[posted by Elena Bussolari]
If we must always extract abstract principles from the text of Scripture as moderns would have us do, in the form of a PowerPointed list – wasn’t its object to ‘demythologize’ the narrative? – then Scripture was written not as a living book for all times but as an embalmed (emblamed?) body to fit to a Procrustean bed. ‘Emblamed’, I say, not emblemed or emblazoned, because all manner of applications said to follow from the abstraction (‘subtraction’, one may dyslexically read) but really foreign to the text are ironically imputed to the text as if the thing is actually there, floating in the ether.
Postmodernism isn’t the problem here. The modern interlude clutched at apples of the Hesperidean garden as Macbeth clutched at the dagger with the handle toward his hand. You asked the questions as an empirical reader that the Model Reader did not ask, or I can say you the modern, not that postmodern reader, did odd things to the text even with your false insistence on ‘authorial intent’. That is not my fault.
Elena is an undergraduate classics student. She is currently studying abroad in Paris, the city that has a ‘Latin Quarter’, however the reader is to construe such a phrase.