Does the Pope Read in the Woods?
If no, that has got to be the only place he doesn't. I just read the text of Benedict XVI's speech at the University of Regensberg. My first reaction: "that is one smart Pope." I don't agree with much of what he has to say, but I respect the erudition and rhetorical elegance with which he says it. I offer the link to his speech because the controversy over his words is substantive and his remarks deserve to be read in context. I can't believe that he is surprised to have offended many in the Islamic world. If he really is then I have never seen so much sheer intellectual firepower expended on putting one's foot so firmly in one's mouth.
posted by Madman of Chu | 1:33 PM | Permalink
|
27 comments
27 Comments:
I think the Gypsy Scholar would disagree with you about the foot in mouth. Check out his two posts on the topic.
Dear CIV,
I can't tell from Gypsy Scholar's post whether he and I would agree or not, I wasn't commenting on the New York Times' coverage of the Pope's remarks. I don't believe the Pope put his foot in his mouth either, I think he knew exactly what he was saying.
Thanks for clarifying your position, Madman. I originally thought you were accusing him of putting his foot in his mouth, as well. Since you believe, however, that he knew exactly what he was saying (as do I, for that matter), are you claiming that he *meant* to offend Muslims?
I appreciate your linking to the whole of his speech here, which I hadn't read. Like you, I admire Pope Benedict's erudition and his eloquence. I'm curious to know, though, what exactly you think Benedict is arguing or saying here. Muslims have every right to criticize and argue with his remarks, but it seems to me that the *outrage* -- some of it violent -- is entirely out of place. Whether or not Benedict's broad generalization about the theological/philosophical tendencies of Islam with respect to reason is correct, I think he's entitled to make a good faith characterization (or mischaracterization) of same, especially since the point about Islam is tangential to his larger point about the place of hellenistic philosophy in Christian thought and the tendency of modern theological "movements" to dehellenize Christianity.
CIV, thanks for the link to HJH's posts. I'm looking forward to reading them.
Let me amend my question. Do you think he meant to insult Muslims? I think it's possible to claim that he meant what he said, and that he understood his characterization of Islam would be controversial and "offensive," but that he didn't mean to insult Muslims -- and that he didn't foresee that his quotation of the conversation about Islam would be taken as his position.
And given the level of ignorance and intolerance of all religions that the Western secular media routinely demonstrates, and the level of ignorance and intolerance with which many Muslim clerics speak of other religions and peoples, I'm kind of baffled by the singling out of the Pope and other Western critics of Islam as somehow uniquely worthy of comment and "controversy" (especially since this address was not a critique of Islam -- though it implied one, I suppose.)
Madman, thanks for posting this link. Having read the full text of the lecture, I'm now astonished by how inadequate and misleading the press coverage has been, even if it's typical of how the press covers most scholarly subjects. The history and philosophy outlined by Benedict are, I suspect, over the heads of many of his fellow Catholics, so I can't imagine that there are more than a handful of journalists who are capable of parsing or summarizing the speech either. Non-Catholics may not share Benedict's premises, but I hope at least a few reporters can see that the pope was calling for a dialogue between religions based in reason, with a long, scholarly explanation--presumably for the benefit of both sides--of exactly what he means by "reason."
...aaaaaand just as I finished typing that sentence, I heard a local TV news reporter refer to "the pope's speech attacking Islam." Truly hopeless.
Dear Kate Marie,
I don't think the Pope set out to intentionally insult Muslims, but I do think he set out to intentionally offend them. One of things that impressed me most about the speech was that it was rhetorically constructed as a kind of "performance art" piece. In the course of his oration the Pope built a case for reason in interfaith dialogue: "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures." As part of the invitation the Pope casts criticism on Mohamed, as if to say "OK, respond to this with reason rather than violence." That criticism does not constitute an "insult," in that it is neither gratuitous or illogical or intentionally malign. Like one of your recent post implies, if Benedict XVI did not believe something akin to what he declared in his Regensberg speech he would be in the wrong line of work. The critique of Mohamed is intrinsically "offensive" to Muslims, however, in that he is their sacred icon, and Benedict knows that. That seemed to be the point of his mentioning his former colleague's snarky remark about the "two faculties devoted to something that does not exist." It was as if to say "look, reasoned dialogue means having to let this kind of offense roll off your back."
I agree that it is very unfortunate that the media is taking the Pope's critical remarks out of context and not presenting the full, artfully constructed rhetorical message that the Pope took the time to put together. I went hunting for the entire text of the Pope's speech because I refused to believe that the quote (which one heard yesterday about 4 times during any 1 hour news cycle) was Benedict's "stand-alone" point. But to expect that the media coverage of Benedict's speech would look much different than it does would be naive. The New York Times is far from the only offender. I haven't watched Fox News (surprise surprise) but I would be very surprised if they were providing much context for the Pope's remarks, if only because it would take more time to explain them then a typical sound-bite will allow.
Madman wrote, As part of the invitation the Pope casts criticism on Mohamed...
No, he doesn't. He quotes someone else who casts criticism on Muhammed. There is an obvious difference. He even characterizes the statement he is quoting as "somewhat brusque," which is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Now a case could presumably be made that its somehow wrong to even quote people from the past who, as part of the quoted text, insult other religions. But I'm not seeing this case made; rather I'm seeing repeated mischaracterizations along the lines of "the Pope criticized Mohammed."
Dear Alex,
The Pope characterizes Manuel I comments as "brusque," not "wrong." To say that calling them "brusque" is not "a ringing endorsement" is sophistry. No one in the media has bothered to quote the rest of the text that bears the essence of the Pope's message:
"God", he (Manuel I) says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
Are you persuaded that this text does not convey the Pope's message? Do you see no critique of Mohamed or Islam in these words, or in the rest of the speech? I don't presume, a la the New York Times, to tell the Pope to whom he should apologize, but to deny that the Pope's speech contains criticism of Mohamed distorts its message to equal degree.
Dear Madman,
We mostly agree on this, I think. I would argue that the thrust of the speech is not a critique of Islam/Mohammed (though that critique is contained within his larger point).
Regarding the reaction of the media, you'll note that I condemned "Western media" and not the New York Times specifically, but I might add that since the Times doubtless considers itself far above the sound bite imperative -- not to mention the putative sycophancy -- of Fox News, it should be doubly ashamed of its ignorance. And while it may be naive to expect the media to get it right, that shouldn't mean they get a pass or that someone as learned as Pope Benedict needs to dumb down his speeches in anticipation of their inevitable mangling at the hands of the press.
This is one reason, I suppose, to be grateful for the internet and the blogosphere, since before their advent, it would be *much* harder to read the speech in its entirety.
I agree with Madman of Chu that the Pope was implicitly criticizing Islam for its use of violence to coerce religious conversion.
That -- of course -- is no insult to Muhammad, but I've come to expect that many Muslims will differ on this point and find even the least criticism of Muhammad to be insulting.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
To say that calling them "brusque" is not "a ringing endorsement" is sophistry.
No, its irony. "Brusque" is a criticism. The pope quotes these remarks, and criticizes them as he is quoting them. Which makes this business of looking for the Pope's beliefs in the quoted remarks all the more groundless.
So yes I am indeed convinced that these remarks "do not convey the Pope's message." The quote functions to provide context for the opinion by Theodore Khoury on the differing roles of reason in Christianity and Islam, which leads straight to the central point of the speech - the relationship between faith and reason. Arguments that are essentially something like "he quoted it so he must agree with it somewhat" are not only naive readings, but also ignore the rhetorical role the quote plays in the speech.
As for the rest of the speech, I'm surprised at the view that it contains or implies a criticism of Islam. As the Pope says, his speech is an "attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason" - how exactly does this explicitly or implicitly criticize Islam?
Dear Alex,
It was brusque of me to call your remarks sophistry, though I am tempted to cry "Sophist!" again. Does the Pope calling Manuel's remarks "brusque" (and "forceful" somewhat later) amount to registering disagreement with them? Are you saying that the Pope doesn't agree with Manuel I that "God is not pleased by blood...etcetera etcetera?" Please explain, what "rhetorical role" this plays in the Pope's speech other than to register the Pope's own conviction? The Pope concludes the speech by quoting Manuel yet again:
"'Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God', said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university."
The Pope seems to be giving a lot of airtime to someone with whom he disagrees. It also seems counterproductive to invoke Manuel I's words in inviting the world to this great dialogue of cultures if Benedict fundamentally disagrees with Manuel's perspective. Can you explain how the Pope is merely making "rhetorical" use of Manuel's words?
Does the Pope calling Manuel's remarks "brusque" (and "forceful" somewhat later) amount to registering disagreement with them?
Obviously not. The Pope did not express any opinions as to the correctness of Manuel's claim on violence and Islam.
Are you saying that the Pope doesn't agree with Manuel I that "God is not pleased by blood...etcetera etcetera?"
I'm saying that I think attempts to glean the Pope's opinions from a text where they are not present is a futile exercise in mind reading. I, personally, suspect that the Pope does in fact agree with the criticism you attribute to him, but that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether he actually expressed this criticism.
The Pope seems to be giving a lot of airtime to someone with whom he disagrees.
People can agree on some things and disagree on other things. Its obvious that the Pope thinks Manuel's views on reason and the nature of God are on the right track. What does this imply about the Pope's opinion on Manuel's views on Islam and violence? Absolutely nothing.
Please explain, what "rhetorical role" this plays in the Pope's speech other than to register the Pope's own conviction?
I briefly summarized this in my previous comment, but here is a slightly longer statement. The subject of the speech is the relationship between rationality/reason/philosophy and faith. Most of the speech is dedicated to an analysis of the role reason has historically played in Catholicism - the intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas vs. the "dehellenization" of medieval mystics, the reformation, and liberation theology. The debate between Manuel and his interlocutor serves as an introduction to all the facets of the debate: the byzantine rationalism of Manuel is contrasted to the mysticism of the "learned Persian" who believes that reasoning about God's nature is fundamentally falacious. The Pope later refers back to the debate, e.g. when discussing the assimilation of greek ideas into christianity he states that Manuel's argument comes "the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith" or when discussing medieval mystics he say they had "positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn."
If you are going to discuss the battle between two ideas over the course of Christian history, it makes a lot of sense to start with a debate where both of those positions are clearly stated and explained.
"Its obvious that the Pope thinks Manuel's views on reason and the nature of God are on the right track. What does this imply about the Pope's opinion on Manuel's views on Islam and violence? Absolutely nothing."
So you can tell which part of Manuel's views the Pope "obviously" agrees with and which not? How does that differ from mind-reading?
If you accept that the Pope agrees with Manuel about reason and the nature of God, and you also agree that the Pope presents "the learned Persian" and Ibn Hazm as exemplars of Muslim faith (if you will not that is rather obtuse), then you admit that the Pope's speech explicitly criticizes Islam, as Benedict does not adopt a neutral position on what is the correct relationship of faith to reason (he stands with Manuel and contra the mystics/Reformers/Ibn Hazm).
As to whether we can know what the Pope feels about "Islam and violence," he does in fact state-
"In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion'. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war."
So whatever else the Pope may feel about Manuel's views on Islam and violence, we can be certain that Benedict feels they have a strong empirical foundation. In a speech in which he declares that faith is inseperable from reason Benedict has thus included a criticism of Mohamed and demonstrated why it is eminently reasonable, no matter how "brusque" he deems the terms in which it was cast.
As to how this serves the rhetorical structure of the speech as a whole, let me offer my explanation and anyone who reads this thread may judge which is more persuasive, yours or mine.
Ostensibly the larger agenda of the speech is to discuss not merely the "relationship" between Biblical faith and the Hellenic tradition of rational inquiry and reasoned discourse but their symbiotic unity. Benedict builds this case step by step by way of concluding that Christianity is not only compatible with the discourse at the European university but is indispensible to it, because "modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology."
I say this is "ostensibly" the larger agenda of the speech because it seems clear that on this occasion, at least, the Pope is shooting for larger game. This entire engagement with the rational/skeptical discourse of the modern academy is in fact being staged for the benefit of the Muslims whose attention he knows will be drawn by his comments. He is not only critiquing Islam and Mohamed and challenging his Muslim "partners in the dialogue of cultures" to come back with a reasoned response, he is demonstrating that there is nothing to fear by jumping in and swimming these waters he has tested for them. The Pope knows full well that people of faith everywhere are threatened and frightened by what they perceive to be the corrosive forces of modernity that the university embodies. He also knows that he occupies an office previously held by many who would have jailed and killed anyone who declared that God did not exist, much less stand at the same podium as them and participate in the same institution. But look, he says, here I am, using the very weapons of the atheists and the skeptics to best them. If the institution I embody can join this discourse without injury no tradition of faith has anything to fear.
I don't pretend to be able to read the Pope's mind, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Pope hoped the Islamic reaction to his speech would be "You have some chutzpah ranking us among the irrational dehellenizers. Don't you know that Avicenna and Averroes were keeping your precious Hellenic tradition alive while monks in Western Europe were picking their noses?" That would of course be accompanied by the sound of the trap the Pope had set snapping shut, because even as they refuted the Pope's somewhat specious argument they would be joining his reasoned "dialogue of cultures," which was all he really wanted in the first place. This is why I am inclined to believe that the Pope's recent apology is on some level sincere, and he really is upset at the reaction his speech has evoked.
P.S.
"If you are going to discuss the battle between two ideas over the course of Christian history, it makes a lot of sense to start with a debate where both of those positions are clearly stated and explained."
There are two problems with your formulation of the Pope's rhetorical message:
1)The Pope does not merely "discuss the battle between two ideas over the course of Christian history," he decides unequivocally in favor of the "hellenizers" in the grand tradition. Moreover, his analysis is not hemmed in by some kind of historicist focus on Christianity, he asserts that this symbiosis between BIBLICAL (not merely Christian) faith and rational inquiry "is... always and intrinsically true," it is prefigured in the Old Testament by God's self identification as "I am." Thus any participant in any of the Abrahamic traditions is susceptible to judgment on the normative scale the Pope establishes in his speech, not Christians alone.
2)The pope's quotation of Manuel doesn't serve to "clearly state" both sides of the debate. The original text doesn't provide the views of the "Persian interlocutor," the Pope has to provide the Muslim side through his quotation of Khoury, Ibn Hazm et. al. Thus in laying out this "debate" that you seem to view as a mere preamble to his true text the Pope commits to a portrait of Mohamed/Muslims as "dehellenizers" which is (given the context of what follows" an explicit criticism of Islam.
Madman and Alex,
Can we all get along?
You disagreement on this is probably not as wide as you think. While I agree with Madman that the Pope's address contains a criticism of Islam's position with respect to the relationship between reason and faith, I think it is more implied or "by the way" than Madman does, and I think Alex is certainly correct that the quotation which seems to be getting nuns shot in Somalia (that anything new added by Mohammed was "evil and inhuman") was not representative of the Pope's own beliefs about Islam.
Madman, I find the penultimate paragraph in your last comment both eloquent and compelling, but I'm not sure that I'm entirely convinced by it. I'd like to think that the Pope is as crafty as you imagine, and that his own "engagement with the rational/skeptical discourse of the modern academy" was being staged as a way of demonstrating to Muslims that they have nothing to fear from such engagement. And that's certainly an interesting reading of the whole "text" of the event, . . .
But. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
The speech does seem to me to be aimed primarily at Western rational/skeptical intellectuals (and even, to a lesser extent -- as Jacob Levy points out -- at a certain strain of Protestantism). Or I might argue that what was being staged, in a necessarily over-simplified way, was a rhetorical encounter between a tradition in which faith is divorced from reason (Islam) and a tradition in which reason is divorced from faith (modern Western rationalism/skepticism), such that the two traditions meet at the extremes in an acceptance of "violent conversion." And I might even argue that the reaction which *did* ensue was precisely the kind to underline that point.
But I won't make that argument, becuase I don't really believe in it. So never mind.
What I do believe is that we've reached a pretty pass when the head of the Roman Catholic Church can make a thoughtful, challenging speech about the "symbiotic unity" between faith and reason that is met in some parts of the Muslim world with violence and rage and in some parts of the Western world with ignorance and disdain.
P. S. to Madman,
I think you're right that the criticism of Islam is explicit. As I said before, I think the criticism is more "by the way" than you do, but in any event, I think you and I and Alex can all agree that the criticism was not "outrageous" or insulting.
Dear Kate Marie,
I would buy that Benedict's remarks are aimed "primarily at Western skeptical/rational intellectuals" if I didn't know, from everything I've read about the Pope's own intellectual biography, that that fight is by a now very old song and dance number for him, this is a fight he has been waging since long before he signed aboard as John Paul II's intellectual muscle. In that context the whole "Christianity vs. Islam" detour is such a wierd non-sequitur that I am led to strongly suspect that it carries the "payoff" agenda for this round of fighting. In other words, the fight to defend and promote the dignity of faith in the face of postmodern skepticism/cynicism/relativism is something that Benedict drinks in like his morning coffee by now, so the birdie to watch on any given occasion is whatever "outlier" slips in among the usual combination of punches and jabs.
Madman, I don't find the Pope's remarks on Islam to be so much of a stretch, and I can see why he brought in the erudite Byzantine Emperor and a learned Persian, along with a reference to Ibn Hazm.
The Pope wants others to know that his point about the nature of God is a big issue that has been around a long time and is part of an intense dialogue not just within but also among religions.
I don't think that the Pope was so much setting a trap as pointing to the trap that one sets for oneself by postulating a God whose essential nature is His own arbitrary will, for such a God cannot be trusted to be consistent and could 'reveal' the 'truth' even of idolatry if he wanted to deceive us -- a danger also in Christianity itself, given its Medieval flirtation with a nominalist Deity.
As you noted, this is one smart Pope, and in a remarkably concise exposition, he's managed to draw -- both explicitly and implicitly -- a lot of threads together.
I guess that I can see why he has a "Fan Club."
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
So you can tell which part of Manuel's views the Pope "obviously" agrees with and which not? How does that differ from mind-reading?
No, I can tell which part of Manuel's views the Pope says he agrees with. I can also tell which part of Manuel's speech the Pope says nothing about. As for Manuel's view about faith and reason, there are a number of times in the article when the Pope explicitly endorses them.
If you accept that the Pope agrees with Manuel about reason and the nature of God, and you also agree that the Pope presents "the learned Persian" and Ibn Hazm as exemplars of Muslim faith (if you will not that is rather obtuse), then you admit that the Pope's speech explicitly criticizes Islam.
Finally, I actually see an argument laid out as to how the Pope's speech is a criticism of Islam.
The problem with it, in my opinion, is that you can't just jump between intellectual traditions. The entire speech is an argument that the "dehellenization agenda" contradicts the basis of Christiniany. As the Pope says in describing his opponents,
The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity...
To argue against the "dehellenizers" the Pope cites the beginning of the gospel of john, paul's vision in acts, the scene with the burning bush, and a passage from Romans. Whether this is indeed a convincing case that "critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith" I cannot say, but the argument has no consequences for those outside the Christian faith.
Moreover, his analysis is not hemmed in by some kind of historicist focus on Christianity, he asserts that this symbiosis between BIBLICAL (not merely Christian) faith and rational inquiry "is... always and intrinsically true," it is prefigured in the Old Testament by God's self identification as "I am." Thus any participant in any of the Abrahamic traditions is susceptible to judgment on the normative scale the Pope establishes in his speech, not Christians alone.
Biblical does not imply Abrahamic. Muslims have their own approach to the bible, choosing to believe in some parts and not in others on the grounds of the corruption of the text. See here for a typical exposition.Incidentally, this goes for both new and old testament, so the fact that the passage about the burning bush is in the old testament is not significant.
It seems to me that "biblical" and "Christian" are used interchangeably in the speech. For example, the Pope says
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit.
and one paragraph later,
this inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance...
But regardless, even if I am wrong on this, a citation from the bible (either old or new testament) has no implications for Muslims who believe passages that contradict their beliefs are corrupted.
Dear Alex,
At this point only sheer ego could compel a reasonable person to continue arguing with you. As ego is something I have in abundand supply...
"You can't just jump between intellectual traditions."
Tell this to the Pope. At this point, correct me if I am wrong, we agree that the Pope presents this moment of Christian-Muslim encounter as illustrating the basic tension between "hellenizing" and "dehellenizing" tendencies in faith. You, however, insist that the Pope's critique of "dehellenization" can only apply to Christians because....why? Is it your assertion that the Pope is a theological relativist? Would he accept that what is "always and intrinsically true" for Christianity is somehow not so for Islam? At this point you are really mapping out your own interpretive universe.
Dear Jeffery,
I wouldn't deny that there is some basis for the Pope's characterization of Islam as "dehellenizing." I would only insist that there is equally compelling evidence to draw upon in refuting his case. I do not think that the search for the "essential core" of a religious tradition is ever rationally or objectively achievable. There are scriptural and traditional resources to support violence in promotion of faith in Islam, but there are equally powerful resources to support peace and interfaith tolerance. Which of those resources informs the actual practice of Islam at any historical moment is entirely dependent on the choices of the living Muslims who participate in and reconstruct the tradition from era to era. Those choices are not predetermined by what Muslims find in scripture or tradition, but also bring into play social, cultural, economic, political, and technological conditions that impact the lived reality of Muslim practioners in real time and actual space. What is true of Islam is equally true of Christianity. Whatever Christ may have said about "turning the other cheek," medieval Popes suffered no dearth of traditional resources upon which to establish the injunction that it was "God's will" for Crusaders to take up the sword against the infidel.
All that being said, though I suspect that Benedict and I would never agree on whether the "essential core" of a religious tradition may ultimately be distilled, I agree with him as to the ultimate value of the kind of "dialogue of cultures" he proposes. If each religious tradition has to reconstruct itself from era to era using the resources inherited from the past, then a continuing "dialogue of cultures" is the best (the only)guarantee that religions will be reconstituted on a basis that secures interfaith harmony.
P.S.
Alex,
Your whole megillah about "biblical" misreads the import of the Pope's invocation of the "burning bush." The key concern is not what that passage would mean to Muslims, but what it means to Benedict. It is the equivalent of an "olive branch" extended out to his potential Muslim counterparts in dialogue. By saying that the "hellenization" of faith is prefigured in the pre-Christian origins of Catholicism Benedict implies that this is a process that can and should occur naturally in all traditions of faith that flow therefrom. In other words, Benedict acknowledges that Christianity and Islam (and Judaism) are already part of a common discourse of faith and intrinsically CAN be part of a common discourse of reason. Christianity has already taken that step, it only awaits Islam taking it for the ground of fruitful interfaith dialogue to be laid.
You, however, insist that the Pope's critique of "dehellenization" can only apply to Christians because....why?
Whether it can apply to Muslims is irrelevant. Whats relevant is whether the Pope actually applied it to Muslims in his speech.
There are lots of arguments that are conceivable. Conceivably one could criticize the "dehellenizing" strands in every religion. The relevant question is, did the Pope do this? Or did he limit his criticism to those strands in the Christian tradition?
Well, lets see. The arguments that the Pope makes are actually citations from various Christian holy texts. Moreover, each of his arguments is explicitly aimed at only the in the Christian tradition:
The vision of Saint Paul...can be interpreted as a distillation of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.
and
John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words...John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God..
and
in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: I am....Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers....biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature.
The Pope's speech is about the relationship between "biblical faith" and reason, as he himself says. He doesn't say "faith of the religions who share in the Abrahamic traditions," does he?
The key concern is not what that [burning bush] passage would mean to Muslims, but what it means to Benedict. It is the equivalent of an "olive branch" extended out to his potential Muslim counterparts in dialogue. By saying that the "hellenization" of faith is prefigured in the pre-Christian origins of Catholicism Benedict implies that this is a process that can and should occur naturally in all traditions of faith that flow therefrom.
Imagine that: a Christian cites the old testament in support of his position. Obviously, Christians never cite the old testament unless they want to convey a multitude of messages in doing so, like that their position is also valid in other religions.
At this point only sheer ego could compel a reasonable person to continue arguing with you. As ego is something I have in abundand supply...
Madman, have I told you how much I love your casual mix of arguments and insults?
Dearest Alex,
Even as I criticized you in my last comment I criticized myself, so I don't know what act of mindreading makes you sensible of an insult. Even so I apologize for my shocking brusqueness. At this point I would cry "uncle" if you weren't just dead wrong and I wasn't such an arrogant bastard...
"The relevant question is, did the Pope do this? Or did he limit his criticism to those strands in the Christian tradition?"
If this is the "relevant question" then the answer is definitively NO. Look at the conclusion of the long section from which your examples are drawn-
"Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with logos" is contrary to God's nature."
The "wisdom literature" refers to later texts of the Hebrew Bible (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes) that show the influence of Greek thought. The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek completed in Alexandria between the 3rd and 1st century BCE. Thus you are wrong when you state that "the arguments that the Pope makes are actually citations from various Christian holy texts. Moreover, each of his arguments is explicitly aimed at only the (?) in the Christian tradition." Though you might object that all these Jewish holy texts are also Christian holy texts that argument doesn't hold, as the Pope is bringing into evidence trends that evolved in Jewish tradition before Christianity even existed, thus he is discussing an era that, in historical terms, is equally the source of Islamic faith as Christian. The Pope explicitly goes back to the pre-Christian origins of "biblical faith" by way of showing that Manuel II's declaration of the unalloyed harmony between faith and logos is not some foreign "shotgun wedding" between Greek and biblical perspecitives; it is an organic expression of the natural trajectory that the entire Abrahamic tradition had been moving along for a long, long time. Islam, says Benedict, has deviated from this trajectory, to its detriment.
Alex,
Here is my last attempt to show you the error of your ways, after this I confess I've got no more ammo (though having shot my load won't make you any less wrong)-
We agree (I think) that Benedict presents two perspectives at the outset, one represented by Manuel that "to act contrary to logos is against the nature of God," the other exemplified by Islam which (according to Benedict) regjects that God is bound by reason. The Pope then asks "Is Manuel's perspective always and intrinsically true?" and proceeds to demonstrate, by appeal to successive layers of precedent, that it is true. Wouldn't you have to agree that if the Pope goes to such lengths to prove that Manuel's position is true, he is explicitly committing to the proposition that that of Manuel's opponent (Islam) is false? Isn't that a criticism of Islam?
"you might object that all these Jewish holy texts are also Christian holy texts that argument doesn't hold, as the Pope is bringing into evidence trends that evolved in Jewish tradition before Christianity even existed, thus he is discussing an era that, in historical terms, is equally the source of Islamic faith as Christian. The Pope explicitly goes back to the pre-Christian origins of "biblical faith" by way of showing that Manuel II's declaration of the unalloyed harmony between faith and logos is not some foreign "shotgun wedding" between Greek and biblical perspecitives; it is an organic expression of the natural trajectory that the entire Abrahamic tradition had been moving along for a long, long time. Islam, says Benedict, has deviated from this trajectory, to its detriment."
Here you pull the same sleight of hand that you've been doing for the last few comments. Everythings is fine until suddenly at the end of your statement you go from "biblical" to "Abrahamic" - a transition for which no justification is given. No, saying "he is discussing an era that, in historical terms, is equally the source of Islamic faith as Christian" is not enough justification (the same era? its not exactly the tightest connection).
Besides this, your comment contains another glaring error - the burning bush passage in the bible occurs long after the expulsion of ishmael by abraham. According to some "bible chronologies," which use the bible to guess dates, the difference is something like 500 years (see here). In between, the bible puts the stories of Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and the growth of jews into a nation in egypt. So from the Pope's perspective, he is citing an event that occured long after the divergence of the Abrahamic traditions has been complete. Its unclear how, from his perspective, this citation has any implications for Islam.
Wouldn't you have to agree that if the Pope goes to such lengths to prove that Manuel's position is true, he is explicitly committing to the proposition that that of Manuel's opponent (Islam) is false?
No - the Pope does not go to any length to prove Manuel's position is true. Manuel's position is quite general, and rests on some philosophical arguments about the nature of God; the Pope on the other hand restricts his arguments to citations from Christian holy texts and says nothing that might be at all persuasive for someone who doesn't believe in them. He doesn't even try to make an argument along the lines Manuel has outlined. I've already made the case that the Pope's argument seems to be limited to the Christian tradition...
-----------------------------
Well, I don't know if this will be the last word. But if you insist on peppering your arguments with insults, then I'm quite good that you have "shot your load."
Dear Alex,
I spoke to Benedict XVI on the phone last night, and he has officially rescinded your invitation to the great dialogue of cultures. I pleaded your case, but he said, "Look, it is a broad expanse of logos, OK, but our time is limited to the rest of human history."
For my part, I am faced with two choices. On the one hand I could declare jihad and set out to convert you to the correct interpretation of Benedict's speech by force. This has real appeal to the evil and inhuman half of my nature. Unfortunately, the other half of my nature is much too lazy to commit to such a plan. Thus I guess I will have to agree to disagree with you and leave it at that. L'shana Tova!
Post a Comment
<< Home