Antikythera Mechanism Update

A long long time ago, I posted on the news of the "world's first computer," the Antikythera Mechanism, a first-century-BCE device which predicted lunar and solar eclipses, the dates of the Olympic games, tracked the position of the planets, etc.

Well, someone has now been able to reconstruct a working replica according to Yahoo! News and Wired.com.

Here is the article in toto:

A British museum curator has built a working replica of a 2,000-year-old Greek machine that has been called the world's first computer.

A dictionary-size assemblage of 37 interlocking dials crafted with the precision and complexity of a 19th-century Swiss clock, the Antikythera mechanism was used for modeling and predicting the movements of the heavenly bodies as well as the dates and locations of upcoming Olympic games.

The original 81 shards of the Antikythera were recovered from under the sea (near the Greek island of Antikythera) in 1902, rusted and clumped together in a nearly indecipherable mass. Scientists dated it to 150 B.C. Such craftsmanship wouldn't be seen for another 1,000 years — but its purpose was a mystery for decades.

Many scientists have worked since the 1950s to piece together the story, with the help of some very sophisticated imaging technology in recent years, including X-ray and gamma-ray imaging and 3-D computer modeling.

Now, though, it has been rebuilt. As is almost always the way with these things, it was an amateur who cracked it. Michael Wright, a former curator at the Science Museum in London, has built a replica of the Antikythera, which works perfectly.

In the video from New Scientist below, Wright shows how the machine works.

In short, Antikythera's user interface is deceptively simple, operated by a simple knob on the side. This conceals the intricacy within, amounting to a complex mathematical model, tracking the movements of planetary bodies and incorporating a series of submechanisms to account for the eccentricities of their rotation.

A dial on the faceplace featured the Greek zodiac and an Egyptian calendar; pointers showed the location of the moon and the five planets known at the time. On the machine's back, an upper dial shows a 19-year calendar (matching the solunar cycle) and the timing of upcoming Olympic games. A lower dial shows a 76-year cycle (when the Olympic and solunar cycles coincide) and indicates the months in which lunar and solar eclipses can be expected.

According to New Scientist, this is the first working model of the Antikythera computer to include all of the device's known features. And, like the original machine, it has been built of recycled metal plates. That's right: The Antikythera mechanism is not only the world's oldest computer, it's also the world's first green computer.

Here's the video mentioned above:

Being Broke and Atheist at Christmas

I just saw this cartoon strip in the NYTimes. It is a modern day Christmas story.



Merry Christmas to all with pinecone necklaces.

Legal Insensitivity to Religious Customs

I just read the following from the Associated Press. A judge in Georgia jailed a Muslim woman who refused to remove her head scarf in court. The court rules are that no headgear is allowed at all, which would, in this case, create a religious violation.

Ga. judge jails Muslim woman over head scarf
By DIONNE WALKER, Associated Press Writer Dionne Walker, Associated Press Writer
19 mins ago

ATLANTA – A Georgia judge ordered a Muslim woman arrested Tuesday for contempt of court for refusing to take off her head scarf at a security checkpoint.

The judge ordered Lisa Valentine, 40, to serve 10 days in jail, said police in Douglasville, a city of about 20,000 people on Atlanta's west suburban outskirts.

Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court, police said.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations urged federal authorities to investigate the incident as well as others in Georgia.

"I just felt stripped of my civil, my human rights," Valentine told The Associated Press on Wednesday from her home, after she said she was unexpectedly released once CAIR got involved. Jail officials declined to say why she was freed.

Municipal Court Judge Keith Rollins said that "it would not be appropriate" for him to comment on the case.

Last year, a judge in Valdosta in southern Georgia barred a Muslim woman from entering a courtroom because she would not remove her head scarf. There have been similar cases in other states, including Michigan, where a Muslim woman in Detroit filed a federal lawsuit in February 2007 after a judge dismissed her small-claims court case when she refused to remove a head and face veil.

Valentine's husband, Omar Hall, said his wife was accompanying her nephew to a traffic citation hearing when officials stopped her at the metal detector and told her she would not be allowed in the courtroom with the head scarf, known as a hijab.

Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge.

So, basically, because of this court's procedural customs, these women cannot get a fair hearing. Sometimes it seems the law, or at least this particular court's procedure, gets in the way of justice.

The Task of the Translator

I just read Walter Benjamin's essay, "The Task of the Translator: An Introduction to the Translation of Baudelaire's Tableaux Parisiens," and I thought I would give some choice morsels for your eyes' delight:

No poem is intended for the reader, no picture for the beholder, no symphony for the listener.

One might...speak of an unforgettable life or moment even if all men had forgotten it. If the nature of such a life or moment required that it be unforgotten, taht predicate would not imply a falsehood but merely a claim not fulfilled by men, and probably also a reference to a realm in which it is fulfilled: God's remembrance.

Translation...ultimately serves the purpose of expressing the central reciprocal relationship between languages. It cannot possibly reveal or establish this hidden relationship itself; but it can represent it by realizing it in embryonic form or intensive form.

Reading Luke's Economic Absences and Alterations (Part 10)

In the previous post, having established a trajectory of economic redistribution in Luke-Acts (John the Baptist-->Jesus-->early Jerusalem community), some of Luke's alterations and absences make more sense. Although reading absences is often dangerous, having Luke's source (Mark) and comparing alternative versions of the same saying (Matthew) puts us on a bit safer methodological grounds. Although many out there like to read absences anyway.

One of the most famous alterations of shifts is in Luke's version of the Beatitudes. So, while Matthew has Jesus say, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:3) Luke has Jesus say, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20). Matthew follows the contemporary Jewish circumlocution in order to avoid saying "God" and instead says "heaven." But the more important shift, for the present purposes, is that Matthew writes "poor in spirit" and keeps the discourse in the third person. Luke's Jesus jumps out at you, speaking to YOU, in the second person plural. And this Jesus keeps things on a more material level, instead of escaping into a spiritual discourse, of poor in spirit (although this may have some emotional or psychological undertones). Instead, in Luke, it is just the poor, you poor, who will enter the Kingdom of God (like Lazarus in 16:19-31).

Something Luke has that Matthew does not discuss is the series of "woe's." So, while the poor (and not just poor in spirit, but the materially poor) shall enter the kingdom of God, "But woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation" (Luke 6:24). As a whole, the rich do not come off very well throughout Luke.

Another absence that I never noticed until someone objected to part of my analysis of "render unto Caesar," is that unlike the rest of the gospels, no one in Jesus' group actually carries money. That's right, there is NO MENTION in Luke that Judas keeps the money. I looked and looked and looked and could not find it. But it makes sense, for how could Jesus tell everyone else to give ALL their money to the poor and hold back some? Yet, he is not personally holding back some in the OTHER gospels, but the group has money. So, again, there is a communitarian ethic in the other gospels that reemerges in Acts, but in Luke, Jesus has no money. The usual passage that mentions Judas as the moneykeeper may have been removed for another purpose however.

First let's take a look at one of Luke's purported sources: Mark 14:3-8:

And while he as at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. But there were some who said to themselves indignantly, "Why was the ointment wasted? For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and given to the poor." And they reproached her. But Jesus said, "Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing for me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenver you will, you can do good to them; but you will not always have me."

In Matthew the disciples as a whole are indignant (Matt. 26:6-13); in John, Judas is the only one (12:1-8). Also in John, the scene occurs at Mary and Lazarus' house. But in Luke a huge shift occurs:

One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house, and took his place at table. And behold a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears,a nd wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he woudl have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner." (Luke 7:36-39)

So the whole thing about you will always have the poor with you but not have me with you does not fly in Luke. Luke omits it ocmpletely. It is there that Judas is shown as having money (in John). For Luke, such a saying seems to fly completely in the face of everything else he is trying to portray as Jesus' economic message of giving all to the poor without holding back. Instead, in Luke, this situation becomes a commentary on Jesus reaching out to outcasts in society and those outcasts reaching to him in return. He goes for the lepers, the poor, the tax collectors, women, prostitutes, and "sinners" and general. These are the ones for whom he has come. So, in short, Luke has dropped an episode that potentially threatens his portrait of Jesus. Is this part of his more "orderly account"?

One last thing for we are approaching Christmas. The birth story. It is clear that Matthew and Luke present very two different birth stories that are harmonized for the Christmas holidays. The biggest difference, with regard to the current discussion, is who visits Jesus? In Matthew, wise men or magi from the East follow a star and give Jesus great, expensive gifts of gold, frankinsense, and myrrh (Matthew 2:1-12). This does not seem like it would work in Luke, unless Mary and Joseph immediately sold the gifts and gave the proceeds to the poor! Instead, we have a bit of a more lowly visitation in Luke of shepherds tending their flocks nearby (Luke 2:8-20). These are the ones who see the child in a manger who later declares that the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

I think this shall end my series, now in ten parts, on the economic redistribution program in Luke-Acts. If there is anything I missed in these ten sessions that you think is pertinent to discuss, please, by all means, drop a note!

A True Communitarian Attempt: Acts 2:44-46 (Part 9)

When reading Luke-Acts as a whole, one begins to see a certain trajectory. We begin with John the Baptist saying:

He who has two coats, let him share with him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise." Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, "Teacher what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Collect no more than is appointed you." (Luke 3:11-13)

You can see some of these same issues unfold with Jesus. The first part can be found in Jesus' commands to his disciples when he sends them out:

Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics. (Luke 9:3)

In addition to keeping only one garment, the tax collector issue also shows up throughout. Jesus mingles with tax ocllectors, but more poignantly, the passage concerning Zacchaeus, the tax collector who does not cheat anyone and does not make them pay more than appointed, stands out as a good example (19:1-10). For the almost impossibility of this, see this post.

But Jesus also radicalizes John's message of giving extra cloaks and not cheating people. He goes so far as to say that one cannot enter the Kingdom of God and/or follow him without selling everything and giving it to the poor! This is best illustrated, perhaps, by the rich young ruler who is perfect in every other way, but will not sell everything and give it to the poor, and, therefore, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God (18:18-25). Or think of the story of Lazarus and the rich man (16:19-31). Yet the disciples too must sell everything and give it to the poor (12:32-34).

Acts takes this logic and applies it inwardly. Not just to the poor, but to the community. So, in Acts 3:44-46:

And all who believed were together and had all things in common;a nd they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts.

So, from selling all one's possesions and giving the proceeds to the poor, this passage turns this action into a distinctly communitarian effort: selling one's possessions and giving the proceeds to the community. Then, the community redistributes as any have need. This appears to be some form of incipient communism (I'll stick with lowercase "c"). Almost like a Kibbutz mentality, yet one in the city, since they stay in Jerusalem and meet in the temple, the most sacred place. If one does not give to the community and one belongs to the group, if one witholds, then the consequence is death (5:1-11).

Ultimately, we see two mutations in the model, two distinct developments from John the Baptist to Jesus, and then again from Jesus to the Jerusalem community. This is probably not an easy Jesus to follow, not an easy message. But, it seems to me, most Christians sanitize or just plain ignore these parts of the Bible, reinterpreting them to a nicer, friendlier, Buddy Jesus.

Giving out of Poverty: Lukan Economics (Part 8)

It has been a long time since I have posted on Lukan economics; you know, the whole redistribution of wealth in which one must sell everything one owns and give the proceeds to the poor in order to enter the Kingdom of God and/or to follow Jesus.

One difficulty (although not the only one) that was raised when speaking of this to others at Columbia, whether other instructors, my students, or in general, is that it gives a certain authority to the rich nonetheless. In other words, only the rich have the opportunity to sell all they own and give the proceeds to the poor. This observation may be counteracted with the discussion of Lazarus and the rich man, in which Lazarus who has nothing, at death goes to Abraham's bosom, while the rich man suffers torment. Another rebuttal might be the following passage in Luke 21:1-4:

He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. And he said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had."

So, the poor woman, who has only two coins, nonetheless, can follow Jesus' commands to give all one owns away, while the rich, who give out of their riches, do not put in as much as she does. You either give everything or not give everything, no matter how much that everything is. This levels the playing field a bit. Yet, there is a difference with all of the other economic issues in Luke. Everywhere else, one gives money to the poor. Here, the poor woman does not give her coppers to the poor, but to the temple treasury, and, presumably, by extension to God. Although, really, to the priests.

Interestingly enough, this passage directly precedes the prediction of the destruction of the temple: "there shall not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" (21:6). I personally do not know what to make of this juxtaposition of praising the poor woman for giving all she owns to the temple and subsequently predicting the temple's demise, shifting into rather apocalyptic language until chapter 22. So, perhaps while one economic objection is settled, a new issue arises.

Plenary Indulgences in Brooklyn

This is actually old news--the story is from August 5--but it just came to my attention and the news is in effect into the next year:

ANNOUNCES INDULGENCES DURING PAULINE YEAR

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio has announced that parishioners in the Diocese of Brooklyn can receive plenary indulgences for participation in events connected with the 2008-2009 jubilee year of St. Paul the Apostle proclaimed by Pope Benedict XVI in May.

The Pauline year began June 28 and will close June 29 next year to mark the approximately 2,000 anniversary of the saint’s birth.

In a decree, dated July 23, Bishop DiMarzio designated the places where the faithful may benefit from the plenary indulgence if they take part with devotion in a liturgy or other public exercise in honor of the saint during the Pauline year.

On any day during the jubilee, indulgences can be gained at St. James Cathedral Basilica; St. Paul’s Church, Court St.; SS. Peter and Paul Church, South Third St.; St. Paul’s Church, Corona; SS. Peter and Paul Spirituality Center at two locations: Immaculate Conception Center, Douglaston, and 118 Congress St., Brooklyn; and Bishop Molloy Retreat House, Jamaica.

The indulgence can also be obtained within the territory of the Diocese on Dec. 8, 2008, the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception; Jan. 25, 2009, the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, and June 29 next year, the Solemnity of SS. Peter and Paul and the solemn closing of the jubilee commemoration.

Other days when the faithful can gain the indulgence are the patron feast day of each parish in Brooklyn and Queens.

The decree lists the usual conditions for receiving the plenary indulgence: sacramental Confession, reception of Holy Communion, prayer for the intentions of the Holy Father and “complete detachment from any inclination to sin.”

A plenary, or full, indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment a person is due for sins, even though those sins have been forgiven. An individual can obtain more than one plenary indulgence during the jubilee year, but not more than one per day.

The decree also states that the indulgence is available to a person who travels in pilgrimage to the Papal Basilica of St. Paul on the Ostian Way in Rome.



8/5/08

You can find out more about this diocese here. Many people have difficulty understanding how indulgences work or what they are for. So, one has sins and sin must have a penalty. After sins are forgiven (thereby saving one from hell), one still must work off the penalty for the sin. This penalty is worked off in something called penance. If someone has not worked off penance before dying (but has sins forgiven), they work it off in a place called Purgatory. After working off the penance in Purgatory, they proceed to heaven. And indulgence, however, is a remission of penance, but usually is limited--it only remits so much penance. A plenary indulgence, however, remits ALL a person's penance. The first plenary indulgence, if I recall correctly, was granted for soldiers who died in one of the Crusades...I think the first one, but may be wrong.

Most famously, the issue of the SALE of plenary indulgences (in order to fund the building of the current version of St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican) is what set in motion a series of events, particularly angering an Augustinian monk in Wittenberg, who could find no real precedent for this new practice of selling plenary indulgences and subsequently slowly began to chip away at the authority of the pope and the Church hierarchy. You know the monk: Martin Luther.

Not long after, in the Council of Trent the Church also stopped the practice of the sale of plenary indulgences. Although, for the faithful, plenary indulgences clearly still exist, and in Brooklyn, New York to boot! So, if you are Catholic, and live in Brooklyn, you have quite an opportunity to have all of your unworked-off penance to be remitted.

Baseball and the Afterlife

In case you were wondering, you can now bring your favorite team's memorabilia into the afterlife. Want a Yankees' casket? You can have one. With how the team has been playing lately, it seems fitting that they would be buried.

December 15, 2008
Editorial Notebook
Pondering the Ultimate Sky Box
By FRANCIS X. CLINES
Leaving no merchandising stone unturned, Major League Baseball has authorized the use of team logos on a line of funeral caskets for people who want to carry their fandom unto eternity. Models for the Yankees (replete with interior pinstripes) and the Mets (with handles of mixed Dodger blue and Giant orange) went on sale at the Branch Funeral Home in Smithtown, Long Island.

The caskets gleam in cream-colored 18-gauge steel, with the team logo embossed on both the open lid lining and the loved one’s head pillow. They dominate the display room’s 22 caskets, attracting more interest than the Harvard gunmetal model, the copper Pieta, or the solid cherry Senator, according to John Vigilante, the funeral home manager and a lifelong Mets fan.

For baseball fans, the only distractions lately have been winter trades as teams swap their moribund bullpen arms and flatlining batters in hopes of livelier teams next year. For those feeling particularly restless between the demise of last season and the birth of spring training, the contemplation of such a resting place may fill the bleak hours.

Mr. Vigilante reports that the home team caskets — priced at $5,000, or 20 percent more than the non-logo model — have drawn admiration and not a word of complaint as they at least give pause to families in grief.

He finds them a logical evolution from last wishes in which a treasured autographed baseball or a beloved dog’s ashes are routinely interred with the deceased. The undertaker even hopes to purchase dirt from the defunct stadiums of the Mets and Yankees to burnish the occasion: “You know, toss infield dirt on the casket as a sendoff.”

The first baseball coffin was reported sold, prepaid by a Mets fan. He told a sports writer at The Daily News that it was only appropriate because “they’re going to drive me to my grave."

I guess for your "field of dreams" fan(atic) in the hereafter. No matter what you think, though, it is not any weirder than any other particular customary death ritual.

Family Guy's "The Rose"

Although there have been many singers who have sung this song, this must be my favorite version thus far. They actually harmonize quite well!

"Dignitas Personae"

In an scene that looks like it could come out of 1984, the institution whose leaders act like clones, look like clones, and all dress alike, have reified the Catholic Church's position against cloning. Those who have sidestepped the "natural" processes of procreation, as usual, want to regulate those things in which they themselves do not participate : birth, creation, etc.

The official document, "Dignitas Personae" or the "Dignity of the Person," forbids creation through in vitro fertilization and human cloning. It forbids the manipulation of human biological raw materials: so no stem-cell research. Or, no stem-cell research based upon embryos. It allows stem cells extracted from adults and umbilical cords.

And, the cherry on top this ice-cream Sundae is no morning after pill!

I always find it strange that a bunch of celibate men sit around in rooms all day talking about the proper and improper ways to have sex, have children, and so forth. So, this adds to the list of why women should be priests: to give these guys some perspective.

See more here.

And the picture in the picture above is fantastic: it is like it "unnaturally" clones the clones, a representation within a representation through the reproduction of images.

Looking for Enlightenment?

Seeking enlightenment? Eh, probably not. But want a little peace and relaxation from the stresses of life. Well, if that's you, you can visit a nice Ashram or Buddhist monastery in upstate New York! Seek the silence here.

Anti-Israeli Christmas Carols with Commentary by N.T. Wrong

N.T. Wrong has posted some interesting reworked Christmas Carols on her/his site:

Once in Royal David’s City

Once in Royal David’s City,
Stood a big apartheid wall,
People entering and leaving,
Had to pass a checkpoint hall,
Bethlehem was strangulated,
And her children segregated.

Though this city is a symbol
To the world of peace and love,
Concrete walls have closed around her,
Settlements expand above.
And apartheid Israel stands
All around on stolen lands.

David’s people once instructed
All the world in righteousness;
Prophets spoke of truth and justice;
Israel’s leaders now oppress.
All who look at Bethlehem
Must speak out the truth to them.

The Twelve Days of Christmas

Twelve assassinations,
Eleven homes demolished,
Ten wells obstructed,
Nine sniper towers,
Eight gunships firing,
Seven checkpoints blocking,
Six tanks a-rolling,
Five settlement rings,
Four falling bombs,
Three trench guns,
Two trampled doves,
And an uprooted olive tree

.

These shocking carols strike the reader with a bang. Wrong records some reactions, but my favorite are recordings of non-recorded responses:

Although none of the News sources recorded it, the Israeli ambassador is understood to have later condemned the Wise Men as “insurgents” for declaring Jesus to be the anointed King — praising King Herod for taking measures to maintain the Rule of Law, after Herod contained a potential terrorist uprising by an organization of under-three-year-olds calling themselves “The Innocents”. Proser later pointed out that the Wise Men were from “The East”, an area renowned for its links with Al Qaeda.

Interested yet? If so, go here.

Quotes of the Day: Walter Benjamin, "Unpacking My Library"

I think I will just quote from the master of quotes without commentary (or little commentary outside of this sentence), itself Walter Benjamin's ultimate goal, from his own "Unpacking My Library: A Talk about Book Collecting":

Every passion borders on the chaotic, but the collector's passion borders on the chaos of memories.

For what else is this collection but a disorder to which habit has accommodated itself to such an extent that it can appear as order?

...the acquisition of an old book is its rebirth.

To a book collector, you see, the true freedom of all books is somewhere on his shelves.

Make your own order of my chaos of quotation, my poaching of words.

Rioting in Greece

In case anyone didn't know, there has been massive rioting throughout Greece, but primarily in Athens, following a deadly shooting of a teenager by a police officer. Students, teachers, and blue-collar workers have been rising up against the government, and, in an event organized by a leftist coalition, marching on Syntagma Square ("Constitution" Square) and throughout the streets of major cities (Athens, Thessaloniki, Trikala). It also appears that widespread workers' strikes are likely to occur following the rioting. See about it here and here.

Who knows where this will lead? It may fizzle out. It may lead to more widespread violence. It may lead to something more...

I just can't help but think of Thucydides in a time like this, especially his analysis of revolutions and civil wars. I think he would be appalled to some degree at both sides, but hardly surprised at either.

Trouble in Springfield

There is drama in Springfield, Illinois. Kind of...or, at least there would be trouble in Springfield, Illinois, if Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich (D) (blah-goy-a-vich) actually lived in the governor's mansion in Illinois.

Nonetheless, Blagojevich has continued the venerable tradition of Illinois governors of getting arrested for some sort of abuse of power. Makes me so proud to be from such a state that makes the governor's office such a moral highroad. Our previous governor, George Ryan (R), was convicted of racketeering and fraud in 2006.

But in Illinois it does not matter if you are Republican, like Ryan, or Democrat, like Blagojevich, because EVERYONE is very very corrupt. Blagojevich has now been arrested for trying to sell Obama's vacated Senate seat to the highest bidder! This brings with it the highly technical sounding charge of "corruption." This "corruption" charge, evidently, is just the icing on the cake of an ongoing five-year investigation into Illinois politics, in which "pay to play" has been the key phrase. Because of this ongoing federal investigation into Illinois corruption, many of the illegal dealings of Blagojevich have been caught on wire taps. Oops! And you New Yorkers thought you were the most corrupt. Huh! And now you can read all of this in the NYTimes.

Cicero and Job: De Natura Deorum

I have a bit of insomnia, so I decided to finish reading Cicero's De Natura Deorum ("On the Nature of the Gods"), and, having just taught Job not too long ago, the following passage caught my eye:

Either God wishes to remove evils and cannot, or he can do so and is unwilling, or he has neither the will nor the power, or he has both the will and the power. If he has the will but not the power, he is a weakling, and this is not characteristic of God. If he has the power but not the will, he is grudging, and this is a traight equally foreign to God. If he has neither the will nor the power, he is both grudging and weak, and is therefore not divine. IF he has both the will and the power (and this is the sole circumstance appropriate to God), what is the source of evils, or why does God not dispel them? (De Natura Deorum 3.65; Trans. P.G. Walsh)

Unfortunately, this passage appears in a portion of the MSS that is riddled with lacunae. Just after this passage, there is such a blank, so who knows how the discourse was taken from here. Perhaps there was no answer (the speaker is actually proceeding in a Socratic-like method of elenchus, and, therefore, is more deconstructive than constructive). In fact, perhaps the true answer is that there is no answer. About thirty sections later, the same speaker says:

This is about all I have to say about the nature of the gods. My purpose has been not to deny their existence, but to make you realize how hard it is to understand it, and how problematic are the explanations offered. (De Natura Deorum 3.93)

Thus, I doubt the speaker, who was just breaking down all the previous arguments, primarily Stoic ones, has offered a solution, but just shown how all previous solutions fail. This all reminds me a lot of Job. The book of Job, perhaps in its current form about 500-600 hundred years older than Cicero's text, has its title character cry out:

Why do the wicked live on,
reach old age, and grow mighty in power?
Their children are established in their presence
and their offspring before their eyes.
Their houses are save from fear,
and no rod of God is upon them. (Job 21:7-8; NRSV)

Job goes on and on and on about this. This all stands in contrast to his own position of being blameless and yet suffering:

Today also my complaint is bitter;
his hand is heaey despite my groaning.
Oh, that I knew where I might find him,
that I might come even to his dwelling!
I would lay my case before him
and fill my mouth with arguments.
I would learn what he would answer me,
and undersand what he would say to me.
Would he contend with me in the great ness of his power?
No; but he woudl give heed to me.
There an upright person could reason with him,
and I should be acquitted forever by my judge. (Job 23:2-7)

Job, here, is seeking redress with God, God being the source of his suffering (through God's agent, the Accuser). In fact, Job is seeking to take God to court. What many find confusing is the end part...Job seeking to be acquitted by his judge. My students, for example, assume this judge is God. But God cannot be both judge and defendant. And God clearly is meant to be the latter. Instead, Job seeks relentlessly and without result to find a judge, an arbitrator, between he and God. But the power differences and the fact there is none more powerful than God, means that there can be no such arbitration. In fact, there can be no impartial judge between Job and God, since people will assume God to be in the right (JOb 13:1-12). Indeed, as Job cries out earlier:

For he is not mortal, as I am, that I might answer him,
that we should come to trial together.
There is no umpire [arbitrator] between us,
who might lay his hand on us both. (9:32-3)

Ultimately, Job suggests that God acts arbitrarily or unjustly:

For he crushes me with a tempest,
and multiplies my wounds without cause. (Job 9:17)

Job is willing to walk where Cicero dares not. He is willing to go where Cicero fears: bad things happen to the blameless and good things to the bad because God is arbitrary and unjust! If this were not clear enough, note the following lines:

know then that God has put me in the wrong,
and closed his net around me.
Even when I cry out, "Violence!" I am not answered.
I call aloud, but there is no justice. (Job 19:6-7)

While Job pushes the envelope in speech and thought to a position that overturns all previous understandings of justice and wisdom (that punishment is due to sin, and so on and so forth), and while the author/s of Job are radical thinkers willing to overturn entire thought systems in a single example, Job does end up largely where De Natura Deorum does as well: in complete inadequacy of understanding and aporia. God overwhelms Job when he speaks to Job out of the whirlwind. Understanding itself is overwhelmed and thwarted. Incomprehensibility is highlighted. Elihu says it best, I think:

God thunders wondrously with his voice;
he does great things that we cannot comprehend. (37:5)

Great things, yes, but great and terrible things. For, as the readers, we know one thing no one else knows in the text: Job suffers because God made a bet with the Accuser. Job, I think, is far more radical in its thinking than Cicero, more willing to push the envelope and imagine an unjust god, even if retreating in the end. Yet, ultimately, all discussions of the gods or god collapse into non-rational incomprehensibility.

Memories Mirrored in a Ripling Pond

April Deconick over at Forbidden Gospels is causing some ripples in the blogospheric space-time in her discussions on memory. You can see her postings here and more fully elaborated here. She sees this as the future, at least in part, of biblical studies. In fact, she has promised to send me some references on memory reconstruction for my own work on the persistence and transformation of mythic patterns of, well, let's just say holy/heavenly space-time in ancient Jewish and Christian literature.

She is receiving a response from the blogosphere. The infamously pseudonymous NTWrong has responded quite warmly to her contagious enthusiasm for memory studies, comparing the modernity / antiquity transference difficulty with the "middle range theory" of how artifacts relate to culture in modernity and antiquity, a theory with unsure results, but perhaps with a more robust method than individual idiosyncrasies that tend to dominate the field. "Wrong" gives the slight caveat that it may be soemthing to be outsourced to experts in other discipliens (like cognitive psychology?), or someone with training in both disciplines.

Finally, Mark Goodacre at NTGateway has responded, and rightly so, since part of DeConick's discussion refers to a paper Goodacre gave at this year's SBL, for which April was, in fact, the respondent at SBL. His discussion is based upon the "Wheat and the Tares" in the Gospel of Thomas as being dependent upon the Synoptic Gospels. The issue is that the Thomasine version leaves out the middle part of the parable. He nuances the portrayal of his model presented by DeConick. He, in fact, does not imagine the author of Thomas sitting with the synoptics in front of him. But that he has memorized the synoptics by repeated hearings and then wrote. It seems the difference between DeConick's view of the growth of traditions and parables and Goodacre's is that, at least at this stage of the game (when Thomas is writing), April assumes an oral environment where the sayings of Jesus have been passed down and recited repeatedly, whereas Goodacre assumes a written text that has been recited repeatedly, internalized, and then written into a new form (Thomas itself). He notes, moreover, that the study DeConick cites as a modern model deals with the subsequent memory of a written text.

I am sure DeConick is setting off ripples much farther beyong my reading circles, and I am sure there is still much to be discussed, so, if interested, be sure to watch these various scholars as they enter into debate and refine their concepts in response to research and debate.

UPDATE: April has just responded to both NTWrong and Mark Goodacre here, which provides some more nuances that my simplification just recounted does not take into account--in fact, which demonstrates my earlier characterization of her position to be simply incorrect. Based upon these observations, the point is that there would be absolutely no way to determine whether Thomas depended upon a written or an oral source, but that if dependent upon human memory (rather than having a written source directly in front of him), the result would be the same. Thus, contra Goodacre, one could not actually argue literary dependence, per se, because such a dependence would be irrecoverable (even if true). I will probably stop providing updates, but encourage others to follow the debate as it continues to unfold. I have a feeling that before any substantive advances occur in the discussion, we will have to read April's article on the issue.