I'm feeling a bit cognitively challenged at the moment. After many frustrating hours of trying to understand the relationship between law, natural law, the law of nature, rationalism, morality, voluntary natural law, first law eternal, second law eternal, etc., it dawned on me that i was not going to figure it out (It also occurred to me that it was a bit arrogant to even attempt it, but i will chalk it up to plummeting blood sugar and the inability to think clearly), considering the fact that it's a centuries-old debate (oh yeah...). Luckily (and oddly) my tiny flat has many glass doors, and the photo to the left illustrates the desperate (yet typical) measures i was forced to take in order to prevent my head from exploding. My work on Donne had taught me that structure of someone's argument, sometimes the very examples they bring, can offer us clues as to who they were reading. That didn't work so well here. Both Hooker and Maimonides bring up different examples of chukim in various contexts. Furthermore, the complications resulting from the subtleties of language--the shifting etymologies, the theological jargon, the scores of subcategories in defining words and axioms--used by both Hooker and Maimonides are not to be underestimated.
A common theme that emerges in the study of Maimonides (and a real pain in the ...neck) is that he says one thing in the Mishneh Torah and another thing in the Guide. Some people try to reconcile those differences, and some people chalk it up to Maimonides consciously addressing two very different audiences. I, unfortunately am not well-versed enough in this area.
I came across a lecture by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein on the relationship between being religious and being good, and was delighted to see that he actually quotes the passage from C.S. Lewis's The Problem of Pain in which Lewis quotes Hooker.
I've often noticed over the course of this dissertation that i have made my work much harder by choosing as my topic two different subjects (early modern literature and rabbinics) about which i know very little, and this is just one instance of that. So, i'm still not entirely sure where either of them stands on this issue, but it does seem like it's rather consciously complex on both of their parts, it would seem, intentionally so...
out of curiosity, what is the topic of your dissertation and how does the Hooker chapter fit into the topic?
ReplyDeleteTK
Ooh. You always ask tough questions. And that's good, i suppose. Hmm...as i get deeper into it, it becomes harder to answer. I'm basically trying to bolster the argument for the Church of England as being a via media by examining a set of discourses that were hugely popular in the 17th c but basically neglected by critics: Hebraism. Hooker's the first guy, and following him are Andrewes, Donne, and Taylor. If you want a more detailed explanation, shoot me an email and i can send you my proposal.What is your research about? If it's to do with numbers or chemicals, use very simple language, please!
ReplyDeleteInteresting topic. Of course your answer begs the question: a via media between what? Anglican via media is usually defined as between Catholicism v. Protestantism, but regarding the topic of Hebraism do you consider the via media between Christian v. Judaic interpretations of "old law"?
ReplyDeleteSimply put, my research focuses on cystic fibrosis primarily.
TK
Why, thank you. Yes, a via media between Protestantism and Catholicism, pretty much. What do you mean by old law?
ReplyDeleteAre you a statistician? A lab person..?
Actually, I reread my post and it is ridiculous to think there is a middle way between Christian and Jewish interpretation of old law. By "old law" I meant things like Leviticus laws. A Christian way of referring to them, hence my realization of the ridiculousness of my first question.
ReplyDeleteHow do Catholics and Protestants differ on Hebraism?
I'm faculty, it's my lab.
TK
Could it be that the relationship between these different laws (statutes?) is to teach some truth, to change a wrong opinion, to establish one's place in society, to diminish evil, teach good manners or warn against bad habits?
ReplyDeleteCould it be that it is just like my mother told me, "There's no reason for it,it's just because I said so."
TK--thanks for clarifying the old law thing--i was wonderinng how i could miss such a big thing! Yeah, we still do those things in Leviticus (not all of them...but we had the 'Sabbatical Year' last year (it was a total pain in the ass. Was that irreverant? I hope not... )--which is a cool thing about living in Israel--many laws only apply here, as you know.
ReplyDeleteAs for Catholic and Protestant Hebraism, that is a fascinating question. In broad strokes, the Catholics tended to be into Kabbalah (see the picture beneath the list of blogs to the right?), and the Protestants were into Halacha (Jewish law).
So you're the lab master/mistress? Sweet! So technically, you could turn it into a workshop, and they can't say anything, right?
Silverback--the idea that we do stuff cos God told us and that's it--as you explained it, your mother's rule to you as a kid is exactly what went through my mind when reading about voluntarism! And that was the Puritan claim, against which Hooker and CS Lewis wrote.
Naomi,
ReplyDeleteExcuse my academic bias and tell me to stifle it if you wish, but what is the hypothesis of your dissertation? From what you've described it sounds like: The teachings?/theology? of the Church of England in the 17th century was a via media regarding Hebraism resulting in....what? Religious tolerance in England? Ecumenism? What do you think was the benefit of the Anglican approach?
Silverback - I like your comments (and your blog). Being related to Zane Gray is pretty excellent.
Sadly turning the lab into a shop wouldn't go over too well
TK
I just have one (probably stupid) question.
ReplyDeleteWhat is Catholic and Protestant Hebraism?
Is it the Judaic laws or statutes that they adopted or adapted from the Old Testiment?
On the surface the term sounds kinda like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence.