once more unto the breach (randomly)

Thought I’d post, as I haven’t done so in quite a while. Among other things, I have been on holidays, busy at work, have read some books, and went for a very long run. (Isn’t google maps amazing?)

I’ve also started reading some Hayden White:

There does, in fact, appear to be an irreducible ideological component in every historical account of reality. That is to say, simply because history is not a science, or is at best a protoscience with specifically determinable nonscientific elements in its constitution, the very claim to have determined some kind of formal coherence in the historical record brings with it theories of the nature of the historical world and of historical knowledge itself which have ideological implications for attempts to understand “the present”, however this “present” is defined.

Hayden White, Metahistory, (1973), 21.

Hmmm.

Also another thought: Adam and Eve are not named, as such, until after sin.* The proper name occurs following the fall. Is this significant? Perhaps not, as the woman is not named until after child birth, and so highlighting this one event (based only on one possible reading) is perhaps not balanced. Any thoughts from theological types out there?

*Accepting, of course, that you take the alternative reading of Gen 2:20. Or, if you only consider the performative occurences of the name.

Filed under: genesis, hayden white, random thoughts