Week 6 texts - on Judaism and the Fall
Philo of Alexandria on Creation
Philo describes a paradise unlike human parks, where plants possess souls and reason, producing virtues and wisdom.
He interprets the paradise allegorically, with the tree of life symbolizing piety and the tree of knowledge representing wisdom and moderation.
The serpent symbolizes pleasure, leading to wickedness when Adam and Eve partake of the forbidden fruit.
This act leads to their punishment, choosing unhappiness over virtue and a long, happy life.
Philo equates the serpent with pleasure, highlighting its earth-bound nature and poisonous influence.
He contrasts this with the man devoted to pleasure, who is weighed down by intemperance and consumed by earthly desires.
Immoderate eating is described as a deadly habit that hinders digestion and leads to corruption.
Saint Augustine on the Fall of Mankind
Augustine discusses the fall of the first man and the origin of human death, emphasizing that God did not create humans to be immortal even if they sinned like the angels.
Instead, Humans were created to have the potential for immortality if they were obedient and that death should be visited upon them if they were disobedient.
He explains that divine grace left Adam and Eve after their transgression, leading to shame and a disobedient flesh.
The soul's rebellion against God resulted in the loss of control over the body.
Augustine asserts that humans are born into strife and inherit a seed of death from the first transgression.
He argues that humans, corrupted by their own will, beget corrupted children, as all were in that one man, Adam.
The bad use of free will initiated a chain of evil, leading to the second death, with salvation possible only through God's grace.
Augustine notes that Adam forsook God before God forsook him, and that his falling away from God was the first death of the soul.
He interprets God's question, "Adam, where art thou?" as a warning to consider his state after being abandoned by God.
Moses Maimonides on the Guide for the Perplexed
Maimonides addresses the question of whether Adam's disobedience led to the acquisition of intellect and the ability to distinguish between good and evil.
He clarifies that the term "Elohim" is a homonym, referring to God, angels, judges, and rulers.
Maimonides refutes the idea that Adam gained intellect through disobedience, asserting that intellect was bestowed upon humans before the transgression.
He supports this by referencing the Bible, stating that humans were created in the form and likeness of God and received commandments.
Maimonides explains that intellect allows humans to distinguish between truth and falsehood, while the terms "right" and "wrong" apply to morals.
Before the disobedience, Adam was guided solely by reason and was unconcerned with apparent truths like nudity.
After succumbing to desires and bodily appetites, Adam lost part of his intellectual faculty and became absorbed in distinguishing between proper and improper, the knowledge of apparent truths.
Maimonides interprets the opening of Adam's eyes as the reception of new knowledge, not the regaining of sight.
He connects Adam's banishment from Paradise to his altered intention and pursuit of forbidden knowledge.
Maimonides concludes that Adam's condition was reduced to the level of lower animals after the fall, requiring labor for sustenance.
He references Psalm 49:13, stating, .
Benedictus Spinoza on the Interpretation of Scripture
Spinoza criticizes the superficial understanding of the Bible, where people claim it as the word of God but fail to live by its teachings.
He accuses theologians of manipulating Scripture to support their own commentaries and compelling others to think as they do.
Spinoza argues that if people truly believed in Scripture, they would live differently, without contentions, hatreds, and rash interpretations.
He condemns the interpolation of the Bible and the prioritization of human commentaries over the writings of the Holy Ghost.
Superstition leads people to despise reason and nature, striving to interpret Scripture in contradictory ways.
Spinoza emphasizes the need to separate from theological prejudices and adopt a true method of interpreting Scripture.
He asserts that Scripture often deals with matters beyond reason, such as miracles and revelations adapted to the opinions of historians and prophets.
Spinoza states that the knowledge of Scripture must be sought from Scripture alone, similar to how the knowledge of nature is sought from nature.
He stresses that Scripture does not provide definitions, which must be derived from various narratives within the Bible.
Spinoza's universal rule is to accept only what is clearly perceived when examining Scripture in light of its history which comprises:
The nature and properties of the language in which the books of the Bible were written, and in which their authors were accustomed to speak
An analysis of each book and arrangement of its contents under heads; so that we may have at hand the various texts which treat of a given subject. Lastly, a note of all the passages which are ambiguous or obscure, or which seem mutually contradictory.
Such a history should relate the environment of all the prophetic books extant; that is, the life, the conduct, and the studies of the author of each book, who he was, what was the occasion, and the epoch of his writing, whom did he write for, and in what language. Further, it should inquire into the fate of each book: how it was first received, into whose hands it fell, how many different versions there were of it, by whose advice was it received into the Bible, and, lastly, how all the books now universally accepted as sacred, were united into a single whole.
He advises against being swayed by reason based on natural knowledge and emphasizes examination based on the signification of words and Scriptural foundations.
Spinoza uses the example of "God is a fire" and "God is jealous" to illustrate the distinction between clear passages and their relation to reason and truth.
To interpret, you have to know the life, conduct, and studies of the author of each book.
Thomas Hobbes on Doubting the Historical Validity of the Bible
Hobbes questions the authorship of the Pentateuch, noting that the titles do not guarantee Moses wrote the five Books of Moses.
He points out that the last chapter of Deuteronomy, discussing Moses' sepulcher, must have been written after his death.
Hobbes cites Genesis 12:6, where it is written, , which seems to be written when the Canaanite was not in the land.
Hobbes references Numbers 21:14, which cites the more ancient Book of the Wars of the Lord, indicating that the Pentateuch was written after Moses' time.
Hobbes acknowledges that Moses wrote parts of the Pentateuch, such as the Volume of the Law, which was to be read every seventh year.
He mentions the law that kings should copy from the Priests and Levites, which was later found by Hilkiah and presented to King Josiah.
Sören Kierkegaard on the Sacrifice of Isaac
Kierkegaard explores the teleological suspension of the ethical in the story of Abraham and Isaac.
He argues that Abraham's act cannot be understood through analogies and that faith is paradoxical.
Abraham acts by virtue of the absurd, prioritizing the particular over the universal, which cannot be mediated.
Abraham is neither a tragic hero nor a murderer but a believer who gets Isaac back by virtue of the absurd.
Kierkegaard contrasts Abraham with the tragic hero, who remains within the ethical and finds resolution within it.
Abraham, however, oversteps the ethical entirely, seeking a higher telos outside of it and acting on a purely personal undertaking in contrast to someone who does some ethical deed for the sake of the country.
Abraham's action is for God's sake and his own, a trial or temptation where the ethical would keep him from doing God's will.
Kierkegaard references the cry of Isaac, stating, .
He defines temptation as that which ordinarily tempts a man is that which would keep him from doing his duty, but in this case the temptation is itself the ethical . . . which would keep him from doing God’s will.
Philo of Alexandria on Creation
Philo's depiction of paradise diverges sharply from human-made parks; in his version, plants are imbued with souls and rationality, enabling them to cultivate virtues and wisdom. This paradise is not merely a place of aesthetic beauty but a realm of intellectual and moral development for its flora.
Philo interprets the paradise story allegorically, assigning symbolic meanings to its key elements. The tree of life represents piety, which he regards as the foundation of a virtuous life. The tree of knowledge, on the other hand, symbolizes wisdom and moderation—qualities essential for maintaining balance and avoiding extremes.
The serpent, according to Philo, embodies pleasure, particularly sensual and earthly delights. When Adam and Eve partake of the forbidden fruit, they succumb to the allure of pleasure, which leads them down a path of wickedness and moral degradation. Thus, the serpent is not just a tempter but a symbol of the dangers of unbridled hedonism.
This act of disobedience carries severe consequences, as Adam and Eve choose immediate gratification over lasting virtue and a prolonged, fulfilling life. Their decision reflects a fundamental error in judgment, prioritizing transient pleasures over enduring happiness.
Philo explicitly equates the serpent with pleasure, emphasizing its inherent connection to the earth and its capacity to exert a poisonous influence on human behavior. This association underscores the notion that excessive indulgence in pleasure can be detrimental to one's spiritual and moral well-being.
He contrasts the serpent with individuals devoted solely to pleasure, portraying them as burdened by intemperance and wholly consumed by earthly desires. Such individuals are depicted as lacking self-control and being slaves to their appetites, unable to rise above the material world.
Philo condemns immoderate eating as a deadly habit that not only impairs digestion but also leads to overall physical and moral corruption. This critique extends beyond mere gluttony, encompassing any form of excess that undermines health and virtue.
Saint Augustine on the Fall of Mankind
Augustine delves into the repercussions of the first man's transgression and the emergence of human mortality, clarifying that God's intention was not to create immortal beings, even if they were to sin. Instead, humans were given the potential for immortality contingent upon their obedience.
According to Augustine, humans were created with the potential for immortality if they remained obedient to God's commands. However, disobedience would result in the imposition of death as a consequence. This condition highlights the significance of human choice and its implications for their eternal destiny.
Augustine posits that divine grace abandoned Adam and Eve following their act of disobedience, leading to feelings of shame and an unruly flesh. Without divine grace, they were left vulnerable to their own weaknesses and desires, resulting in internal conflict and moral decay.
The soul's rebellion against God led to a loss of control over the body, as the harmonious relationship between the spiritual and physical realms was disrupted. This internal discord symbolizes the fragmentation of human nature and the struggle between reason and passion.
Augustine contends that humans are born into a state of struggle and inherit a seed of death from the original sin committed by Adam and Eve. This inheritance signifies the transmission of corruption and mortality from one generation to the next, perpetuating the cycle of sin and suffering.
Augustine asserts that human beings, corrupted by their own will, beget corrupted offspring, as all humanity was contained within Adam. This concept underscores the pervasive nature of original sin and its ramifications for the entire human race.
The misuse of free will initiated a chain of evil that culminates in the second death, representing eternal separation from God. Salvation is achievable only through God's grace, which offers redemption and the possibility of overcoming the consequences of sin.
Augustine emphasizes that Adam turned away from God before God turned away from him, characterizing this departure as the soul's initial demise. This notion highlights the primacy of human choice in the process of alienation from God.
Augustine interprets God's question to Adam—"Adam, where art thou?"—as a warning intended to prompt reflection on his condition after being forsaken by God. This question serves as a reminder of the dire consequences of sin and the importance of seeking reconciliation with the divine.
Moses Maimonides on the Guide for the Perplexed
Maimonides tackles the question of whether Adam's act of disobedience conferred upon him intellect and the capacity to differentiate between good and evil, delving into the complexities of moral and intellectual development.
He clarifies that the term "Elohim" is a homonym, capable of denoting God, angels, judges, and rulers, emphasizing the importance of context when interpreting biblical terminology.
Maimonides refutes the notion that Adam acquired intellect through disobedience, asserting that intellect was inherent in human beings prior to the transgression. He argues that humans were endowed with the capacity for reason and understanding from the outset.
Maimonides supports his argument by referencing the Bible, which states that humans were created in the image and likeness of God and received commandments, underscoring the pre-existing intellectual and moral faculties of humankind.
Maimonides elucidates that intellect empowers humans to distinguish between truth and falsehood, whereas the concepts of "right" and "wrong" pertain to moral judgments. This distinction highlights the different domains of intellectual and moral reasoning.
Prior to the act of disobedience, Adam relied solely on reason and remained unconcerned with superficial matters such as nudity. His existence was characterized by a focus on higher truths and a lack of preoccupation with trivial concerns.
However, after succumbing to desires and bodily appetites, Adam experienced a decline in his intellectual capacity and became fixated on distinguishing between proper and improper conduct, signifying a preoccupation with external appearances and societal norms.
Maimonides interprets the opening of Adam's eyes not as a restoration of sight but as the acquisition of new knowledge, specifically the awareness of moral and social distinctions. This interpretation underscores the cognitive shift that occurred as a result of the fall.
He links Adam's banishment from Paradise to his altered intentions and his pursuit of forbidden knowledge, suggesting that his quest for moral and social awareness led to his expulsion from a state of innocence and harmony.
Maimonides concludes that Adam's condition deteriorated to the level of lower animals following the fall, necessitating labor for sustenance. This assertion emphasizes the degradation of human existence as a consequence of sin.
Maimonides references Psalm 49:13, stating, , to further illustrate the diminished state of humanity after the fall.
Benedictus Spinoza on the Interpretation of Scripture
Spinoza critiques the superficial comprehension of the Bible, where individuals profess it as the word of God yet fail to embody its teachings, thereby exposing a disconnect between belief and practice.
He rebukes theologians for exploiting Scripture to bolster their own interpretations and compelling others to conform to their viewpoints, thereby stifling independent thought and critical analysis.
Spinoza contends that genuine belief in Scripture would manifest in transformed lives, devoid of strife, animosity, and unwarranted interpretations, highlighting the imperative of aligning actions with professed beliefs.
He denounces the interpolation of the Bible and the elevation of human commentaries above the sacred writings of the Holy Ghost, thereby advocating for a return to the original texts and a rejection of biased interpretations.
Superstition, according to Spinoza, engenders a disdain for reason and nature, prompting individuals to construe Scripture in contradictory manners, thus impeding rational inquiry and fostering intellectual incoherence.
Spinoza underscores the necessity of dissociating oneself from theological biases and embracing an authentic methodology for interpreting Scripture, thereby advocating for objectivity and intellectual rigor.
He asserts that Scripture frequently addresses matters transcending reason, such as miracles and revelations tailored to the perspectives of historians and prophets, thereby acknowledging the limitations of human understanding in grasping divine truths.
Spinoza posits that the knowledge of Scripture must be derived solely from Scripture itself, paralleling the acquisition of natural knowledge from the study of nature, thereby promoting self-reliance and empirical investigation.
He emphasizes that Scripture does not furnish definitions, which must be deduced from various narratives within the Bible, thereby advocating for contextual analysis and inductive reasoning.
Spinoza's overarching principle mandates the acceptance of only what is unequivocally perceived when scrutinizing Scripture in light of its historical context, encompassing:
The nature and attributes of the language in which the biblical texts were composed and employed by their authors.
A meticulous examination of each book and the systematic arrangement of its contents, facilitating the identification of relevant passages pertaining to specific subjects. Additionally, the annotation of ambiguous, obscure, or seemingly contradictory passages.
A comprehensive portrayal of the milieu surrounding the prophetic texts, encompassing the lives, conduct, and academic pursuits of their authors, as well as the circumstances surrounding their composition, intended audience, and linguistic medium. Furthermore, an investigation into the reception, transmission, and canonization of each book.
He advises against being swayed by reason based on natural knowledge and emphasizes examination based on the signification of words and Scriptural foundations.
Spinoza uses the example of "God is a fire" and "God is jealous" to illustrate the distinction between clear passages and their relation to reason and truth.
To interpret, you have to know the life, conduct, and studies of the author of each book.
Thomas Hobbes on Doubting the Historical Validity of the Bible
Hobbes contests the purported authorship of the Pentateuch, asserting that the titles affixed to the books do not guarantee their composition by Moses himself. This skepticism prompts a reevaluation of traditional attribution.
He observes that the concluding chapter of Deuteronomy, which recounts Moses' demise and sepulcher, must have been penned after Moses' death, thereby challenging the notion of Mosaic authorship for the entirety of the Pentateuch.
Hobbes cites Genesis 12:6, wherein it is stated, , suggesting a temporal perspective wherein the Canaanites were no longer inhabiting the land. This observation raises questions regarding the dating of the text.
Hobbes alludes to Numbers 21:14, which references the more ancient Book of the Wars of the Lord, implying that certain portions of the Pentateuch were composed subsequent to the era of Moses. This reference challenges the conventional timeline of biblical composition.
While casting doubt on the uniform authorship of the Pentateuch, Hobbes acknowledges that Moses likely authored portions thereof, such as the Volume of the Law, which was prescribed to be recited every seventh year. This concession recognizes the potential for Mosaic contributions within the larger text.
He references the injunction stipulating that kings should transcribe the law from the Priests and Levites, which was later rediscovered by Hilkiah and presented to King Josiah, underscoring the textual transmission and preservation processes.
Sören Kierkegaard on the Sacrifice of Isaac
Kierkegaard delves into the teleological suspension of the ethical within the narrative of Abraham and Isaac, probing the paradoxes inherent in faith and moral duty.
He posits that Abraham's action defies conventional comprehension through analogy, emphasizing the paradoxical nature of faith as a leap beyond rational understanding.
Abraham operates by virtue of the absurd, prioritizing the particular over the universal in a manner that defies mediation, thereby transcending conventional ethical frameworks.
Abraham is neither a tragic hero nor a murderer but a believer who recovers Isaac through the power of the absurd, thereby exemplifying the transformative potential of faith.
Kierkegaard contrasts Abraham with the tragic hero, who remains ensnared within the ethical realm and finds resolution therein, highlighting the distinction between moral rectitude and religious conviction.
Abraham, conversely, oversteps the ethical entirely, pursuing a transcendent telos external to it and acting upon a purely personal impetus, diverging from actions undertaken for communal or societal benefit.
Abraham's action is motivated by devotion to God and personal conviction, representing a trial or temptation wherein ethical considerations would impede the fulfillment of God's will.
Kierkegaard invokes Isaac's exclamation, stating, , to underscore the perceived irrationality and potential destructiveness of Abraham's course of action.
He defines temptation as that which typically dissuades an individual from fulfilling their duty, but in