#ADANIPOWER all figured out...๐Ÿ˜ƒ

More from Hardik

More from Adanipower

You May Also Like

THREAD: Meditations on marriage metaphors in Ruth

The book of Ruth is, of course, a story about a beautiful marriage. But even before the courtship and the wedding and the important genealogy at the end, we find interesting language that is strikingly reminiscent of Genesis 2:24


That important verse reads:

'Therefore a man shall leave [ื™ึทึฝืขึฒื–ึธื‘] his father and his mother and hold fast [ื•ึฐื“ึธื‘ึทึฃืง] to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.'

The verb ืขื–ื‘ can be quite strong in force. For example, Joseph leaves behind [ื•ึทื™ึทึผืขึฒื–ึนึคื‘] his garment as he flees from Pharaoh's wife's sexual advances. Countless times, Israel is depicted abandoning the LORD, for example in Judg 2:12 [ื•ึทื™ึทึผืขึทื–ึฐื‘ึžื•ึผ], and going after other gods.

Likewise, the verb ื“ื‘ืง is rather striking. Lot is mortified of disaster overtaking him [ืชึดึผื“ึฐื‘ึธึผืงึทึฅื ึดื™] as he flees from Sodom. Israel is commanded in Deut 10:20 to cling fast [ืชึดื“ึฐื‘ึธึผึ”ืง] to the LORD and serve him and swear by his name.

Together they illustrate how radical God designed marriage to be. Marriage is a real severing of family relations in order to form a new, permanent bond with another human being.

Something very similar to this takes places in Ruth's life.
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x