The Epicurus quote, part III

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

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

The Lyrics of "Live Like You Were Dying"

Back in 2004 Tim McGraw recorded the song "Live Like You were Dying." As a way of marking the one-decade anniversary of this song, I'd like to admit that a couple of the lines have confused me for years. I could use your help understanding them. In the first couple of verses, the song seems easy to follow. Two men are talking, and one tells the other about his diagnosis. The doctors have (recently? or a long time ago and mistakenly? that isn't clear) given him the news that he would die soon. "I spent most of the next days/Looking at the X-rays." Then we get a couple of lines about a man crossing items off of his bucket list. "I went sky diving, I went rocky mountain climbing, I went two point seven seconds on a bull named Fu Man Chu." Then the speaker -- presumably still the old man -- shifts to the more characterological consequences of the news. As he was doing those things, he found he was loving deeper and speaking sweeter, and givin...

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog