今年我 TA 嗰科叫做 Modern Study of the Bible, 好過癮, 雖然係一年級o既科目, 但係我自己都學到唔少新知識, 接觸一 d 之前唔多識o既嘢.
早兩個禮拜講摩西律法, 其中民數記講到摩西有個 Cushite 老婆: "摩西娶了古實女子為妻．米利暗和亞倫、因他所娶的古實女子、就毀謗他" (民數記 12.1). 但係心水清o既人, 就會諗起, 聖經多次提及摩西有個外父 (有時叫 Jethro [出埃及記 3.1; 18.1], 有時叫 Reuel [民數記 10.29]), 係一個米甸祭司, 係一個 Midianite, 一個米甸人, 咁摩西應該有個米甸老婆先係, 點解呢度又話佢有個古實老婆呢?
古實同米甸係兩個唔同o既地方. 米甸喺北阿拉伯, 而古實就喺埃及以南, 係一個非洲黑人o既地方, 所以一個古實女人應該係一個黑人. 有學者, 如 Martin Noth, 指出哈巴谷書 3.7 將古珊 (Cushan) 同米甸放喺一個平衡句入面, 所以可能古實同米甸其實係同義. 但係 Cush 同 Cushan 雖然相似, 但畢竟唔係同一隻字, 呢個解釋我唔能夠接受.
最直接o既解釋就係, 聖經話摩西有至少兩個老婆, 一個係米甸祭司個女, 另一個係個古實黑妹. 另外, 可以留意o既係, 米利暗由於摩西個古實老婆想去玩嘢, 上帝俾佢o既刑罰係"米利暗長了大痲瘋、有雪那樣白" (民數記 12.10). Frank Moore Cross 認為, 黑對白, 係聖經刻意而有心思o既安排.
嘩, 一夫多妻, 摩西, 你真識食.
Thursday, 30 October 2008
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Monday, 20 October 2008
MC Hotdog: 差不多先生
其實我都好少有特別講邊隻 CD 好聽, 但係呢隻碟好鍾意, 要特別提及. 上次 Wake Up 好正, 今次亦冇令人失望. 全碟十首歌中, 我最鍾意'差不多先生', '謝謝啞虎', '毒', '我瘋了', Hotdog 表現當然出色, 歌詞亦填得好, 尤其係'差不多先生', 真係非常鍾意. 其實我鍾意'差不多先生'多過'我愛台妹', 聽落好有 feel.
===================================
差不多先生
我抽著差不多的的煙 又過了差不多的一天
時間差不多的閑 我花著差不多的錢
口味要差不多鹹 做人要差不多的賤
活在差不多的邊緣 又是差不多的一年
一個差不多的台北市 有差不多馬子
差不多又干了幾次 用著差不多的姿勢
看著差不多的電視 吃著差不多的狗屎
寫著差不多的字 又發著差不多的誓
差不多的夜生活 又喝著差不多的酒
聽著差不多的音樂 喝醉差不多的糗
有著差不多的絕望 做著差不多的夢
穿著差不多的衣服 腦袋差不多的空
差不多的掛 說著差不多抱怨的話
時間也差不多了 該我那差不多的家
差不多的瞎 指鹿為馬 都差不多吧
繼續吧 繼續瞎子摸象吧 有差嗎
我是差不多先生 我的差不多是天生
代表我很天真 也代表我是個賤人
這差不多的人生 這個問題艱深
差不多先生 我的差不多是天生
代表我很天真 也代表我是個賤人
這差不多的人生 總在見縫插針
差不多的反復 總是差不多又一無反顧
差不多的感觸 總是差不多又重產物
差不多的孤 差不多的毒
一條差不多的路 我吃著差不多的苦
我嗑著差不多的藥 又睡了一場差不多的覺
差不多的煩惱 差不多要把我逼瘋掉
差不多的糟 差不多的妙
差不多的鬧 又差不多的屌
差不多的中國風 差不多要把耳朵蒙
改世不紅 差不多要把你送了終
差不多的歌手 擺著差不多的烏龍
差不多的麥克風 唱差不多的胡隆 都在哭窮
差不多都像個豬頭 偏偏我和他們是差不多的豬朋狗友
撒差不多的謊 唬爛差不多的強
罵人差不多的嗆 不然你要怎麼樣
我是差不多先生 我的差不多是天生
代表我很天真 也代表我是個賤人
這差不多的人生 這個問題艱深
差不多先生 我的差不多是天生
代表我很天真 也代表我是個賤人
這差不多的人生 總在見縫插針
差不多的你 差不多的我 差不多的他 差不多的他媽
都差不多想發達 差不多打著哈哈
他罵著叉叉嘎嘎呼啦啦 都差不多的哢哢
差不多先生他像個笑話 有聞又在叫罵
差不多要跳不起來 還是要跳要吧
差不多要像烏龜 但烏龜烏龜翹吧
這差不多的人生 他妙嗎
差不多要力爭上游 想游到上流
差不多在心裡默念阿門和佛陀布的放流
差不多的生活很街頭 再差一點你就變成街友
我唱了八十八個差不多 都差不多
差不多先生不會在乎這麼多 日子應該怎麼過
差不多的2008怎麼霍 我是差不多先生 熱狗
我是差不多先生 我的差不多是天生
代表我很天真 也代表我是個賤人
這差不多的人生 這個問題艱深
差不多先生 我的差不多是天生
代表我很天真 也代表我是個賤人
這差不多的人生 總在見縫插針
===================================
Friday, 17 October 2008
畫皮
頭先一個人喺屋企睇靜靜地睇<畫皮>. 本來睇, 係因為覺得張靚穎隻<畫心>好正, 而且又有陳嘉上做導演, 又有甄子丹睇; 點知結果齣戲比想像中好睇. 首先, 推進節奏 OK, 唔會好似其他國內古裝片咁, 掛住拍風景 show off 畫面, 而拖到慢晒. 故事由頭到尾都有追看性, 而且易明, 雖然係古代背景, 但拍出有種神話奇幻 feel, 切合故事本質. 我覺得最突出o既係音樂, 有 d 旋律寫得好搶耳, 有助觀眾投入劇情. 主題曲我之前都已經大力推介過, 唔使再講. 唯一唔好係趙薇: 陳坤同甄子丹為佢爭風? 說服力不高囉.
總括嚟講, 我覺得呢齣戲拍得好好, 陳嘉上有料到, 畫面, 音樂, 故事節制都掌握得好, 故事易明易 follow, 有幾位角色又討喜, 睇完好有滿足感, 我覺得係近年中國古裝片中比較好o既一套. 睇得過.
Monday, 13 October 2008
The Strangers
今日 thanksgiving 冇嘢做, 亦冇地方去, 不過夜晚就睇咗齣戲, 係靚女 Liv Tyler 做o既 The Strangers. 故事講佢地男朋友喺間屋入面, 點知俾幾個戴面具o既陌生人搞. 就係咁簡單, 幾個人做晒成齣戲. 除咗女主角特別秀色可餐外, 其實呢齣戲同其他同類型o既殺人片冇乜分別, 故事亦不見得有特別聰明之處. d 變態殺人犯個個都好似忍者咁, 又好似練就有凌波微步神功咁, 個個都神出鬼沒, 次次都係明明望住佢, 個鏡頭一轉就唔見咗人, 似鬼多過似人, 太過神化, 難以令人睇得投入.
強項: Liv Tyler. 有一幕講佢想走落床下底, 點知個身太大份, 入唔到, 算係全片最過癮之處.
弱項: 睇完都唔知發生乜事, 只知無厘頭有幾條友戴面具鍾意入屋殺人, 沒頭沒腦. 成日用大聲音響嚇人, 只係低下手法. 好多次 d 殺手明明可以輕易殺咗兩個主角, 但係又唔殺, 只令人覺得唔殺得佢地住因為齣戲一定要至少做夠個半鐘.
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
玩到尾o既 RPG （5）：Tales of Vesperia
好耐冇繼續呢個話題, 因為做份 proposal 做到個人腦都實埋, 打機都冇乜時間. 不過而家既然已經搞掂, 就回歸打機生活囉. 尋晚就玩一隻 xbox 360 o既 RPG 玩到尾, 實屬難得.
難得在於, 我一向都唔鍾意 Tales 系列, 因為佢地一般都注重打鬥系統多過故事同角色, 所以呢個系列好少出到好o既 RPG, 所以我一開始都不對呢隻 game 抱有期望. 不過呢集有 d 唔同, 雖然故事都係一般貨仔, 但係幾個角色就 OK 吸引, 各有故事同性格, 足以吸引我玩到尾去睇佢地o既結局. 我認為, 呢隻係 360 上面唯一算出色o既日式 RPG. 不過當然, 比起 Shadow Hearts 或 Xenosaga 之類, 仲差好遠. 而家開始玩 Square 隻 Infinite Undiscovery, 似乎麻麻地, 差 Vesperia 一皮喎.
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
基督杯?
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/10/01/jesus-bowl.html
最近法國考古學家 Franck Goddio 發表話發現到隻'基督杯', 喺 Alexandria (埃及) 水底出土. 佢認為隻杯係來自公元前第二世紀至公元第一世紀之間. 上面用希臘文寫住 DIA CHRESTOU O GOISTAIS, 依佢翻譯係'魔術師基督' (by Christ the magician).
問題係 CRESTOS 唔同 CHRISTOS, 係咪等於'基督'令人存疑. 古代羅馬文人 Suetonius 喺講到 Claudius 時期嗰時, 提到'the Jews constantly caused disturbances at the instigation of Chrestos'. 呢段文字好出名, 因為有可能係講緊第一世紀o既基督徒, 不過同樣問題, 呢度係講緊 Chrestos, 唔係 Christos, 所以有學者估會唔會係羅馬人唔熟教會嘢, 所以串錯基督個朵.
點都好啦, 既然個名又唔算全中, 而且個年期如果真係公元前第二世紀至公元第一世紀之間, 咁就太早, 冇乜理由呢隻杯同基督教嗰個耶穌有直接關係.
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Proposal Defense 講詞
聽日就係我 proposal defense, 開頭要講十分鐘介紹自己個 proposal, 之後答 20-30 分鐘問題. 以下就係我打算要講o既說話:
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. In my dissertation, I'm trying to investigate the effects, if any, of the destruction of the 2nd temple on how the Jews imagined and described heaven. I suppose I don't need to repeat what I've said in my proposal, so in the following 10 minutes or so, I plan to give you a more personal account of how I came to this research topic, and why I think it is worthwhile to work on it as a dissertation.
How did I come to be interested in this topic? If you remember, about 2 years ago, we had a famous scholar named Eliot Wolfson on campus; he gave a special presentation on Jewish mysticism and showed some fancy-looking pictures of ancient manuscripts. But unfortunately, just like a selected few of the faculty members who are willing to admit and many graduate students who cannot help but confess, I did not understand his lecture at all. However, as diligent and enthusiastic a student I am, in preparation for the lecture, I read a number of his studies, which I somehow understood, and actually found intriguing at times. In some of those, Wolfson discussed the connections between heaven and temple in Jewish conceptions, that Jews believed that the temple on earth was built on the model of a heavenly prototype, and they imagined heaven in temple images. Being a knowledgeable graduate student of McMaster University who's done his comps and all that, I've heard of this idea many times before, but I have to say that it was on that occasion that I began wondering, since heaven and temple are connected conceptually, what would the destruction of the 2nd temple do to Jewish perceptions of heaven? Was there a shift after 70 CE?
At first, I thought to myself, the answer should be rather straight forward, because it just seems natural that the trauma of losing the temple would make quite an impact on perceptions of heaven, considering that the Jews traditionally imagined heaven as a temple. But then I saw an interesting idea that changed my mind in a recent article of David Suter, in which he points out that the authors and readers of the Second Temple apocalyptic literature believe that God can be found only in heaven, but not in the disqualified temple on earth, because many Jews considered themselves living in a state of a continuous exile in the absence of the temple even after they had physically returned from the exile. It was after reading this that I came to realize that the situation is a lot more complicated than I initially thought. I mean, I'm not too sure about the idea of an ongoing exile, but I think one aspect of this theory has some truth to it: that is, there was a relatively widespread dissatisfaction against the temple, that some Jews saw the temple or its priesthood as disqualified, they're not functioning the way they should. The community that copied and preserved the dead sea scrolls are an example of this, they're pious Jews, they're living a religious life, they're very keen observers of the torah, but they were doing so without the second temple, and they were quite OK with that. In other words, there might be a discrepancy between historical reality and the Jews' perception of the reality. In history, we know that the Jews lost their temple in 70 CE; but in the mind of some Jews, they had lost the temple way before its physical destruction. The starting point of the trauma of losing the temple is not necessarily the day after the temple's destruction; it could be much earlier. This observation, I think, turns this seemingly straightforward inquiry into an interesting puzzle that intrigues me.
Why do I think that this is an important topic to work on? In Judaism, there is an idea of sacred space. Some places are more important, more holy than others. And the most important of such sacred space are the temple which is God's dwelling on earth, and heaven which is God's permanent residence above the earth. A study that will enrich our knowledge of the development of the Jews' perception of these special places, that sounds pretty important to me.
Is my study of this important topic going to be important as well? Am I doing anything new that still needs to be done? Among other things, I think one significance of my dissertation is that I'll focus on comparing second temple literature with post-70 writings that date to before the 2nd century CE, instead of the Hekhalot literature that date to a much much later period like Elior did in her famous book The 3 Temples. And I think that is an important task. Just for example, let's say I want to find out the impact of the 9/11 attacks on movie making. The best way to do it is to compare movies that were made before 2001 with those that were made in the years or decades immediately following the event. I would not compare movies that were made before the event with those that are made half a millennium afterwards. I mean, I don't deny the value of doing that, but it seems quite clear to me that the materials that are closest in time to the pivotal event are the most important evidence for this kind of inquiry. That's what I'm doing, and to my surprise, that really hasn't been done adequately enough in the past as far as I know.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. In my dissertation, I'm trying to investigate the effects, if any, of the destruction of the 2nd temple on how the Jews imagined and described heaven. I suppose I don't need to repeat what I've said in my proposal, so in the following 10 minutes or so, I plan to give you a more personal account of how I came to this research topic, and why I think it is worthwhile to work on it as a dissertation.
How did I come to be interested in this topic? If you remember, about 2 years ago, we had a famous scholar named Eliot Wolfson on campus; he gave a special presentation on Jewish mysticism and showed some fancy-looking pictures of ancient manuscripts. But unfortunately, just like a selected few of the faculty members who are willing to admit and many graduate students who cannot help but confess, I did not understand his lecture at all. However, as diligent and enthusiastic a student I am, in preparation for the lecture, I read a number of his studies, which I somehow understood, and actually found intriguing at times. In some of those, Wolfson discussed the connections between heaven and temple in Jewish conceptions, that Jews believed that the temple on earth was built on the model of a heavenly prototype, and they imagined heaven in temple images. Being a knowledgeable graduate student of McMaster University who's done his comps and all that, I've heard of this idea many times before, but I have to say that it was on that occasion that I began wondering, since heaven and temple are connected conceptually, what would the destruction of the 2nd temple do to Jewish perceptions of heaven? Was there a shift after 70 CE?
At first, I thought to myself, the answer should be rather straight forward, because it just seems natural that the trauma of losing the temple would make quite an impact on perceptions of heaven, considering that the Jews traditionally imagined heaven as a temple. But then I saw an interesting idea that changed my mind in a recent article of David Suter, in which he points out that the authors and readers of the Second Temple apocalyptic literature believe that God can be found only in heaven, but not in the disqualified temple on earth, because many Jews considered themselves living in a state of a continuous exile in the absence of the temple even after they had physically returned from the exile. It was after reading this that I came to realize that the situation is a lot more complicated than I initially thought. I mean, I'm not too sure about the idea of an ongoing exile, but I think one aspect of this theory has some truth to it: that is, there was a relatively widespread dissatisfaction against the temple, that some Jews saw the temple or its priesthood as disqualified, they're not functioning the way they should. The community that copied and preserved the dead sea scrolls are an example of this, they're pious Jews, they're living a religious life, they're very keen observers of the torah, but they were doing so without the second temple, and they were quite OK with that. In other words, there might be a discrepancy between historical reality and the Jews' perception of the reality. In history, we know that the Jews lost their temple in 70 CE; but in the mind of some Jews, they had lost the temple way before its physical destruction. The starting point of the trauma of losing the temple is not necessarily the day after the temple's destruction; it could be much earlier. This observation, I think, turns this seemingly straightforward inquiry into an interesting puzzle that intrigues me.
Why do I think that this is an important topic to work on? In Judaism, there is an idea of sacred space. Some places are more important, more holy than others. And the most important of such sacred space are the temple which is God's dwelling on earth, and heaven which is God's permanent residence above the earth. A study that will enrich our knowledge of the development of the Jews' perception of these special places, that sounds pretty important to me.
Is my study of this important topic going to be important as well? Am I doing anything new that still needs to be done? Among other things, I think one significance of my dissertation is that I'll focus on comparing second temple literature with post-70 writings that date to before the 2nd century CE, instead of the Hekhalot literature that date to a much much later period like Elior did in her famous book The 3 Temples. And I think that is an important task. Just for example, let's say I want to find out the impact of the 9/11 attacks on movie making. The best way to do it is to compare movies that were made before 2001 with those that were made in the years or decades immediately following the event. I would not compare movies that were made before the event with those that are made half a millennium afterwards. I mean, I don't deny the value of doing that, but it seems quite clear to me that the materials that are closest in time to the pivotal event are the most important evidence for this kind of inquiry. That's what I'm doing, and to my surprise, that really hasn't been done adequately enough in the past as far as I know.
Saturday, 20 September 2008
歧視女性的基督教會?
我從來都不自居為女權主義者, 但係有時太過份o既歧視行為, 真係要忍唔住放出嚟俾人見識一下, 有幾過份. 我之前都講過好多次, 都係嗰句, d 人成日話自己o既決定係'合乎聖經原則', 不過其實係倒轉先真: 自己早有定論, 然後選擇性地搵 d 似乎係支持自己論點o既經文出嚟. 假借聖經o既名義嚟壓迫他人.
============================
Cover with women pastors pulled from shelves
By ERRIN HAINES Associated Press Writer © 2008 The Associated Press
Sept. 19, 2008, 2:36PM
ATLANTA — The five women on the cover are dressed in black and smiling — not an uncommon strategy for selling magazines.
But these cover girls are women of the cloth, featured in Gospel Today magazine's latest issue, which the Southern Baptist Convention has pulled from the shelves at its bookstores, though the magazine is available for sale upon request.
The group says women pastors go against its beliefs, according to its interpretation of the New Testament. The magazine was taken off stands in more than 100 Lifeway Christian Bookstores across the country, including six in metro Atlanta.
Published for nearly 20 years, Gospel Today is the largest and most widely distributed urban Christian publication in the country, with a circulation of 240,000. The magazine's publisher, Teresa Hairston, said she was just reporting on a trend, not trying to promote women pastors.
"They basically treated it like pornography and put it behind the counter," she said. "Unless a person goes into the store and asks for it, they won't see it displayed."
Nationally, the Southern Baptists have adopted statements discouraging women from being pastors, but their 42,000 U.S. churches are independent and a few have selected women to lead their congregations. The faith was organized in 1845 in Augusta, Ga.
......
============================
死海古卷@多倫多
非常期待.
============================
Dead Sea Scrolls to be showcased at ROM next year
Posted: September 18, 2008, 10:08 PM by Barry Hertz
Arts
By Natalie Alcoba, National Post
The biggest international exhibition yet of the Dead Sea Scrolls will be showcased at the Royal Ontario Museum next year.
Billed by some as Toronto’s largest ancient historical “blockbuster” since the Art Gallery of Ontario’s King Tut show in 1979, the scrolls are scheduled to be at the ROM next summer until December. Not every piece will be on display, but organizers say it will be the largest collection outside of Israel’s borders.
Similar, smaller exhibits in other cities have attracted hundreds of thousands of viewers in the past — the ROM show is expected to be even more popular.
The scrolls were discovered in 11 caves along the shores of the Dead Sea starting in 1947 and consist of more than 900 manuscripts, largely fragmented, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. They date back to 250 BC.
“Most people would say they are the most important document having to do not just with Jewish history, but the origins of Christianity,” said Alex Gropper, director of the University of Toronto’s Canadian Institute for Mediterranean Studies. “They’ve revolutionized our knowledge of this important period.”
Mr. Gropper helped bring the exhibition to Toronto. He is on the board of the Israel Antiquities Authority, the custodian of the scrolls. Marilynne Freidman, a spokeswoman for the ROM, said the museum would be releasing details about the exhibit next week, at an official launch.
......
===========================
============================
Dead Sea Scrolls to be showcased at ROM next year
Posted: September 18, 2008, 10:08 PM by Barry Hertz
Arts
By Natalie Alcoba, National Post
The biggest international exhibition yet of the Dead Sea Scrolls will be showcased at the Royal Ontario Museum next year.
Billed by some as Toronto’s largest ancient historical “blockbuster” since the Art Gallery of Ontario’s King Tut show in 1979, the scrolls are scheduled to be at the ROM next summer until December. Not every piece will be on display, but organizers say it will be the largest collection outside of Israel’s borders.
Similar, smaller exhibits in other cities have attracted hundreds of thousands of viewers in the past — the ROM show is expected to be even more popular.
The scrolls were discovered in 11 caves along the shores of the Dead Sea starting in 1947 and consist of more than 900 manuscripts, largely fragmented, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. They date back to 250 BC.
“Most people would say they are the most important document having to do not just with Jewish history, but the origins of Christianity,” said Alex Gropper, director of the University of Toronto’s Canadian Institute for Mediterranean Studies. “They’ve revolutionized our knowledge of this important period.”
Mr. Gropper helped bring the exhibition to Toronto. He is on the board of the Israel Antiquities Authority, the custodian of the scrolls. Marilynne Freidman, a spokeswoman for the ROM, said the museum would be releasing details about the exhibit next week, at an official launch.
......
===========================
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)