Comments for The Key That Fits the Lock, Part Nine at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 9 out of 9 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Tue, 21 May 2013 19:32:40 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-key-that-fits-the-lock-part-nine.html#comment-14286 Yes, you're free to assert whatever you want. Puns, no puns -- go ahead and have at 'em. After all it's your blog post! My comment was simply to point out that present scholarship in the area of ancient paganism doesn't support your assertions. OTOH, the status quaestionis in these areas doesn't completely deny a Kaufmannian thesis like yours. It simply nuances it. Israel clearly was different in important ways. And your posts are more homiletical in their design than they are the results of scholarly activity. So don't take my comments as critical of your post; they are meant more in the spirit of a supplement. - G.K. Thursday Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:13:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-key-that-fits-the-lock-part-nine.html#comment-14282 GK: Oh, I wasn't saying that Moloch did mean that. I'm just giving the sacred author the same leeway to play on words that I'd give to any author. I think the pun is there; as I think there's a pun on the Hebrew words for "naked" and "subtle" in Genesis 3. Also, it isn't necessary to call a thing "utterly different in all respects" in order to conclude that in fact it is utterly different in some essential respect. The more I study the ancient pagans, the more the uniqueness of Israel stands out for me.... There's a despair that dogs paganism at its brightest, and a hope that shines in Hebrew wisdom literature even in its darkest, such as in the Preacher. - Tony Esolen Thu, 08 Nov 2012 14:59:37 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-key-that-fits-the-lock-part-nine.html#comment-14248 Pinnacle Studio for iPad Certainly much of what you say, Professor Esolen, is true WRT paganism as represented in Milton and later writers. And it is true that "do ut des" was part of the milieu of pagan belief. Especially in the 70s and 80s of the last century this would have been accepted as the whole story of ancient paganism's approach to the divine. The influence of Yehezkel Kaufmann's notion that Isrealite religion was so entirely foreign to the pagan world surrounding it was de rigeur in those days. He went so far as to write that "It was absolutely different from anything the pagan world knew; its monotheistic world view has no antecedents in paganism." But more recently Catholic scholars have refined the overly broad brush used by Kaufmann. John J. Collins, for example, has written that "the eventual triumph of monolatry [in Israelite religion] cannot be disputed. Nonetheless, it is salutary to remember that in the beginning it was not so." (_The Bible after Babel_, 128f). Ancient paganism was very complex and differed greatly from one cult to another, not to mention from one society to another. On the problematic association of molek to melek, this has been around since the late medieval rabbinical schools, and was taken up by Protestant scholars in the 17th and 18th centuries (see George Heider, _The Cult of Molek, a reassessment, JSOT Supplement 43). Neither the patristic authors nor the scholastic theologians used this association. It is termed a "possible but not certain" association by Brandeis University's Dr. Marc Brettler (review of _Molech, a god of human sacrifice in the Old Testament_ by John Day, Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies, vol 17, num 1, pp 98-100), and is not clearly in play in Isaiah 57:5-9 due to a probable periscope break between these verses. It is best to be very careful when asserting the association of two words just because they bear some structural resemblance. A word like "horse" may seem to have a lot in common with "hoarse" but the similarities are purely superficial. This is especially difficult to trace when words come from both different cultures and historical epochs. The wild eyed assertions of 18th and 19th century Protestant "higher criticism" linking this-to-that (e.g., Molech to Saturn) willy-nilly simply can't be maintained these days. - G.K. Thursday Wed, 07 Nov 2012 19:02:55 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-key-that-fits-the-lock-part-nine.html#comment-14247 Thank you, Smitty. That's kind of you. I have thought that Milton, who certainly knew his Hebrew, was punning on Moloch in that first line, "Moloch, horrid King." We might also toss the mysterious Melek / tzedeq into the mix: Melchisedec ... - Tony Esolen Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:39:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-key-that-fits-the-lock-part-nine.html#comment-14244 In his recent book "The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture" Yarom Hazony makes a very credible case for Abraham's being sure that God would not actually require Him to sacrifice His son, though Abraham's willingness to go along with God's request anyway bespeaks of the same level of trust. In my eyes, it is Abraham's having an even higher view of the Goodness of God than the usual interpretation, since Abraham is obeying a God who he knows would not require such a thing as human sacrifice (as did Molloch worshippers), going along with God's request since he is trusting the right thing will happen somehow. - Arthur Henry Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:46:03 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-key-that-fits-the-lock-part-nine.html#comment-14243 Very nice, Tony. You might be interested to know (or may already) that there might be a play on words in the Hebrew between Molech (the god) and melek (the king) since in the latter shameful days of the Judahite monarchy the two became conflated. See Isaiah 57:9 for one place that this pun could be at work! - jsmitty Wed, 07 Nov 2012 08:10:02 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-key-that-fits-the-lock-part-nine.html#comment-14238 "Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." Not, "be afraid" but "respect" is the psalmist's intention - it's a very old meaning of the word "fear". And can one truly love what one does not respect? No. So there you go, Facile1, the psalmist is correct. And love follows knowledge, St. Thomas Aquinas is correct also. "As humans we fall in love first..." You're confusing infatuation with real love. - Micha Elyi Wed, 07 Nov 2012 05:08:36 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-key-that-fits-the-lock-part-nine.html#comment-14236 Desr Lord heal our Nation and start over...our Nation is at A crossroads and i pray we all come together and pray for our nation.I love all the people suffering from "Sandy",and I Pray the emotional pain is blunted with unity and common good....... I pray for our leaders may the election be blessed with Love and not division,I pray the President leads in a way that mends fences and brings back moderation. Amen Jack - Jack,CT Wed, 07 Nov 2012 02:50:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-key-that-fits-the-lock-part-nine.html#comment-14233 Jesus exhorts us to LOVE GOD FIRST. But it is counter-intuitive. After all the psalmist said "Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." And St. Thomas Aquinas said "Love follows knowledge." But the psalmist and St. Thomas Aquinas are wrong. Jesus is correct. As humans we fall in love first before we come to know our beloved. It is our God-given nature. And while we have good reason to fear, we are also given the courage that comes with FAITH to cast out fear. And so it should be, we must LOVE GOD FIRST if we are ever to hope of knowing HIM at all. - Facile1 Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:00:02 +0100