Mike's musings

Leaps and bounds - and the OT as canon

Well, she's not exactly leaping and bounding - or indeed walking yet - but Jo's development continues apace. Yesterday she started blowing raspberries on me, the way that we do on her, which she thought was very funny. Obviously, when she did it to me, I had to do it back, so then it was her turn again, etc.. And today she came out with her third word. She continues to use "Mummy" and "Daddy" (or similar) more consistently, but this morning we were in bed, and she was looking at a coaster that she's fond of, which is in the shape of a cow (yes, I know), and I said "Moooo", and she said "Moooo" back. And again. And we got a cuddly toy cow out, and she said "Moooo" to that, as well. Sometimes it's closer to "Bbboooo", but she's definitely copying the word, and saying it to the cow(s). Not the most useful word, you might think, but given that her mother's nickname is "Moo", you could be wrong. Now we need to get her to say "freak boy", and we'll both be covered.

On the other topic in the heading, I've been reading - and liking - Aichele's arguments. One of interest - which I may be over-paraphrasing (or even extending) - is whether the Old Testament has an existence outside a Christian reading. Not just whether canonically the books are defined - given that Jews take a different set to Protestants, for instance - but whether, given that, the texts that make up the "Old Testament" can even begin to have any meanings which aren't completely mediated by the New Testament. They are seen as lending authority to the New Testament, but it's a circular issue, as they have no existence without (in both senses: outside, and L: sine) the New Testament. Arguments such as those about homosexuality which are sometimes at least partly based on Paul's interpretation of particular OT passages become much more interesting where it's unclear how to deal with their ontology. I love this stuff.