what you want to be..." etc encouraging selfishness and passions - and it is working.

In a recent survey in Australia most people did not know their neighbours at all and of these people 96% of people did not want to know their neighbours. It is hardly surprising then to hear news stories about people who have died and not been found for days when (some) people can't be bothered to get to know their own neighbours.
Where is the obedience to the commandment "... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."(KJV Mark 12:31)

Volunteering is becoming something that people can't be bothered doing unless there is something in it for them. In our country volunteers are now mostly the aged. At a retirement gathering I attended recently for a regional manager of the St Vincent de Paul society (one of my ex bosses) I realised that all the volunteer workers were over 60 and many were in their 70 and 80's. People seem to be getting more and more lazy and selfish what is going to happen to charitable organisations if people stop caring and don't volunteer?

I see the failings of society as just plain, spoilt brat childishness.

In Christ
irene

PS: Re: Protestantism and the Effeminate male: Recently I heard that Anne Boleyn, a highly intelligent woman with radical beliefs, first put the idea into the head of King Henry the VIII that the sovereign ruler of a country was put there by God and therefore as King his own authority was higher than the Bishops, Archbishops and Pope and he should have the final say on religious law. Which led to King Henry's decisions that eventually turned England away from Catholicism and into a Protestant country.

Therefore, King Henry, led by Anne Boleyn must have been effeminant. If I understand what has been written in this thread. Therefore the Church of England was started by an effeminant man?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

08-12-2004, 03:33 PM

Irene wrote:

"What is encouraging society to change from being moral and virtuous to being self centred and lazy?"

The point about being self-centred is extremely important for us as Christians. A 'virtue' without the grace of Christ is in danger of being something deeply sinful. For example 'manliness' outside of Christ will become brutality & vaunting of oneself over others. In Christ however it can become being responsible for others, showing patient endurance, courage under tribulation, etc (a point I made in a previous post- since women also can have these virtues hymnography refers to 'manly women' eg women martyrs).

The point here is to understand that the essence of Christian virtue is the selflessness that comes from a life in Christ. The Church did not inherit the arete of the ancient world; it showed the ancient world what arete is and fulfilled its best strivings.

As the Church clearly teaches us- moral behaviour codes are at the end of the day empty. Why? Because of the fundamental sin of pride which is always active & ready to turn any good effort back on itself. So the only true virtue is found in Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Arsenios

08-12-2004, 04:34 PM

Christopher writes:
> I wish you to log-0n to this website
> Arete on line Academy-Classical
> Christian Tutorials

Dear Christopher -

This site is a commercial venture that charges people $400 to learn their Bibles better [by learning Greek]...

It does not take $400 to learn that virtue is the doing of good... And it does not take a scholastically ratiocinational engulfment to understand that Christian virtues have to do with obeying Christ...

Are you promoting this commercial site on this list? Or did you just take the course and wish to try out what you learned here?

I think most here know that the virtue of a knife is to cut, of a singer to sing, of a Christian to pray... It really is no rocket science...

Arsenios

Moses Anthony

08-12-2004, 04:56 PM

Dear Arsenios,

LIGHTEN UP The point of naming the site was to clear up any misconceptions that apparently some on Monachos have about the true meaning of the Greek word "arete". To follow your reasoning means that anytime anyone mentions any site they would be promoting that web site. Again, LIGHTEN UP

the sinful and unworthy servant

W. Lindsay Wheeler

08-12-2004, 05:18 PM

Thanks for the comment on Anne Boleyn. Yes, Henry the VII was effeminate. What happened to Henry the VII is a paradigm that keeps on repeating itself since Biblical times: you can see that in the latter life of King David and King Solomon and the high priest Heli who couldn't discipline his two sons. King Solomon is actually called a "philoyuni" a lover of women. (III Kings 11.1, Septuagint, Bartlett's edition). King Solomon failed because women controled Solomon and turned his heart away to follow other Gods. Please also read I Esdras 4.13, where it talks greatly on the power of women over men. If Church leaders knew of their scriptures and counseled their leader maybee this tragedy of the split could have been avoided. I chalk this up to the continuing incompetence of Christian leaders who fail to teach and preach on the whole word of God and who are ignorant of their own scriptures.

In regards to the other scripture that alludes to Lucifer is at Ezekial 28.12.

Thus saith the Lord God; Thou art a seal of resemblance, and crown of beauty. Thou wast in the delight of the paradise of God; thou hast bound upon thee every precious stone, the sardus, and topaz, and emerald, andcarbuncle, and sapphire, and jasper, and silver, and gold, and chrysolite, and beryl, and onyx: and thouhastfilled thy treasures and thy stores in thee with gold.

Isn't it amazing that Socrates said in the Republic that too much music effeminizes the male. Yet, not only was Lucifer a musician and a lover of music but also covered in all the rich splendor of heaven with jewels and gold. He became effeminate which led to his disobedience. Only the hard can obey. Why do you think the military run boot camps? To harden men into being soldiers???? Is there a hidden wisodm here?

To Father Raphael Vereshack, how come I see Orthodox boys who are effeminate go up take the Eucharist come back and they are still effeminate as the day before? How come in the midst of a certain Greek organization, I see nothing but profligacy and uncontrol, childishness amongst supposedly Orthodox Christian men? How come not a single Orthodox boy can repeat the four virtues? How come the president of this fine Greek association doesn't even know the word virtue and what it means and the man has spent some 50 years in the Orthodox church?

The Church did not inherit the arete of the ancient world; it showed the ancient world what arete is and fulfilled its best strivings.

I am interested in where this referenced to? Is this a teaching of the church and where is this posted? I would like to know. I would just like to point out that the Roman Catholic Church is just as apostolic and as a valid church as the Orthodox church but it has never said anything like this. It is also a Christian church. What I do see is the great lack of manliness and other virtues in the laity of the Church as a whole, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. This is a problem of all the churches. What I write I have also presented in Catholic circles just as harsh. I was yelled at constantly in the Marine Corps because of my failings. Our business is serious business life and death depend on it. Is not our Christian business of salvation just as important. I pick on all.

W. Lindsay Wheeler

08-12-2004, 05:41 PM

A poster made this statement:

For example 'manliness' outside of Christ will become brutality & vaunting of oneself over others.

Did not Socrates have manliness? Did Socrates display "brutality & vaunting of oneself over others"? Socrates was a hoplite and was a veteran of three wars.

Did not Plato have manliness? Did Plato display ""brutality & vaunting of oneself over others"? Plato had cauliflower ears and was a boxer and trained like a Spartan.

Did not the Spartans have manliness and many other virtues? Did not Plutarch report that the only people that did not abuse the referees at the Olympic games were the Spartans?

Did not Cicero have manliness and many other virtues and did Cicero display "brutality & vaunting of oneself over others".

Why did Plutarch write his Lives? Maybe to demonstrate and make available to boys how to live virtuous lives by displaying the actual lives of virtuous men?

I read the story of the Spartans and I am ashamed of how weak and lawless I am as a Christian. I couldn't hold a candle to them.

I read at the battle of Plateia, that Spartans soldiers in the face of a charging and numerically superior enemy dropped spear and sheild in order to comply to the virtue of piety. It was a Spartan law that Spartans had to get permission from the god to fight. The altar and sacrifice was not set up yet and the sacrifice to gain permission was not yet done. The priest commanded the king the king commanded the soldiers. The soldiers dropped their weapons. The front ranks were mowed down.

The priest sacrificed and received the signal--The Spartans picked up spear and buckler and won the battle for Greece.

Duty to God and Country?????? Maybe, Selfless sacrifice in order to be obedient and pious and the not the crass pragmatism of American culture?

The above statement is not an absolute truth.

Owen Jones

08-12-2004, 06:21 PM

A manly person doesn't whine and complain about all of the bad and evil things going on around him.
A manly person does not exhibit obssessive fixations.

He who has ears to hear.

Eugene

08-12-2004, 06:35 PM

There is one point you are missing here, Lindsay. There is human arete and Divine arete. Being a good hard man, having human mialiness is OK, but it doesn't save. It just shows that the person recognizes values of goodness and stives to achieve them. The true Goodness only comes from God through Holy Spirit, there is noting a person can do to excersize the Divine Goodness by himself. The human goodness and the Divine Goodness are "as far as the West from the East", they are simply uncomparable. The human arete is always partly wrong. Only those who acquired Holy Spirit can understand the Divine Goodness and excersize the Divine Virtues. Unfortunately not everyone in the Orthodox Church has that gift yet, that is why you often don't see it in people. This gift is not something we automaticaly get for free when we become Orthodox, although we do get a "seed" of Holy Spirit when we are Baptized.

St. Seraphim of Sarov said: "The purpose of our Christian life is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit".

St. Symeon New Theologian (in Hymn 27) said:

"Do not say, my friends, that it is impossible to acquire the Holy Spirit,
Do not say that it is possible to be saved without Him,
Do not say that any man can receive the Holy Spirit without recognizing it,
Do not say that God is invisible to people"

The Divine Arete only comes from Holy Spirit.

Owen Jones

08-12-2004, 06:46 PM

This and other controversies on this site appear to me to stem from a lack of proper understanding of what revelation really is. There seems to be a notion that revelation is God revealing data and information about himself directly to believers who then sort of regurgitate it in the form of established facts. A kind of Newtonian action/opposite reaction as applied to matters of the spirit. As a result, the temptation is to reduce Christianity to one indisputable fact from which everything else progresses logically and it all falls together, and anyone who doesn't see it that way is, ipso facto, living in darkness. So, for example, if we could just establish a good, indisputable definition of a term, such as arete, then we would be all forced to concede everything else as following from that. But a dictionary defintion of something tells us little or nothing about the meaning or putpose or power of a word or an idea. There is no dictionary defintion of God (or man for that matter). Every person in every generation has to struggle and work that out for himself. The Beauty of Christianity lies in the paradox that it cannot be explained to someone who is not receptive in the first place. And for that person it takes no explanation.

Perhaps I have unfairly characterized it. But it seems that that is an underlying problem. Christianity is not a self-evident truth, a la John Locke and the British empiricists. It is a mystical truth that can only be "known" through internal struggle that involves participation in God, and God's participation in man -- a process which is never clear and obvious and is manifestly prone to error, to extremes of passionate intensity and passivity, of certitude and doubt, of prideful, even violent assertiveness and weak commitment.

W. Lindsay Wheeler

08-12-2004, 07:33 PM

Titus 2.15 "exhort and REPROVE with all authority."

St. Paul confronted St. Peter and reproved him to his face. Gal 2.11 "But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face..."

Do we try to end incompetence and ignorance or do we look away? I see a lot of opinion but rarely do I see knowledge in action.

My personal opinion, the traditions of men are voiding the word of God.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

08-12-2004, 07:42 PM

Dear Mr Wheeler,

Many have made excellent posts & replies to your questions. These were done considerately & kindly; some even apologised for any apparent provocation. And no one is obliged to accept what is said or written here.

To me at least it seems academic at this point to keep pursuing things in this way. The question is whether we will follow the kind advice offered above that in order to know what virtue is we must first struggle to be virtuous towards others ourselves. We reap only harm to ourselves if a discussion about virtue becomes a platform for launching passionate attacks on others. We certainly will never learn the first thing about virtue.

If we are kind & patient we will hear what others are trying to say to us. If we refuse this advice then we will never hear "even though Moses & the prophets" were to appear.

As a priest of our Church I must say the following- we all share in many sins which we spend a whole life struggling against. Almost all of us share in the sins of impatience & even anger. But the worst which our Lord clearly warns against is an entrenched meaness, unresponsive to the kindness of others. A sin of this magnitude invites inner chaos, opens us to evil spirits & endangers our salvation. Let us be manly in our self-restraint in regards to others.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

W. Lindsay Wheeler

08-12-2004, 07:44 PM

I observe. I see reality as is. I just pointed out observations in reality that don't match what I am hearing here. I am told one thing and then, I point out things I observe actually happening. Why is that wrong?

It is the Doric cultural philosophical maxim to have harmony between word and action. I see a lot of words but there is no harmony to the real world. Sooo, Are we in the Land of Oz or in the wonderland of Alice that our words have no impact of what is going on around us? We are totally clueless to what is going on?

Gregory Erickson

08-12-2004, 08:03 PM

This and other controversies on this site appear to me to stem from a lack of proper understanding of what revelation really is. There seems to be a notion that revelation is God revealing data and information about himself directly to believers who then sort of regurgitate it in the form of established facts.

God reveals Himself to those who are willing to accept Him. That is revelation. To communicate this relationship to others is, as you say, a "regurgitation" of sorts. And you are correct, this is not a self-evident truth. It is a revealed truth, via relationship, where God opens the eyes of the blind so that they may finally see, via relationship, what is true and what is not. Is it not permissible for the faithful to define terms, or is that only the proper domain of the scholar?

Implicit in this understanding of revelation is the absence of relationship, as stated elsewhere in this thread and others, in the natural philosophers, otherwise, there would be no need for apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers. These defenders of the unregenerate Greeks leave the reader to wonder: who is your true master? If it is Christ, why not defend Him and those who espouse the fulness of revelation more than those whose minds, powerful as they are, are still dead?

Truly, you don't need to be regenerate to understand that there are some things that are good, and some that are bad. And you don't need to be a sophist to get the point across. Eliade in our time has done a much better job of defining than any of us have done so far how the unregenerate manages to give expression to the image of God, regardless of all the intellectual wranglings used to justify local abuses. But we do not call Eliade or the peoples he recalls God-bearing, nor their work salvific.

Not from flag waving, but from the defending we see where loyalties lie.

Yes, reprove with all authority. Who is your authority, really? It seems to be Plato and the other unregenerate Greeks.

Gregory Erickson

08-12-2004, 08:27 PM

observe. I see reality as is. I just pointed out observations in reality that don't match what I am hearing here. I am told one thing and then, I point out things I observe actually happening. Why is that wrong?

It is the Doric cultural philosophical maxim to have harmony between word and action. I see a lot of words but there is no harmony to the real world. Sooo, Are we in the Land of Oz or in the wonderland of Alice that our words have no impact of what is going on around us? We are totally clueless to what is going on?

Can you not entertain the possibility that there are some things that exist that are greater than your ability to perceive them?

The Doric view of anything, like the American view of anything, or the Russian view of anything, submits itself, or is eventually humbled by the perspective of the One who ultimately decides what is right and what is wrong. If you are out of sorts where your ontology and/or epistemology are concerned, why not submit yourself to Christ who gives wisdom to all freely?

Please forgive the analogy, but it is current and relevant: to use the unregenerate Greeks (or the modern sciences, for that matter) to defend Christ and His work in the world, is to take the position of Boromir that you may use the One Ring against the enemy. Thankfully he was rebuffed by those who understood that the Ring has only one master, and Boromir was not that master.

So it is with the regenerate. We know, from experience, that God defends Himself very adequately, thank you. We do not need the powers of the created order to defend Him. Nor does He need us, nor the powers of our reasonings to defend His honor. Yet, it has pleased Him to choose the foolish of this world, the downcast, the ignored, and the forlorn to give expression to His presence and His work in this world. And to the world, and those of it, this is foolishness. But to those being saved, as the God-bearing Apostle said, it is the power of God unto salvation.

... and yes, all of this is about salvation. Even creation groans in anticipation of the revelation of the sons of God, awaiting its own redemption. This means, by inference, that it is in need of redemption, that things as they are presently are not perfect, not as intended.

M.C. Steenberg

08-12-2004, 11:16 PM

Friends,

Firstly, my apologies for being largely absent over the past two weeks, as other commitments have severely limited the amount of time I've been able to dedicate to our community here, and my responsibilities have somewhat wavered. This is likely to carry on for the next 4-5 days; however, thereafter I should be back about the business of moderation with more customary attentiveness.

Secondly, the tenor of this conversation has gotten a bit out of hand. Name-calling certainly will not do. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif I'll take some behind-the-scenes measures to tidy up this thread and speak to certain individuals, but please let's focus on the constructive conversations for which this community is intended. Should anyone have particular concerns, please do feel free to contact me directly.

The following was once told me by a wise monk, who evidently had seen a Disney film earlier in life: 'Remember the example and words of Christ. If you're forgetful of those words, repent and learn. But at least remember the words of Thumper...'.

INXC, Matthew

Fr Raphael Vereshack

08-12-2004, 11:55 PM

Matthew wrote:

"The following was once told me by a wise monk, who evidently had seen a Disney film earlier in life: 'Remember the example and words of Christ. If you're forgetful of those words, repent and learn. But at least remember the words of Thumper...'."

Yes- but just who was this Thumper & what were his words?http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Owen Jones

09-12-2004, 12:14 AM

He's a rabbit.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

09-12-2004, 12:44 AM

Owen Jones wrote:

"He's a rabbit."

Oh.

Does anyone know what this rabbit's words were?
Are these words from written or oral tradition?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

M. Rallis

09-12-2004, 01:23 AM

Father Raphael wrote:

“The Church did not inherit the arete of the ancient world; it showed the ancient world what arete is and fulfilled its best strivings.

As the Church clearly teaches us- moral behaviour codes are at the end of the day empty. Why? Because of the fundamental sin of pride which is always active & ready to turn any good effort back on itself. So the only true virtue is found in Christ.”

Now here, in the above quotation, is something to ponder.

Does not our human nature share a longing for communion with the Uncreated?

If we, instead, settle for worship of what is merely created by human thought, are we fulfilling our calling, or even truly living?

Or, is true living only to be found through giving up attachment to created things, both physical and intellectual?

For me, the answer to these questions is found in living the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, where my physical, intellectual, and spiritual self finds Truth and Life, our Lord Jesus Christ.

For me, the challenge is to continue to live Liturgically once I leave our parish church, something I often fail to do.

Owen Jones

09-12-2004, 01:25 AM

It's from Bambi. Do I have to do all of the work around here?

George Hawkins

09-12-2004, 01:31 AM

I have hesitation of jumping in here, as I will be a hypocrite, who doesn't take his own advice, but surely we must remove the mote from our own eyes before looking for the planks in the eyes of others.

M. Rallis

09-12-2004, 02:45 AM

So, you try and write something, and then just a little while later, you find something much, much more worth sharing:

"Truly the church is heaven upon earth; for where the throne of God is, where the awful sacraments are celebrated, where the angels serve together with men, ceaselessly glorifying the Almighty, there is truly heaven. And so let us enter into the house of God with the fear of God, with a pure heart, laying aside all vices and every worldly core, and let us stand in it with faith and reverence, with understanding attention, with love and peace in our hearts, so that we may come away renewed, as though made heavenly; so that we may live in the holiness natural to heaven, not binding ourselves by worldly desires and pleasures."

(Grinsbrooke, W. J. SPIRITUAL COUNSELS OF FATHER JOHN OF KRONSTADT, pg. 75)

Marie-Duquette

09-12-2004, 02:49 AM

Father Raphael,

"Owen Jones wrote: He's a rabbit!" and, you Father simply ask what does the rabbit say? Is this oral or written tradition?"

Couldn't help smiling at this, Father, because I just read a lovely story -- in Native American Oral Tradition -- that speaks of a "rabbit" Believe it or not!

The rabbit said to the young Indian boy, as he awoke in the middle of the cold winter night, "Come and play with me" ... then, "Come follow me!" ... As the story unfolds the young boy listens and follows the little brown rabbit into the snow covered forest, under the light of a dark, star-lit night! and, lo and behold! There before them both after their trek in the woods, stood a lovely pine tree filled with tiny lights, and topped with a large, glowing star. ...

The boy simply heard and followed ... and found!

I will leave you to be amazed by this "Star Tree!" and a little brown rabbit that points the way for a child! So, who is there among us to marvel at this?

Who has eyes to see? and ears to hear? but a child!

blessings and peace!

marie_duquette

M.C. Steenberg

09-12-2004, 07:31 PM

Owen wrote:

It's from Bambi. Do I have to do all of the work around here?

Of course. Somebody has to. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Bambi's words: 'If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all'.

I do believe he received it through the encumbrances of oral tradition (it was taught him by his mother). Though source criticism might identify certain redactions in the mid-twentieth century.

INXC, Matthew

Owen Jones

09-12-2004, 07:46 PM

But did the author really write it? I think this question poses a hermeneutical pre-condition of doubt that we must all existentially face up to.

Moses Anthony

09-12-2004, 08:58 PM

I do believe that the quote in question came from a monastery in California; but then, I'm not an expert in textual criticism.

M.C. Steenberg

10-12-2004, 10:29 AM

Friends, the hermeneutics of Bambi above have brought to mind an old text I haven't dug out and looked at in years, but which absolutely delighted me when I was a student and studying various biblical exegetical methodologies.

How to exegete a STOP sign.

Suppose you're traveling to work and you see a stop sign. What do you do?

That depends on how you exegete the stop sign.

1. A post-modernist deconstructs the sign (knocks it over with his car), ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.

2. Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.

3. A serious and educated Catholic [or Orthodox] believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take it too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take it too seriously either.

4. An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever) doesn't bother to read the sign, but he'll stop if the car in front of him does.

5. A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.

6. A preacher might look up 'STOP' in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean: 1) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; 2) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.

7. An orthodox Jew does one of two things:
<blockquote>a)Take another route to work that doesn't have a stop sign so that he doesn't run the risk of disobeying the Law.

b)Stop at the stop sign, say 'Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast given us thy commandment to stop', wait 3 seconds according to his watch, and then proceed.

Incidentally, the Talmud has the following comments on this passage:

R[abbi] Meir says: He who does not stop shall not live long.
R. Hillel says: Cursed is he who does not count to three before proceeding.
R. Simon ben Yudah says: Why three? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.
R. ben Isaac says: Because of the three patriarchs.
R. Yehuda says: Why bless the Lord at a stop sign? Because it says: 'Be still, and know that I am God'.
R. Hezekiel says: When Jephthah returned from defeating the Ammonites, the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that a donkey would run out of the house and overtake his daughter; but Jephthah did not stop at the stop sign, and the donkey did not have time to come out. For this reason he saw his daughter first and lost her. Thus he was judged for his transgression at the stop sign.
R. Gamaliel says: R. Hillel, when he was a baby, never spoke a word, though his parents tried to teach him by speaking and showing him the words on a scroll. One day his father was driving through town and did not stop at the sign. Young Hillel called out: 'Stop, father!' In this way, he began reading and speaking at the same time. Thus it is written: 'Out of the mouth of babes'.
R. ben Jacob says: Where did the stop sign come from? Out of the sky, for it is written: 'Forever, O Lord, your word is fixed in the heavens.'
R. ben Nathan says: When were stop signs created? On the fourth day, for it is written: 'let them serve as signs'.
R. Yeshuah says: ... [continues for three more pages]</blockquote>
8. A Pharisee does the same thing as an orthodox Jew, except that he waits 10 seconds instead of 3. He also replaces his brake lights with 1000 watt searchlights and connects his horn so that it is activated whenever he touches the brake pedal.

9. A scholar from Jesus seminar concludes that the passage 'STOP' undoubtedly was never uttered by Jesus himself, but belongs entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.

10. A New Testament scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a hypothetical street called 'Q'. There is an excellent 300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop signs and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar's commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunately omission in the commentary, however; the author apparently forgot to explain what the text means.

11. An Old Testament scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage 'STOP'. For example, 'ST' contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas 'OP' contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the 'O' and the 'P'.

12. Another prominent Old Testament scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there.

13. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another Old Testament scholar emends the text, changing 'T' to 'H'. 'SHOP' is much easier to understand in context than 'STOP' because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because 'SHOP' is so similar to the 'STOP' found on a sign several streets back, that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.