When I have previously shared the thoughts I discussed in the two preceding blog posts, I have often got answers that can be paraphrased "but what about the Jews?"
Judaism was a lively part of the east-Mediterranean thought world in which Epicurus wrote. Indeed, his lifetime coincides with the period of the creation of the great translation of their sacred literature into Greek (the Septuagint).
That chronological fact comes to mind because, as I have mentioned, it is not clear on the face of it WHO Epicurus was arguing with. If he did make something like the statement Hume attributes to him, and a lot of AD 21st century memes pick up on then, as I suggested last week, he may have had Stoicism in mind. If so, he may not have understood it well.
This draws the riposte: why could Epicurus not have had the monotheism of the Jews in mind? It would be good to have some context of when and why he said it -- if he wrote this in a lost text entitled "Why those Jews are crazy" that fact would be an addition to our understanding.
But were the Jews of that time, when the Septuagint was a work in progress, axtually describing their God with all these omnis? As omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent? Today's theologians, in all three of the traditions that trace themselves to Abraham, may read those omnis into the Jewish scriptures, but I have a hard time finding them there. God seems to be a limited struggling sort of being, though a powerful one. Not unlike the Homeric Zeus.
Was there any Jewish thinker before perhaps Maimonides who made any effort at theodicy? If the answer is "no," then could not the reason for that be that Judaism wasn't really into the OMNIs much earlier than he?
So the question is: if Epicurus knew of the Jews’ worship of this one God -- even if (which seems unlikely) he had a fairly extensive knowledge of their texts: did he then know of a case in which somebody believed in an all-powerful and benevolent Being? If, as I suspect, then answer is “No,” then it is still up to us to ask: who did Epicurus think he was refuting? I submit that my answer in the above, in accord with what I take to be Lactantius’ answer, that it was likely the Stoics he had in mind, remains at least as solid a guess as any alternative I know of.
Comments
Post a Comment