Posts
1. Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True.
Rachel Held Evans recommended this book to me a while back on her blog, when I said that I didn’t understand the nuts-and-bolts of evolution. She said that she could actually comprehend the book, even though she’s not a science person. That assures me, for I’m not a science person, either.
Essentially, the book presents the scientific evidence for evolution. Many people say that there is no solid evidence for it—that evolution is just a theory. Many creationists have said that creation and evolution are in the same boat, for we don’t know which idea is true, since none of us was here that long back. And, as Coyne notes, even those who learn about evolution in high school are unaware of the evidence for it. Coyne even says that there are biologists who are unaware of some of the stuff he is about to present!
So this should be an interesting book.
2. Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land, page 323:
“Well,” said Miriam, “I had heard about the beautiful houris that Mohammedan men have for playthings when they go to heaven and that didn’t leave much room for wives.”
“Houris aren’t women,” said Jubal. “They are separate creations, like djinni and angels. They don’t need human souls, they are spirits to start with, eternal and unchanging and beautiful. There are male houris, too, or the male equivalent of houris. Houris don’t have to earn their way into Paradise; they’re on the staff. They serve endless delicious foods and pass around drinks that never give hangovers and entertain in other ways as requested. But the souls of human wives don’t have to do any housework, any more than the men…”
So that’s where the seventy virgins come from! I’ve often wondered that.
3. Alberdina Houtmann, Mishnah and Tosefta, page 112:
T 6.7a supplements M 9.3b, which supplements the scriptural justification for the rule to recite a blessing both in favourable and unfavourable circumstances.
I checked the passage. Basically, it talked about praising God with one’s soul, even if someone is about to take that soul (kill you)! It also cited Psalm 119:175, in which the Psalmist asks God to let him live so that he can praise him. But, if we’re going to praise God in the afterlife anyway, then what is the purpose of asking God to save our lives so that we can praise him here? Psalm 6:5 says that people can’t give God thanks in the grave, so that may be the answer. I wonder how Mitchell Dahood interprets that verse, since he argues that the Psalms support a sort of celestial afterlife for the righteous.
How can bribing God with praises make him want to preserve us? What does God gain from praise?
4. Michael H. Floyd, “‘Write the Revelation!’ (Hab 2:2): Re-imagining the Cultural History of Prophecy”, in Writings and Speech in Israelites and Ancient Near Eastern Prophecy, page 125:
Floyd talks about how Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey were orally performed for a long time, but they were eventually written down so they could be studied in schools, even as the oral performances continued.
But the rabbis studied their literature in schools, and they kept it oral, until it absolutely had to be written down, due to persecution, or other factors. Why did Homer’s works have to be written down to be studied in schools? Perhaps the focus of those schools was on the text itself, for there was text criticism of Homer. Or maybe the cultures were different, as some preferred textbooks in schools to keeping everything oral.
5. Steven L. McKenzie, “The Oracles against the Dynasties in the Book of Kings”, in Reconsidering Israel and Judah, page 413:
Because her corpse is eaten by dogs, what is left of Jezebel is not simply like dung on the ground but actually is dung.
Gross.
6. Anthony Saldarini says in his review of Jacob Neusner’s History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities:
Neusner establishes the reliability of these attributions by establishing that no authority is ever assigned a teaching that depends upon or presumes the existence of a law assigned to a later named authority. The consequence of this is that the attributions and the substance of the laws harmonize and the attributions are reliable. One obvious alternative explanation is that a later redactor may have imposed consistency. In answer Neusner cites cases where laws and opinions that show no awareness of each other are nevertheless chronologically consistent (3 241, 243) The argument seems likely,but the intervention of a redactor is not disproven. Overall, Neusner has verified the common generalization that halakic attributions are reliable.
I’m going to write some about this quote so I can see if I understand it. We have source A, which the Mishnah attributes to an early sage. Source A can indeed be a saying by that early sage, or it could be from somebody later, who put those words into early sage’s mouth. How can one tell which is the case? Neusner believes that source A was indeed spoken by that early sage, and here’s why: the saying does not build on or assume a law that is attributed in the Mishnah to a later sage, source B. Therefore, source A is not aware of source B, because source B hasn’t come into being yet. Source A, therefore, is as early as the tradition says it is.
But Saldarini says “Not so fast!” Saldarini says that a later redactor could impose consistency. Okay, here, I’m a little confused. I thought Neusner’s reason for believing source A is earlier than source B is that the two are inconsistent, since source A doesn’t presume or seem aware of source B’s argument.
7. I went to Latin mass this morning, and we had the priest who speaks about love. He said that the same Holy Spirit who helped create the universe in Genesis 1 is in our lives, renewing us. I wonder to what extent this is the case. The Holy Spirit hasn’t removed my Asperger’s, which hinders me from reaching out to people (love)!
