Posts
For my weekly quiet time this week, I will blog about Psalm 84. In
this post, I'll paste the Psalm in the King James Version (which is in
the public domain) and comment on select verses.
1To the chief Musician upon Gittith, A Psalm for the sons of Korah. How amiable are thy tabernacles, O LORD of hosts!
The
KJV translation says that this Psalm is "for" the sons of Korah, who
were Levites, but many commentators assert that Psalm 84 is for pilgrims
who are going to Zion or some other sanctuary. Perhaps, in
this scenario, the sons of Korah wrote the Psalm for those pilgrims. Or
maybe the Korahites were expressing their joy at being close to God in
the sanctuary, even as they expanded their outlook and wanted for
pilgrims to have some measure of that joy.
Others maintain that Psalm 84 is about Jews in exile yearning to return to Israel and worship God at Jerusalem.
Perhaps, in this scenario, the Korahites could have written Psalm 84 to
express their own desire for their nation's (and their own)
restoration, as well as the desire of the Jews in exile. Another
view is that Psalm 84 is more about a spiritual journey than a physical
pilgrimage. Perhaps, in this scenario, the Korahites were seeking a
deeper spiritual meaning to pilgrimage and worship in the Temple.
2 My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.
I
like what the Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary says about this
verse: "True fulfillment for both body and soul can be found only in the
presence of God, the constant source of life."
3 Yea, the
sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where
she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King, and
my God.
This is a puzzling verse because it appears to suggest that birds make a home for themselves on God's holy altars.
Many commentators do not think that's what the verse is saying,
though. Some say that the verse is expressing admiration for the birds
in the Temple courtyard, as the pilgrim himself desires to be close to
God at the sanctuary. Others maintain that the birds are symbolic for
the Levites, who are close to God because they work in the sanctuary.
This is not a far-fetched proposition, for there are Psalms that liken
human beings to birds (Psalm 11:1; 124:7). The Targum actually tries to do something with the birds being on the altars.
Edward Cook's translation of the Targum says: "Even the dove has found a
house, and the turtledove a nest that is suitable for her hatchlings to
be sacrificed on your altars, O LORD Sabaoth, my king and my God." The
Targum relates the birds to the altars by bringing up the issue of
sacrifice.
I am not convinced by many of the interpretations that I
encountered for this verse, but I cannot at this time offer anything
better. Perhaps some words are missing from the text. I did, however,
like some points that Marvin Tate made. First, Tate quotes H.J. Kraus,
who affirmed that "The holy place is the epitome of the undisturbed,
fulfilled life." Second, Tate (who believes that the birds symbolize
the Levites) states: "The pilgrim who finds such joy in the temple
courts at festival time thinks longingly of priests and ministers who
live in the temple area all the time...The view is utopian of course;
the priests and Levites who stayed at the temple and did all the work
involved there (including, no doubt, caring for pilgrims at festival
times!) may not have always considered it so ideal." Hopefully,
people who serve God in the capacity of ministry can be refreshed by
God's love for them and the realization that their work is important
because they are working for God and are helping people. But I'm sure
that there are times when that's easier said than done!
4 Blessed are they that dwell in thy house: they will be still praising thee. Selah.
That
seems to coincide with Tate's view that the pilgrims, who are visiting
the sanctuary, admire those (namely, the Levites) who dwell in God's
house and have continual opportunities to praise God.
5 Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee; in whose heart are the ways of them.
The
second part of the verse can literally be translated as "highways in
their heart". What does that mean? An interpretation I found that
makes sense to me is that this part of the verse is saying that the
pilgrims' hearts are set on the journey (the highways) to the
sanctuary. They are really looking forward to worshiping God! This
sort of interpretation can also work if we apply Psalm 84 to the desire
of exiled Jews to return to Jerusalem: the journey back to Jerusalem is
on their heart. Perhaps this sort of interpretation can also
work if we seek a deeper spiritual meaning in Psalm 84: our spiritual
journey is on our heart, in the sense that it is important to us, and
also because we're looking forward to a greater intimacy with God.
6 Who passing through the valley of Baca make it a well; the rain also filleth the pools.
There
are different views about what the valley of Baca is. Josephus
mentions a place called Baca, which is in Galilee (Wars 3:39), and so
there is a view that Psalm 84 at one point concerned a sanctuary in the
North, not in Jerusalem. Others think that "Baca" means "weeping", and
they proceed to speak homiletically about God bringing happiness out of
sadness. This is a beautiful lesson, but, as Keil-Delitzsch point out,
"Baca" is never used in the Hebrew Bible for "weeping", for the Hebrew
Bible often employs bechi or other words to convey that.
Still, the Jewish commentator Rashi managed to base some profound points
on the "weeping" interpretation, as he painted a picture of
transgressors (another way to understand the Hebrew word ovrei,
which the KJV translates as "Who passing through") weeping for their
sins in Gehinnom, as they acknowledge God's justice and regret that they
disobeyed the teacher who blessed them and taught them the way that is
good. Personally, I'd hope that there would be a possibility of
redemption even for them. Could that be what the Targum is getting at
when it says regarding this verse: "The wicked who cross over the
valleys of Gehenna, weeping he will make their weeping like a fountain;
also those who return to the teaching of his Torah he will cover with
blessings" (again, Cook's translation)? Or is the Targum merely saying
that the transgressors in Gehinnom are weeping, whereas the people who
are still alive and return to the Torah will be blessed?
A
third view is that the Baca was a balsam tree, which would indicate
that the valley of Baca was dry. The lesson, in this scenario, is that
God enlivens arid regions by bringing forth rain. This interpretation
could apply to pilgrimage, or it could relate to return from exile, for
Second Isaiah (which is about return from exile) presents God making
barren lands fruitful. Some believe that the "balsam tree"
interpretation places the valley of Baca closer to Jerusalem, meaning
that Psalm 84 is about a pilgrimage to Zion rather than to a northern
sanctuary. The reason is that II Samuel 5:23 mentions a place where
there are bechaim, which many regard as balsam trees, and that story is set near Jerusalem.
On what basis is the Baca considered to be a balsam tree? Keil-Delitzsch refer to the Arabic, baka'un,
which they say concerns something like a balsam tree. Tate says that
Baka could be talking about a tree that weeps sap. I could not,
however, find strong evidence that Baca concerns a balsam tree. When I
looked at the Septuagint and Brenton's translation, I saw that the LXX
interpreted bechaim in II Samuel 5:23 in light of weeping, but it interpreted bechaim in I Chronicles 14:14 as pear trees (or so says Brenton, and so the lexicon on my BibleWorks understands the Greek word apios). From
an online search, I learned that there are pears that grow in arid
regions, and so perhaps the view that God in Psalm 84:6 is enlivening a
barren region stands.
The Septuagint understands the
second part of the verse, which the KJV translates as "the rain also
filleth the pools", to be about the teacher (presumably God) giving
blessings. Its justification is probably that the word that the KJV
translates as "rain", moreh, can also mean "teacher" or pertain
to teaching (i.e., Isaiah 9:14; II Chronicles 15:3). It's from the
Hebrew root y-r-h, from which the word "Torah" comes. And the word that
the KJV translates as "pools", berachot, often means "blessings" (Genesis 28:4; 33:11). The
Septuagint's interpretation adds a personal dimension to the
fruitfulness that God brings to the valley of Baca (which the LXX sees
as the valley of weeping), for God is the one who brings it as a
teacher. That coincides with what Psalm 84:11 says: that God gives good
things to those who walk uprightly. In a sense, heeding and trying to
walk according to God's teachings can bring about healing and happiness
(or so one would hope).
7 They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.
8 O LORD God of hosts, hear my prayer: give ear, O God of Jacob. Selah.
9 Behold, O God our shield, and look upon the face of thine anointed.
The
anointed one could be the king or the priest. The pilgrim is not just
rooting for God, but for God's servants, for their decisions and work
can bring peace and prosperity to the people. From a Christian
standpoint, v 9 could encourage me to root for God's anointed, Jesus
Christ, who currently rules his church and will one day bring
benevolence, justice, and righteousness to the earth.
10 For a
day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a
doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of
wickedness.
This verse is the inspiration for the Christian praise song, Better Is One Day. The reason that the KJV has "doorkeeper" is probably that it relates the word histopheph to the Hebrew word saph,
which means "treshhold". But, as Tate points out, "doorkeeper" is a
problematic translation because the point of the verse is that the
Psalmist would rather be in a lowly position than to be in tents of
wickedness, and doorkeepers to the Temple held a high status (Tate cites
I Samuel 1:9; II Kings 12:9; 22:4; 25:18; Jeremiah 35:4; 52:24; Esther
2:21; 6:2; I Chronicles 9:19, 22; II Chronicles 23:4). For
Tate, the verse could be saying that the Psalmist would rather be a
beggar standing at the threshhold of the Temple than to be in tents of
wickedness. That would coincide with the Septuagint, which uses a word
that can mean "rejected" for histopheph.
I'd like to note one more thing. This
is a Psalm by Korahites, and v 10 exalts humility. But Korah in
Numbers 16 was not humble but rather sought to exalt his own status.
Perhaps the Korahites learned their lesson, or Psalm 84 was seeking to
refute the notion that the Korahites were proud people seeking to usurp
authority. In any case, it's interesting to read Psalm 84:10 in
juxtaposition with Numbers 16.
11 For the LORD God
is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing
will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.
12 O LORD of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in thee.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Friday, July 6, 2012
This Is Herman Cain 6
I have four items for my write-up today on This Is Herman Cain.
1. On pages 152-153, Herman Cain says that the 39 percent of Americans who approve of Barack Obama's job as President are not informed voters. I really did not care for this statement. For one, a person can be informed about current events and have political positions contrary to those of Herman Cain. Second, there are similarly people on the Left who say that people on the Right are uninformed, and, in my opinion, such an attitude (on both sides) is arrogant and condescending, and it does not advance political discourse. And third (to somewhat contradict my second point), Herman Cain should be able to articulate a coherent understanding of Libya before he accuses anyone of being uninformed (although Cain probably knows much more than I do about a variety of issues).
2. I enjoyed what Herman Cain said about the Ron Paulites who disrupt his appearances. On page 154, he says: "I get the same stupid question [about auditing the Federal Reserve from Ron Paulites] at almost every one of these events. How can a person randomly show up at a hundred events and ask the same stupid question to try to nail me on the Federal Reserve? It's really becoming annoying more than anything else." Lol!
3. Chapter 12 is entitled "The Cain Administration: The First Ninety Days". Cain says that he won't have too many A-list celebrities at "state dinners and other important occasions" but rather will eat with average Americans. Populist, Andrew Jackson style. I like that!
4. On page 172, Cain proposes eliminating the capital gains tax:
"To provide increased access to capital and incentivize companies to invest in worker training programs, new equipment, and emerging technologies, we must eliminate taxes on capital gains and their dividends. The capital gains tax represents a wall between people with money and people with ideas. And people with ideas are the catalyst for new businesses and new job growth. This is particularly true in the very important technology sector, where experience shows that new technology investments are the largest beneficiaries of reductions in capital gains taxes."
I'll probably demonstrate that (on some level) I am the sort of uninformed voter whom Herman Cain criticizes (see Item 1), but I do not entirely understand what Cain is saying about capital gains. This article says that the capital gains tax is on "any money we make from the sale of stocks, real estate and other capital assets." This wikipedia article says capital is what is used to produce goods and services. Is Cain's idea that a person will be more encouraged to sell stocks, real estate, and capital if he did not have to pay the capital gains tax on the money he makes from selling them? Then, the buyers create jobs as they use the capital they have bought? Are "the people with money" the buyers of the capital, whereas "the people with ideas" are the ones developing and selling the capital----which means that eliminating the capital gains tax will encourage them to develop the capital because they'd make a larger profit off of selling it?
1. On pages 152-153, Herman Cain says that the 39 percent of Americans who approve of Barack Obama's job as President are not informed voters. I really did not care for this statement. For one, a person can be informed about current events and have political positions contrary to those of Herman Cain. Second, there are similarly people on the Left who say that people on the Right are uninformed, and, in my opinion, such an attitude (on both sides) is arrogant and condescending, and it does not advance political discourse. And third (to somewhat contradict my second point), Herman Cain should be able to articulate a coherent understanding of Libya before he accuses anyone of being uninformed (although Cain probably knows much more than I do about a variety of issues).
2. I enjoyed what Herman Cain said about the Ron Paulites who disrupt his appearances. On page 154, he says: "I get the same stupid question [about auditing the Federal Reserve from Ron Paulites] at almost every one of these events. How can a person randomly show up at a hundred events and ask the same stupid question to try to nail me on the Federal Reserve? It's really becoming annoying more than anything else." Lol!
3. Chapter 12 is entitled "The Cain Administration: The First Ninety Days". Cain says that he won't have too many A-list celebrities at "state dinners and other important occasions" but rather will eat with average Americans. Populist, Andrew Jackson style. I like that!
4. On page 172, Cain proposes eliminating the capital gains tax:
"To provide increased access to capital and incentivize companies to invest in worker training programs, new equipment, and emerging technologies, we must eliminate taxes on capital gains and their dividends. The capital gains tax represents a wall between people with money and people with ideas. And people with ideas are the catalyst for new businesses and new job growth. This is particularly true in the very important technology sector, where experience shows that new technology investments are the largest beneficiaries of reductions in capital gains taxes."
I'll probably demonstrate that (on some level) I am the sort of uninformed voter whom Herman Cain criticizes (see Item 1), but I do not entirely understand what Cain is saying about capital gains. This article says that the capital gains tax is on "any money we make from the sale of stocks, real estate and other capital assets." This wikipedia article says capital is what is used to produce goods and services. Is Cain's idea that a person will be more encouraged to sell stocks, real estate, and capital if he did not have to pay the capital gains tax on the money he makes from selling them? Then, the buyers create jobs as they use the capital they have bought? Are "the people with money" the buyers of the capital, whereas "the people with ideas" are the ones developing and selling the capital----which means that eliminating the capital gains tax will encourage them to develop the capital because they'd make a larger profit off of selling it?
The Therapeutae and the Extreme Allegorizers; Women Philosophy Students
I'm continuing my way through Joan Taylor's Jewish Women Philosophers of First-Century Alexandria: Philo's 'Therapeutae' Reconsidered.
In my latest reading, Taylor did two things. First, she argued that the Therapeutae may have come from the extreme allegorizers whom Philo criticizes----the Jews who interpreted the rituals of the Torah in an allegorical sense and thus felt that they did not have to do them literally. Philo himself employed a rigorous allegorical interpretation of the Torah, but, in contrast to the extreme allegorizers, he still believed in literal obedience of the Torah's rituals, such as circumcision.
According to Philo's description, the Therapeutae honored the Sabbath and every forty-ninth day (and Taylor discusses the calendar of the Therapeutae, which started the day at sunrise rather than sundown, in contrast to much of Judaism). Yet Philo does not refer to them engaging in purification rituals, which is odd, considering that the Therapeutae were near a lake where they could wash. Perhaps that is because they interpreted purification spiritually and concluded that they did not have to observe the rituals on a literal level. Moreover, according to Taylor, the Therapeutae and the extreme allegorizers resembled one another in their asceticism, as both sought to subdue and escape the body to see God, thereby achieving ecstasy.
Second, Taylor talks about women who were students of philosophers in the Greek world. Socrates is depicted as teaching women, and Plato has a fairly inclusive attitude. Sexism was still a characteristic of Greco-Roman culture, and yet, within the Greek world, there was a belief that women and those with poor mental capacity had some ability to learn (which is a slap in the face, I know!). Taylor is setting the stage for her book's main topic: the women who learned within the Therapeutae community.
Taylor talks more about a topic that is of interest to me: the extent to which Philo believed that people should engage in asceticism. From what I read, it appears that Philo himself was not an extreme ascetic, for he did not spend all of his time in contemplation but was also involved in political activity. Moreover, Philo acknowledged that not everyone had the motivation to pursue a rigorous, contemplative lifestyle.
In my latest reading, Taylor did two things. First, she argued that the Therapeutae may have come from the extreme allegorizers whom Philo criticizes----the Jews who interpreted the rituals of the Torah in an allegorical sense and thus felt that they did not have to do them literally. Philo himself employed a rigorous allegorical interpretation of the Torah, but, in contrast to the extreme allegorizers, he still believed in literal obedience of the Torah's rituals, such as circumcision.
According to Philo's description, the Therapeutae honored the Sabbath and every forty-ninth day (and Taylor discusses the calendar of the Therapeutae, which started the day at sunrise rather than sundown, in contrast to much of Judaism). Yet Philo does not refer to them engaging in purification rituals, which is odd, considering that the Therapeutae were near a lake where they could wash. Perhaps that is because they interpreted purification spiritually and concluded that they did not have to observe the rituals on a literal level. Moreover, according to Taylor, the Therapeutae and the extreme allegorizers resembled one another in their asceticism, as both sought to subdue and escape the body to see God, thereby achieving ecstasy.
Second, Taylor talks about women who were students of philosophers in the Greek world. Socrates is depicted as teaching women, and Plato has a fairly inclusive attitude. Sexism was still a characteristic of Greco-Roman culture, and yet, within the Greek world, there was a belief that women and those with poor mental capacity had some ability to learn (which is a slap in the face, I know!). Taylor is setting the stage for her book's main topic: the women who learned within the Therapeutae community.
Taylor talks more about a topic that is of interest to me: the extent to which Philo believed that people should engage in asceticism. From what I read, it appears that Philo himself was not an extreme ascetic, for he did not spend all of his time in contemplation but was also involved in political activity. Moreover, Philo acknowledged that not everyone had the motivation to pursue a rigorous, contemplative lifestyle.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
This Is Herman Cain 5
In my latest reading of This Is Herman Cain, Herman Cain
presents his perspectives on a variety of issues. Cain criticized
President Barack Obama's call for Israel to return to her pre-1967
borders, which (I think) was Israel's borders before she got the West
Bank and the Gaza Strip. From this article,
I gather that President Obama's idea is that the West Bank would be
used for a Palestinian state, although Obama also believes that Jewish
settlement in the West Bank should be taken into account when
determining where the borders should be.
Cain's argument is that Obama's idea would imperil Israel and "enable Israel's enemies to lob weapons at them, as they did from Lebanon several years ago" (page 132). Cain also contends that it would embolden Israel's enemies and "destabilize the whole region" (page 131). Moreover, according to Cain, we cannot afford to allow our relationship with Israel to erode by alienating her, for we may need Israel if we were to be involved in a Middle Eastern conflict (since "we would need its assistance militarily, in terms of being a conduit for supplies, fuel, and other combat-related resources"), plus we'd be sending a message that we don't support our friends.
But doesn't supporting Israel at the expense of the Palestinians alienate Arab countries that provide us with oil? Well, Herman Cain says that we should be energy-independent, so that takes care of that. Still, don't we need Arab support for some of our Middle Eastern conflicts? In Operation Desert Storm, we had some Arab countries on our side.
I'm not taking a firm stand on Middle Eastern policy, for I'm sure that I have much to learn about the situation. I will say, though, that evangelical Zionism tends to upset me, for it presumes that God takes sides in this whole conflict. Herman Cain does not go that route, however, for he presents secular arguments for supporting Israel.
Cain's argument is that Obama's idea would imperil Israel and "enable Israel's enemies to lob weapons at them, as they did from Lebanon several years ago" (page 132). Cain also contends that it would embolden Israel's enemies and "destabilize the whole region" (page 131). Moreover, according to Cain, we cannot afford to allow our relationship with Israel to erode by alienating her, for we may need Israel if we were to be involved in a Middle Eastern conflict (since "we would need its assistance militarily, in terms of being a conduit for supplies, fuel, and other combat-related resources"), plus we'd be sending a message that we don't support our friends.
But doesn't supporting Israel at the expense of the Palestinians alienate Arab countries that provide us with oil? Well, Herman Cain says that we should be energy-independent, so that takes care of that. Still, don't we need Arab support for some of our Middle Eastern conflicts? In Operation Desert Storm, we had some Arab countries on our side.
I'm not taking a firm stand on Middle Eastern policy, for I'm sure that I have much to learn about the situation. I will say, though, that evangelical Zionism tends to upset me, for it presumes that God takes sides in this whole conflict. Herman Cain does not go that route, however, for he presents secular arguments for supporting Israel.
The Therapeutae
I started Joan Taylor's Jewish Women Philosophers of First-Century Alexandria: Philo's 'Therapeutae' Reconsidered.
The Therapeutae were a Jewish group that was near Lake Mareotis, which is close to Alexandria, Egypt. On page 99, Taylor refers to them as "an educated Jewish Alexandrian elite, who, for philosophical reasons, had chosen to forsake their affluent urban lifestyles in order to embrace a contemplative life of reading, music, and meditating on scripture." Taylor appears to believe that the group was supported by benefactors (as Buddhist monasteries are), who helped the Therapeutae to survive and to have "buildings, books, clothing, [and] food" (page 97).
Philo in the first century C.E. talks about the Therapeutae in De Vita Contemplativa, even as he discusses another group, the Essenes. According to Taylor, Philo's audience in terms of this work included a lot of Gentiles, and she says this because Philo apparently feels compelled to spell things out about Judaism, things that many Jews would know about. For Taylor, Philo is essentially saying to his Gentile audience that there are Jewish groups that live up to pagan philosophical ideals, such as asceticism (restraining the passions) and contemplation.
Taylor believes that the Therapeutae were an actual group that existed in history, against those who hold that Philo is being utopian or is simply using rhetoric. Taylor acknowledges that Philo is using rhetoric and may even be idealizing the group, but, in her eyes, that does not mean that the group did not exist.
According to Philo, the Therapeutae had women. For Taylor, Philo makes this point even though it conflicts with his misogynist tendencies, and so it was probably historical. Since the women in this group could read, they most likely came from wealthy women, the women who had literacy.
The presence of women in the group was one factor that led Eusebius (third-fourth centuries C.E.) to think that the Therapeutae were Christians, for Christianity included women in worship (Ecclesiastical History 2:17:18). Eusebius thought that Philo wrote De Vita Contemplativa later in life, after Philo had supposedly met the apostle Peter. But, as Taylor notes on page 32, "No one today seriously entertains the idea that the group was Christian", for "It is rather to be identified as Jewish (cf. Contempl. 64, where the group follows the sacred instructions according to the prophet Moses)."
What interested me was something that Taylor said on page 65: that Philo in Spec. 2:42-48 says that the people who elevate themselves above their passions and bodily needs are few. That makes me wonder if Philo (and perhaps also the Stoics in general) saw asceticism as an ideal, not as a requirement for everybody. I am curious about this because Stoicism and Judaism were big on marriage and the family, which seem to go against elements of asceticism (i.e., restraining the passions).
The Therapeutae were a Jewish group that was near Lake Mareotis, which is close to Alexandria, Egypt. On page 99, Taylor refers to them as "an educated Jewish Alexandrian elite, who, for philosophical reasons, had chosen to forsake their affluent urban lifestyles in order to embrace a contemplative life of reading, music, and meditating on scripture." Taylor appears to believe that the group was supported by benefactors (as Buddhist monasteries are), who helped the Therapeutae to survive and to have "buildings, books, clothing, [and] food" (page 97).
Philo in the first century C.E. talks about the Therapeutae in De Vita Contemplativa, even as he discusses another group, the Essenes. According to Taylor, Philo's audience in terms of this work included a lot of Gentiles, and she says this because Philo apparently feels compelled to spell things out about Judaism, things that many Jews would know about. For Taylor, Philo is essentially saying to his Gentile audience that there are Jewish groups that live up to pagan philosophical ideals, such as asceticism (restraining the passions) and contemplation.
Taylor believes that the Therapeutae were an actual group that existed in history, against those who hold that Philo is being utopian or is simply using rhetoric. Taylor acknowledges that Philo is using rhetoric and may even be idealizing the group, but, in her eyes, that does not mean that the group did not exist.
According to Philo, the Therapeutae had women. For Taylor, Philo makes this point even though it conflicts with his misogynist tendencies, and so it was probably historical. Since the women in this group could read, they most likely came from wealthy women, the women who had literacy.
The presence of women in the group was one factor that led Eusebius (third-fourth centuries C.E.) to think that the Therapeutae were Christians, for Christianity included women in worship (Ecclesiastical History 2:17:18). Eusebius thought that Philo wrote De Vita Contemplativa later in life, after Philo had supposedly met the apostle Peter. But, as Taylor notes on page 32, "No one today seriously entertains the idea that the group was Christian", for "It is rather to be identified as Jewish (cf. Contempl. 64, where the group follows the sacred instructions according to the prophet Moses)."
What interested me was something that Taylor said on page 65: that Philo in Spec. 2:42-48 says that the people who elevate themselves above their passions and bodily needs are few. That makes me wonder if Philo (and perhaps also the Stoics in general) saw asceticism as an ideal, not as a requirement for everybody. I am curious about this because Stoicism and Judaism were big on marriage and the family, which seem to go against elements of asceticism (i.e., restraining the passions).
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
This Is Herman Cain 4
In my latest reading of This Is Herman Cain, Herman Cain
talks about his experience with cancer and the birth of his
granddaughter (who, Cain joked, was waiting for him to arrive at
the hospital before she was born).
Regarding his experience with cancer, it's interesting how Cain looked for divine signs that God was with him and that everything would be okay. For example, when a worker at a health center told Herman and his wife Gloria that her name was Grace, Herman and Gloria saw that as a sign. When a surgeon told Herman that he'd make an incision that looked like a "J", Cain thought about "J" being for "Jesus". Herman says that "when you are in the 'Word,' you can listen and hear when God is speaking to you" (page 96). When Herman mentions on page 96 that he became cancer-free, he asks, "Did it have something to do with the Lord wanting me to survive so that I might help set this great nation of ours on its own path of recovery?"
But Herman also had human help. He could be admitted to a cancer center, for example, because he was friends with T. Boone Pickens. (Now that's a name I forgot. Remember the oilman who was promoting alternative energy on TV commercials?) Cain also had the support of his wife. When Cain said that his faith was being tested, his wife corrected him by saying that her faith was being tested, too. And nature helped out. For example, part of Cain's liver was removed due to cancer, but Cain was pleased (and surprised) to learn that "the liver regenerates itself in about three months to 80 percent of original size" (page 99).
It's interesting that a sophisticated, savvy businessman like Herman Cain could have a faith in God that trusts in everything to turn out all right, especially since there are plenty of people in the world who say that such faith is a sign of naievity and immaturity, and that faith is not applicable to the harsh realities of the real world. While Herman trusts in God, however, he also evaluates situations and takes action, and so he apparently does not deem faith to be an excuse to sit back and do nothing. At the same time, due to his connections and his wealth, there were options that were available to him that probably are not available to some who struggle with cancer, and I find that to be problematic. I think that God supports a just society that benefits and respects the life of all people, not just those with money and connections.
Another point: Now that Cain is out of the Presidential race, I wonder if he looks back at his experience with cancer differently? Does he still believe that God preserved his life so that he could set America straight? And does he believe that God was present with him even when women were making accusations against him during his race for President----that even that was part of God's plan?
Regarding his experience with cancer, it's interesting how Cain looked for divine signs that God was with him and that everything would be okay. For example, when a worker at a health center told Herman and his wife Gloria that her name was Grace, Herman and Gloria saw that as a sign. When a surgeon told Herman that he'd make an incision that looked like a "J", Cain thought about "J" being for "Jesus". Herman says that "when you are in the 'Word,' you can listen and hear when God is speaking to you" (page 96). When Herman mentions on page 96 that he became cancer-free, he asks, "Did it have something to do with the Lord wanting me to survive so that I might help set this great nation of ours on its own path of recovery?"
But Herman also had human help. He could be admitted to a cancer center, for example, because he was friends with T. Boone Pickens. (Now that's a name I forgot. Remember the oilman who was promoting alternative energy on TV commercials?) Cain also had the support of his wife. When Cain said that his faith was being tested, his wife corrected him by saying that her faith was being tested, too. And nature helped out. For example, part of Cain's liver was removed due to cancer, but Cain was pleased (and surprised) to learn that "the liver regenerates itself in about three months to 80 percent of original size" (page 99).
It's interesting that a sophisticated, savvy businessman like Herman Cain could have a faith in God that trusts in everything to turn out all right, especially since there are plenty of people in the world who say that such faith is a sign of naievity and immaturity, and that faith is not applicable to the harsh realities of the real world. While Herman trusts in God, however, he also evaluates situations and takes action, and so he apparently does not deem faith to be an excuse to sit back and do nothing. At the same time, due to his connections and his wealth, there were options that were available to him that probably are not available to some who struggle with cancer, and I find that to be problematic. I think that God supports a just society that benefits and respects the life of all people, not just those with money and connections.
Another point: Now that Cain is out of the Presidential race, I wonder if he looks back at his experience with cancer differently? Does he still believe that God preserved his life so that he could set America straight? And does he believe that God was present with him even when women were making accusations against him during his race for President----that even that was part of God's plan?
Questioning and Seeking Deeper Things
I finished Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan. This will be somewhat of a rambling post. It will have a degree of structure, but it will also take tangents.
Pagels refers to a statement by Tertullian that Christians asking questions is dangerous, for that can lead to heresy. Questions that Tertullian did not care for pertained to the origin of evil, why God allows evil, and the origin of human beings. Tertullian knew that detractors would object that Jesus encouraged people to ask, seek, and knock (Matthew 7:7), but Tertullian's response was that the purpose of seeking is to find, namely, to believe in Christianity. So why not accept Christianity at the outset, he wondered, rather than continuing to ask questions, which displays dissatisfaction with the answers that the faith provides?
Tertullian's stance will probably shock a lot of my readers, as it shocked me, a person who likes to question and who does not care for the authoritarianism of conservative Christianity. But I can see a degree of value in Tertullian's sentiment, not because I am concerned about "heresy", but rather because I think that there is something to be said for settling down with a belief system, rather than continuing to search.
At the same time, even when settling down, I'd like to learn and to grow, otherwise I'd be bored. And, according to Pagels, Gnostic Christians sought something deeper and more profound within Christianity than the forgiveness of sins, for they held that it was also about finding the divine within. I can see the attraction in that. It would be nice to believe in more than "I'm a sinner and I need forgiveness", to think that I have some hidden value or am on an adventure of discovering who I truly am.
Now for a couple of tangents. First of all, using as a launch-pad Tertullian's concern that people will ask questions about the origins of evil, I'd like to note that Pagels a couple of times in this book refers to early Christian views on providence and the source of evil. Justin Martyr did not believe that God caused affliction but rather that Satan did so. Tatian, according to Pagels, "allows for accident in the natural world, including disasters, for which, he says, God offers solace but seldom miraculous intervention" (page xv1). And Origen also shied away from attributing the suffering of innocent people to God's will. Some problems he believed were "accidental byproducts" of providence (page 141); other problems were due to the free choice of people and supernatural beings. Origen held, for instance, that demons and evil angels often instigated human evil and natural disasters. But Pagels says that later Christians had a stronger view of God's providence.
Second, my impression of Pagels' discussion of Gnostic Christianity is that she treats it as a reaction to mainstream Christianity----that some were seeking deeper things in Christian writings. This is particularly true in her discussion of Valentinus. At the same time, she also appears to believe that Christianity was quite diverse early on, and she says that an edition of the Gospel of Thomas predated what became the canonical Gospels (though she agrees that there were additions to the Gospel of Thomas that came later). But does she truly believe that the historical Jesus could have been a proponent of finding the divine within?
Pagels refers to a statement by Tertullian that Christians asking questions is dangerous, for that can lead to heresy. Questions that Tertullian did not care for pertained to the origin of evil, why God allows evil, and the origin of human beings. Tertullian knew that detractors would object that Jesus encouraged people to ask, seek, and knock (Matthew 7:7), but Tertullian's response was that the purpose of seeking is to find, namely, to believe in Christianity. So why not accept Christianity at the outset, he wondered, rather than continuing to ask questions, which displays dissatisfaction with the answers that the faith provides?
Tertullian's stance will probably shock a lot of my readers, as it shocked me, a person who likes to question and who does not care for the authoritarianism of conservative Christianity. But I can see a degree of value in Tertullian's sentiment, not because I am concerned about "heresy", but rather because I think that there is something to be said for settling down with a belief system, rather than continuing to search.
At the same time, even when settling down, I'd like to learn and to grow, otherwise I'd be bored. And, according to Pagels, Gnostic Christians sought something deeper and more profound within Christianity than the forgiveness of sins, for they held that it was also about finding the divine within. I can see the attraction in that. It would be nice to believe in more than "I'm a sinner and I need forgiveness", to think that I have some hidden value or am on an adventure of discovering who I truly am.
Now for a couple of tangents. First of all, using as a launch-pad Tertullian's concern that people will ask questions about the origins of evil, I'd like to note that Pagels a couple of times in this book refers to early Christian views on providence and the source of evil. Justin Martyr did not believe that God caused affliction but rather that Satan did so. Tatian, according to Pagels, "allows for accident in the natural world, including disasters, for which, he says, God offers solace but seldom miraculous intervention" (page xv1). And Origen also shied away from attributing the suffering of innocent people to God's will. Some problems he believed were "accidental byproducts" of providence (page 141); other problems were due to the free choice of people and supernatural beings. Origen held, for instance, that demons and evil angels often instigated human evil and natural disasters. But Pagels says that later Christians had a stronger view of God's providence.
Second, my impression of Pagels' discussion of Gnostic Christianity is that she treats it as a reaction to mainstream Christianity----that some were seeking deeper things in Christian writings. This is particularly true in her discussion of Valentinus. At the same time, she also appears to believe that Christianity was quite diverse early on, and she says that an edition of the Gospel of Thomas predated what became the canonical Gospels (though she agrees that there were additions to the Gospel of Thomas that came later). But does she truly believe that the historical Jesus could have been a proponent of finding the divine within?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)