1. Louis Feldman’s Josephus’s Interpretation of the Bible (page 179): That [Josephus] was acquainted with Plato is clear from his remark that if one examines Plato’s laws, they will frequently be found less demanding than the Jewish code and more closely approximating the practice of the masses (Ag. Ap. 2.224).
Against Apion 2:224 states (according to the translation on BibleWorks): although he who shall diligently peruse [Plato's] writings will find his precepts to be somewhat gentle, and pretty near to the customs of the generality of mankind. Nay, Plato himself confesses that it is not sake to publish the true notion concerning God among the ignorant multitude.
Does Josephus believe that the Torah is better than Plato’s laws because it contains the true notion of God and doesn’t dumb down God’s demands for the “generality of mankind”? At Jewish Theological Seminary, a professor of mine said that Plato believed that the notion of God rewarding and punishing was for the masses: it was so the thief would keep his hand out of your pocket! But Plato himself held that there were better reasons to be moral—internal health and balance, for example. Consequently, if Plato knew of the Torah, perhaps he would consider it to be for the multitude, for the Torah stresses reward and punishment, which, for him, was a less sophisticated basis for morality. And, even today, there are psychologists who say that doing something good or avoiding evil out of a desire for reward or a fear of punishment is less mature than doing the right thing for its own sake. And that’s probably the level at which David arrives in the Book of Psalms—at least in the Psalms that praise God’s law (e.g., Psalms 19, 119, etc.).
2. John Van Seters’ A Law Book for the Diaspora (page 57): If one accepts the view that some of the casuistic laws [in the Covenant Code] are literarily dependent upon the Hammurabi Code, as will be argued below, then this literary borrowing took place in Babylonia during the exile. Such a conclusion seems inescapable. This is further supported by the fact that copies of portions of the Hammurabi Code have been found on clay tablets dating from various subsequent periods, including the Neo-Assyrian period (the library of Assurbanipal) and the Neo-Babylonian Period.
In my posts, Phyllis Schlafly’s Positive Woman 9 and Also Stuff on Moral Education, the Covenant Code and Cuneiform Laws, the Unexpected and Josephus the Inclusivist, Hard to Understand, Gift of Gab, What Song of Songs Rightfully Lacks, I refer to doubts in Van Seters’ book that the Covenant Code is dependent on Ancient Near Eastern cuneiform codes. In the above quote, however, he appears to acknowledge such dependence. He may have expressed doubts before because he doesn’t think that such dependence was likely before the exile—the time when Jews came into contract with Babylonian culture, and thus the Code of Hammurabi. But could they have learned about such laws before the exile, through trade with Babylon or Assyria?
3. H.I. Marrou’s A History of Education in Antiquity (page 210): There was not one Hellenistic philosophy, there were a number of rival sects, all at each other’s throats. The only way a doctrine could make any headway was under cover of a powerful barrage of dialectic, refuting its opponents claims and mounting a vigorous counter-attack.
I often feel that this kind of environment pervades all sorts of arenas—politics, religion, academia. People like to hold that their way of looking at things is absolutely right, whereas others’ is absolutely wrong. This extends to personalities as well. On cable news shows, talking heads argue that one political party is morally flawless, whereas the other is corrupt. And when it’s learned that the flawless party isn’t exactly flawless, its supporters are quick to point out that the other side has similar flaws, which is evasive.
In academia, people are pressured to come up with a thesis. A professor of mine once said that scholarly journals usually don’t publish articles that acknowledge the strengths of various points of view. Rather, you have to advance a clear thesis, as if it is flawless. And you need to be in a scholarly camp—maximalist, minimalist, etc.
I like something that Larry Slade said in Eugene O’Neill’s play, The Iceman Cometh. He said that he always had difficulty being active in the anarchist movement because he’s able to see various sides of an issue, and therefore he can’t be passionate for a particular cause. That’s pretty much where I am!
I never cared for Bill Clinton, but one thing I liked about him was that he was able to see the strengths and weaknesses of different perspectives, and to arrive at a third solution. People criticized this as “waffling.” In retrospect, I think it’s refreshing that he stepped outside of the typical, boring polarity of Left and Right.
4. Marvin Pope’s Song of Songs (page 86): Pope talks about “Gita Govinda, the So-Called ‘Indian Song of Songs’”. He states: The parable of passion purported to portray the soul’s emancipation from sensual distraction to the joys of the higher spiritual plane is so markedly serious that Western minds have had some difficulty in appreciating the mystical meaning.
That’s what Lent is about for many Catholics: letting go of some sensual distractions in order to arrive at a higher spiritual plane. Some experience that. I once had a roommate at Harvard who talked about a fast that he went on for three days (or more). He said that, at a certain point in the fast, things start to become clearer to him.
That rarely happens for me, for I just feel hungry! But I can identify with some points of arriving at a spiritual high as I let go of sensual pleasures. On the Day of Atonement, I don’t have to worry about the distraction of eating, so that frees me up to do other things. And I feel a sense of calm delight when I’m not thinking about sex a lot and am focusing instead on more intellectual or spiritual pleasures. I feel a freedom of not being bound to my passions. Often, I am bound to my body, and it’s not wrong to appreciate the pleasures that God has given us. But it’s good to contemplate higher things, every now and then.
5. At Latin mass this morning, we had philosopher priest, and he talked about Natural Family Planning (NFP). He denied that it’s a Catholic method of birth control, which made me chuckle, since I wondered how he could deny that! I mean, what is family planning, if not controlling the number of babies one has? That’s birth control, right? It’s amazing how people love to explain away! That’s especially evident in politics and religion.
I wondered what exactly NFP was. He referred to the Manicheans, who, according to Augustine, were familiar with the fertile and infertile times of women. He also said that periods of continence were an element of NFP. So is NFP having sex during the infertile times, but not during the fertile times?
Philosopher priest gave us a list of times in which we could practice NFP: when we are financially-strained and can’t afford another mouth to feed, for example. But wanting to save money to go to Tahiti is not a valid reason!
The priest also said that NFP is a venial sin and can become a mortal sin, which I don’t entirely understand. He also told us that we should consult a priest if we’re thinking of practicing NFP, since he’ll know whether or not our situation merits it.
Personally, I don’t understand how Catholics can have all those kids! I admire them for doing so. But not everyone is cut out for it. That’s why I’m glad I’m not a Catholic.