I’m a bit surprised that I didn’t record Sunday’s run, which felt sluggish, broke only at Leopold Street, and came in at 11:04. Busy morning?
Today, everything about my body and breathing was resistant to a strong, limber run. Knees were stiff, body felt leaden, breath was rough and desperate from early on. Every time I tried to pick up the pace, to shake off the lethargy and spring free, instead I flopped back into my slow pace and wheezing. I did manage to hold off my break to Leopold Street again, and the time was 10:50, so it could have been worse.
This morning my body was very emphatically disinclined to do my twice-weekly exercise duty. Still, what makes it ‘duty’ is the obligation to do it anyway, and as it turns out the result was better than it has been since my return to the UK. After my sole stride-break at Leopold Street, I got back home in 10:58. I thought I was going much more slowly; clearly I have no idea whatsoever of my pace.
On the other hand, my calves, shins, and knees are achey since the run. In the name of a greater good, though.
First mile in four weeks. I am really not looking forward to this.
Well, it wasn’t fun, or pretty, but after 11:09 I arrived back at the front door. There was no single factor to point out in this morning’s go; I stopped twice, once at the Rusty Bicycle and once more after about half the remaining distance. I could feel the effect of a month of very little exercise and very fulsome dining. Carrying Thomas around seems not to have counteracted my sloth and gluttony, alas.
Just dropping a bit of a flag here:
I’ve long been sceptical about the idea that the Johannine ego eimi Sayings constituted an allusion to the Divine Name or Divine identity; it seems to derive a lot of its fascination from readers who encounter the expression in translation (and Christian readers), rather than directly in Greek or Hebrew. That’s not to suggest a fault in scholars who manifestly read in the original, by the way, but to flag up the existence of a base of popular support among non-readers.
Anyway, as I work through the two works I take to be most relevant — Catrin Williams’s ‘I Am He’: The Interpretation of Anî Hû in Jewish and Early Christian Literature and Jason Coutts’s “My Father’s Name”: The Significance and Impetus of the Divine Name in the Fourth Gospel, I’m struck by the phenomenon of avoidance and circumlocution with respect to the Name. That is: we can easily see that in the first century, authors avoid using the Divine Name altogether — it never appears as such in the New Testament, for instance — and has become the object of circumlocution or substitution. Rather than reading ‘I am’ and pondering whether it refers to the Name, then, I wonder whether it wouldn’t be more productive to see whether ‘I am’ can be seen to function as a substitute or circumlocution for the Name, or (if it is as ‘blasphemous’ as some readers of GJohn want to propose) whether we can find signs that it too is the object of avoidance.
I haven’t thought this through yet, and haven’t finished reading Williams or Coutts, so they may cover this later on. It just strikes me as a possible trajectory for further investigation.
Wednesday, in the middle of St Stephen’s House’s Advent Retreat (with 40 Hours Devotion), I ran 10:47. I pushed my break-stride to Leopold Street, but I don’t remember anything else about it.
This morning I ran 10:34, on mildly resentful upper legs. Break-stride pushed to Aston Street.
10:27 on Sunday. As I ran past Henley Street, a pedestrian greeted me with ‘Morning, Son’, and I spent the next two blocks wondering how old one has to be to call a man in his sixties ‘Son.’ Quick answer: He didn’t look that old.
Pushed my single not-break-stride close to Leopold Street. There were headwinds every direction I turned. This seems profoundly unfair.
10:47 again today, in the rain. My body was resisting much of the way — harder breathing, muscles complaining about being tired (after a good night’s sleep). I did push my single break a few paces past the Rusty Bicycle, but mostly just very glad it’s over.
Mostly the same run as Wednesday — I did, however, push my single break-stride back to the Rusty Bicycle at Magdalen and Hurst. The weather wasn’t as cold as Wednesday, and I felt a definite tension in the small of my back (more than any other ache or weakness): time, 10:45.
The Bangorian Controversy is probably not the most prominent topic on most readers’ minds — not even most Anglican readers’ — not even most Anglican controversialist readers’ — but in the seventeenth century, the question of the relation of church and state in post-Restoration England touched on practically everyone’s concerns. If I had more time, I might whip up editions of some of the pertinent documents from the Non-Jurors; but the Bishop of Bangor’s sermon attained wide circulation as a statement of Latitudinarian Erastianism (over against those Anglicans and Scottish Episcopalians who could not in conscience acknowledge William and Mary as legitimate monarchs while James II was alive). Non-Jurors might hew to a catholic, Jacobite line, or a principled Protestant primitivism, so the non-juring movement was constituted with internal conflict from the outset. On the other hand, the Latitudinarians who accepted William and Mary could argue (as Bishop Hoadly does herein) that the very idea of church government was non-biblical and that the state was the only proper seat of temporal authority.
Anyway, it’s not a long sermon, and you can read it here, in either single-page or two-up versions.
Cold morning, very strong disinclination to get out of bed, but I pushed the single break-stride interval further up the Magdalen Road and kept to a peppier pace. 10:57, back closer to what had been normal.
I ran my mile this morning, cautiously, since I have had a vexing, lingering head cold and cough for more than two weeks (during which interval I forswore my exercise regimen). I set a very modest pace and planned to break at Magdalen Road, if I could get that far.
As it turned out, the break at Magdalen Road was the only break I took, which was encouraging since I’ve been able to pare away extra breaks over my past few runs. I’ll be very pleased if I can resume pushing my single break later and later in the run. Various muscles and joints protested mildly, but on the whole my body did its job very well, and the time came in at 11:24 (not good, but very good for my first day back, with an unambitious pace and chilly air).
I think I’m coming down with a cold, but I went ahead anyway — didn’t feel any worse than usual, ran in 10:42, and made only one pause. I pushed a half block past Aston Street.