1. John Van Seters, A Law Book for the Disapora, page 126:
The law regarding injury to a pregnant woman in [Exodus] 21:22-25 follows the Babylonian order, but in this specific case, the author has modeled it on the legal narrative of Deut 25:11-12 as a special situation and combined it with the general principles of lex talionis, based upon Deut 19:19-21 and Lev 24:17-20…The direction of borrowing could not be clearer, because the only way that one can understand the two parts of the Covenant Code law that are quite different in form and style from Mesopotamian law is by reference to the parallel laws in Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
In Exodus 21:22-25, there’s a law regarding injury to a pregnant woman. If two men fight and injure a pregnant woman in the process, such that her child goes from her, yet no further harm follows, then the person who caused the child to go out of her will pay a fine. But, if harm does follow, his punishment will be based on the principle of an eye for an eye, etc., which is called lex talionis. People have debated about the meaning of this law. Some interpret it to mean that, if a man causes a woman to miscarry and lose her baby, then he will pay a fine, but if the woman is also seriously hurt, his punishment will be based on lex talionis. Others contend that the man here isn’t causing a miscarriage, but rather a premature birth. In that case, the man pays a fine. But, if there’s further damage to the woman or the baby, then lex talionis kicks in. Many pro-choicers like the former interpretation, whereas pro-lifers gravitate towards the latter.
Van Seters compares Exodus 21:22-25 to the Code of Hammurabi 209-210. According to the code, if an awilu-man strikes a woman of the awilu-class and causes her to miscarry, then the man must pay her ten shekels of silver. But, if the woman should die, then the authorities will kill his daughter.
Van Seters doesn’t think that Exodus 21:22-25 is drawing solely from the Code of Hammurabi. He notices that, unlike the Code of Hammurabi, Exodus 21:22-25 has a situation in which two women are fighting and a woman gets caught in the middle. He sees a similar law in Deuteronomy 25:11-12, in which two men are fighting and the wife of one of them pulls the penis of the man who is not her husband. And Exodus 21:22-25 lists elements of lex talionis, which also appear in Deuteronomy 19:19-21 and Leviticus 24:17-20. So Van Seters believes that the author of Exodus 21:22-25 was drawing from Babylonian law, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus.
2. H.I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, pages 323-324. Marrou talks about Julian the Apostate, a Roman emperor during the fourth century who (unlike his predecessors and successors) was not a Christian. He banned Christians from teaching Homer, but there’s actually a bit of nuance to that law. Julian required teachers to be moral, and he felt that Christians who taught Homer were immoral because they were teaching something in which they did not believe, since they didn’t believe in the gods of Homer. Somehow, during the second half of the fourth century (Julian reigned in part of that), Christians managed to learn from pagans, and pagans learned from Christians. But Marrou says that Christians responded to Julian’s decree by trying to replace the classics. They rewrote the Pentateuch in the style of Homer, for example, as well as made the New Testament like the Platonic dialogues.
I was once talking to a person who did his dissertation on someone who wrote the Bible in Homeric style. My understanding is that this was controversial among Christians, for some didn’t think that the purpose of the Bible was to entertain, but rather to instruct. Moreover, Marrou himself talks about Christians who didn’t care much for the classics, believing that we have what we need in the Bible.
3. Manlio Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, page 48.
Belief of Origen: In the old dispensation, only a few—the prophets, Moses, the patriarchs—understood the spiritual meaning of the Law, i.e., the mysteries of Christ; now this knowledge is for many (De Princ. II 7:1; Comm. in Jo. VI 4:6; XIII 47-48).
This stood out to me because there are places in the New Testament implying that major Old Testament figures knew about Jesus Christ. John 8:56 says that Abraham saw Jesus’ day. Hebrews 11:26 states that Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ. However, Ephesians 3:3-6 says that the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God is a mystery, unknown to the sons of men prior to the time of Jesus. Colossians 1:26-27 says that “Christ in you, the hope of glory” is a mystery that was hidden from people prior to the time of the church.
But were those things hidden from all people? Psalm 103:7 says that God made known his ways to Moses, but his acts to Israel. Some interpret this to mean that Moses had access to information that the rest of the children of Israel lacked. People differ on what this information was, but are there Christians who relate it to God’s plan through Jesus Christ?
4. Marvin Pope, Song of Songs, page 188. Pope is talking about the mystic Teresa of Avila, who lived in the sixteenth century. She describes a mystical cycle. There’s the “prayer of quiet,” in which the mystical experience produces “a kind of mystical sleep, swooning, or inebriation.” Then there’s “ecstatic union”, which cannot be disturbed by any “earthly interest, noise, pain, or joy”. But the soul still needs to be purged of self-love, and that’s the purpose behind the second dark night of the soul, which brings “consternation and spiritual agony.” That “purifies the soul for the supreme mystical union, the spiritual marriage, a permanent union which nothing can disturb or interrupt…”