The Apocalypse of Saint John!
As best I can tell, Mary and Joseph fly to Egypt carrying the child Christ between them like the ark of the covenant, like a royal procession, like a eucharistic tabernacle.
Christ himself buries Moses. (I think.)
All of Scripture in a 360-degree panorama of hundreds of stained glass scenes.
The archmartyr.
MZS’s negative, even bitter review of the new Star Wars movie is a bad omen. I’m sure he’s right, but it’s still a bummer.
Apropos of nothing…
wine is to grape juice as
incense is to a fog machine as
candles are to electric candles as
immersion is to sprinkling.
I’d like more basketball like that, please and thank you.
Read Audrey Watters on the Canvas meltdown.
She’s right. You can teach without an LMS. Once you give it a try, you’ll never go back.
Read Leithart on the Ascension:
Without the Ascension, we risk shrinking the gospel to a private message of eternal life, which may or may not have public import. When Ascension Day is given its proper due, the gospel shines as public truth, a fundamentally political message of the royal Conqueror that has decisive import for both nations and individuals.
This Spurs team is so fun to cheer for. Bursting at the seams with all the right guys. Pretty soon it’ll be America’s team once the opponent is OKC…
And I wish guys like Simmons and Lowe would quit calling for Fox to be traded. He’s the glue guy. He’s the veteran. He’s the captain of the ship even with Castle on the floor. He’s the missing link, only he’s not missing at all. Don’t trade him! Let the man lead. It’s gotten us this far.
Read Ephraim Radner on the opacity of other human beings.
And while you’re at it, read him on aliens, too.
Nadya Williams has the receipts on Sarah Ruden’s new book on Saint Perpetua, but Eve Tushnet has written a perfect—read: perfect—review of it. I won’t quote a line, because it’s too good to pick apart. Just read it.
Read Nagel on Scanlon. I’m but a humble eavesdropper (grasshopper?) among giants, but here is the only offending paragraph:
Scanlon’s work is situated in highly contested philosophical territory. In my view, his interpersonal foundation for morality is more plausible than the impersonal foundation of impartial benevolence that is its main contemporary rival. He offers a persuasive explanation of what underlies many of the intuitions about individual rights, prohibitions and obligations that are often cited in opposition to utilitarianism.
Is the bolded section of the second sentence true? No, unless you select only for those—even among living Anglophone philosophers—who find one of these two theories compelling. There are plenty of Thomists in the world, for example, and that’s to mention only one alternative. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of, etc.
“The Apostle Paul Was Not an Escapist." I’m not so sure. And the implied contrast, between a thoroughgoing eschatology and an ecclesial ethic, seems a false choice to me. As does that between Paul (the man, the thinker, the writer in context) and the canonical Paul, who together with the other canonical writings is what counts for Christians. That is to say, the former is not necessarily identical to the latter, and so the felt need to unite them as one is understandable but misguided.
But that’s a story for another time.
I liked CT’s pairing of two serious evangelical reflections on the ethics of sterilization together: one by Matthew Lee Anderson, the other by Justin Whitmel Earley.
I’m a sucker for Adam Roberts' little etymological deep dives. Here’s another, on Hopkins.
This double-review of two books on faerie for The Lamp is DBH at his A+ finest.