One of the most illuminating entries I've read from Insight on the Scriptures is the entry for "wisdom." I like how it makes a distinction between wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. The Bible also discusses various kinds of wisdom like practical wisdom versus the wisdom to discern personalities, as opposed to the wisdom that it takes to construct a building. Of course, the most important type of wisdom is godly wisdom or the wisdom from above (James 3:13-18). Compare the discussion in Proverbs 2:1-6. In fact, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes both deal profusely with wisdom, and even Job has nuggets in this regard.
I've often been told that wisdom is the intelligent application of knowledge; understanding is the ability to see the big picture, to discern how variant parts relate to the greater whole. While I don't like to generalize respecting a whole group of people, the Bible gives a picture of the Hebrews that suggests they were more concerned with practical wisdom rather than theoretical wisdom like the Greeks. But ancient Jews did form rabbinic schools, which opened the way for serious debate about the meaning of Bible verses and their application. Hence, the Mishnah, Midrashim, and Talmud arose. Furthermore, Judaism developed influential philosophical streams of thought in the middle ages. For example, Maimonides produced a Guide for the Perplexed as he sought to defend Judaism biblically and rationally: Baruch Spinoza would later add to that tradition.
Sunday, September 27, 2020
The Hebrew Conception of Wisdom
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
The Jews formed these schools to compensate for the lack of Holy Spirit maybe?
We don't know all that motivated the Jews to start rabbinic schools since there's very little information. However, the historical method cannot answer the question you pose. That is a theological concern or religious concern.
I'm not trying to justify the rabbinic practices/schools, but some of these developments probably occurred because men wanted further clarification on the law. For example, what does it mean to find "uncleanness" in one's wife? Was it marital infidelity or something else?
Well, as one great modern Jewish philosopher said ... Thus far philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change it (practical vrs theoretical).
For a historical explination it's difficult to say, Maimonedes was around a culture of eminent Islamic philosophers, Spinoza was around a culture of European englightenment thinkers like Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, etc etc.
A common element in the middle ages was also the Philosopher (i.e., Aristotle). He had passed away in 322 BCE, but his influence resounded for almost 2,000 years, including his shadow that was cast in medieval times. The middle ages witnessed the rise of the university as we know it. Some interesting times.
Is wisdom from above a different kind of wisdom? IMO, James is contrasting wisdom with its lack.
True wisdom is unified and not fragmented. Wisdom in only a single subject. It ironic that university has become such a fragmented learning experience. Home of reductionism (the elephant through the hole in the fence). Wholeism (with a w) is wisdom from above.
I have mixed my metaphors. It's a donkey through a hole in the fence. An elephant with blind men.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
I think James does contrast the wisdom from above (compare James 1:17) with fleshly wisdom, like Paul does. The wisdom from above is sophia from God (from heaven). But James writes in 3:15 (ESV):
"This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic."
2 Cor. 1:12 (ESV): For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience, that we behaved in the world with simplicity and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God, and supremely so toward you.
1 Cor. 3:19: For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”
Compare 1 Cor. 1:20.
As Insight brings out, there are different types of wisdom: even philosophy distinguishes between practical and theoretical wisdom. Using wisdom to construct a building is not the same as applying knowledge to the analysis of personalities, which is not the same as godly wisdom.
I would probably agree, to an extent, about the university being fragmented. But reductionism is a different issue: not all reductionism is the same and reductionism has brought about good results at times or it's brought us "closer to truth."
I also get what you're saying about elephants and donkeys.
With 1 Cor 3:19 I include 2 Cor 11:3 - ἁπλότητος.
I see reductionism as a part of a process & not and end goal. It needs to keep the connections between disciplines and the meta to be truly useful.
James 1:17 is the contrast with Ἐπιθυμίᾳ.
https://biblehub.com/text/job/5-13.htm Worth looking at the Hebrew text IMO.
Also Deuteronomy 16:19.
Paul also makes a contrast between human and divine wisdom in 1 Corinthians 2:1-8. The world could not get to know divine Sophia through its own wisdom.
And I will look at the Hebrew text for those passages.
There is causal and functional reductionism. Science often reduces sensory phenomena to one thing. For example, water is h2o or heat is reducible to the motion of particles. Other attempts to reduce phenomena might not be successful.
I agree that academic disciplines should connect with one another: an interdisciplinary approach is good.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%202%3A1-8&version=NASB
Wisdom of the age and its masses does not preclude all from that wisdom.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that unbelievers (the world alienated from Jehovah) does not have wisdom, maybe even some very practical or productive wisdom. But I would suggest that the world's wisdom should not be conflated with wisdom from above.
For example, today's worldly wisdom tells us that abortion is just fine because the woman has a right to make decisions concerning her own body. However, is that what the wisdom from above says?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/
My understanding of the word "wisdom" is the appropriate application of knowledge. By that bench mark there is only wisdom or lack and that can be discerned by outcome - in the general sense, as there seems to be examples of limited exceptions to most rules.
In my initial blog post, I also defined wisdom as the intelligent application of knowledge, a definition that I got from WT speakers/literature. So no disagreement there.
However, the Bible makes a distinction between God's wisdom and worldly wisdom. For instance, a person can intelligently apply knowledge to rob a bank or to bilk someone out of their money. Many con artists utilize knowledge intelligently to exploit others. Yet I don't think that is the wisdom of God: they may even become rich and never get caught by worldly authorities. Yet God catches the wise in their cunning.
The Bible does not deny that people of the world may display wisdom that is at odds with God's wisdom. It's a form of wisdom, but not the wisdom from above.
See Prov. 9:10 and the first 3 chapters of 1 Corinthians. As Paul writes, not many wise in a fleshly way have been called; Solomon wrote about the increase of wisdom accentuating vexation. Surely that is not godly wisdom he has in mind.
We are not saying the same - the "appropriate" is not the the same as the "intelligent".
We have discussed prov 9:10 before, but let's go with "fear" meaning a "fear of displeasing". In the context of the proverbs built on Torah principles, what would one need to DO, to demonstrate wisdom?
Job 13 is useful.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-smart-and-intelligent/
"Homo sapiens or Homo callidus?
We are not generally wise as a species; although, it may be fairly stated that we are generally clever as a species. Perhaps we are more truly Homo callidus hoping to evolve into Homo sapiens."
Okay, you're correct that appropriate and intelligent don't have to be co-referential, but they could be. If an application of knowledge is appropriate, would it also not likely be intelligent?
My reason for citing Prov. 9:10 is to make the point that the kind of wisdom it's discussing is not the world's wisdom. Wisdom of the world is not based on fear of YHWH or anything godly, period. It's about utility, intelligence or appropriateness, if you like.
It seems to me that Prov. 9:10 associates fearing God with showing wisdom. Or if you don't like understanding "fear" with God as the object, just say divine wisdom encompasses walking in Jehovah's ways: obeying his laws and principles. See Ecclesiastes 12:13.
Of course, there is a semantic distinction between smart and intelligent. We know that. But I disagree with much of what's on the page cited above.
1) It's possible that being smart is an earned status. Certainly some forms of being smart are. 2) IQ could be a conjunction of genes and environment. It may also be possible to raise one's IQ: lots of controversy about IQ tests and how one defines intelligence.
I agree smart and intelligent are not exactly the same thing, but there's more overlap than the writer lets on. It just depends on the context:
First definition in Merriam-Webster:
1 : having or showing a high degree of mental ability: intelligent, bright
a smart young student
a smart decision/investment/idea
That wasn't a very smart thing to do.
The pursuit of genius or at least being the smartest person in the room continues to tantalize humans.— Lydia Dishman
Aristotle defined humans as Homo rationalis, but I sometimes wonder if we're not Homo voluntatis. And if we're so clever as a species, then why are we fascinated by clever people like Odysseus or clever comics?
Compare Luke 16:8 where the sons of this world act more shrewdly (prudently) than the sons of light in one respect. See also 1 Corinthians 4:10; 10:15.
On the word "appropriate," I was also thinking about keeping social customs, showing manners, and practicing etiquette.
Regarding intelligence, see https://www.simplypsychology.org/multiple-intelligences.html
http://lsa.colorado.edu/essence/texts/appropriate.htm#:~:text=Appropriate%20technology%20is%20small%2Dscale,%2C%20food%2C%20and%20waste%20disposal.
Okay, I have not studied appropriate technology much, but I would think that appropriate technology would not liked to be described as unintellgent or non-smart :)
Seriously, I get the gist of what it's about and its similar to previous environmental approaches, IMO, but not exactly like them.
Another way to describe approaches is with the adjective, rational. See the works of Max Weber and what he said about the loss of enchantment in the West. But intelligence and rationality are not totally synonymous either.
Current synchronic of English would be against your reasoning. Can you imagine a company advertising a phone as an "appropriate phone" as opposed to a "smart phone"?
Appropriate technology is not just an "approach", it is fundamental to long term abundance (which is a hallmark of true wisdom).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2020/03/01/bitcoin-using-electricity-per-transaction-british-household/
This might be smart but it is certainly not appropriate.
An energy audit applies to all physical transactions.
Fundamentals:-
https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/is-global-warming-unstoppable/#:~:text=Garrett%20treats%20civilization%20like%20a,more%20energy%2C%E2%80%9D%20he%20says.&text=%E2%80%9CIt%20is%20only%20by%20consuming,that%20give%20it%20economic%20value.
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/3/1/2012/esd-3-1-2012.html
In my teens I worked for this organisation in their publications department for a while.
https://practicalaction.org/our-aims/
I see a similar methodology used in many countries for building kingdom halls & the concept of the JW BOX is also appropriate technology.
Similar to https://packhacker.com/travel-gear/hootoo/tripmate-titan/
Its not a theory, its an on the ground realistic approach to energy.
Duncan,
I made it clear that I was jesting about calling it "smart/intelligent technology." My point was I'm sure it wouldn't want to be known as the opposite of smart/intelligent, but I'm aware of the distinction between the adjectives. A smart bomb might not be the same as an appropriate bomb, and some have contended that smart phones ought to be renamed.
First, appropriate technology is an approach to handling environmental concerns/needs.
Approach definition (one definition:
noun
noun: approach; plural noun: approaches
1. a way of dealing with something.
"we need a whole new approach to the job"
I didn't say that it was just an approach, but an approach it is.
I have not examined "appropriate technology" to rightly adjudge whether it's effective or not, but I think there's more than one way to take care of the environment. Save it, we won't do: that will take God's kingdom.
Regarding your last comment, approach and theory are not the same--see the definition above for approach. Furthermore, we need both theory and practice, not just practice. I'm sure that plenty of theorizing has gone into appropriate technology, but then we need to implement the theory. It's like special and general relativity theory: Einstein changed the world and our view of it with those theories. It's the same with quantum theory, etc.
"Politics, culture and society influence the subjective definitions of appropriate technology. However, as a general approach, appropriateness can be considered as fulfilled when elementary, intermediate or advanced technologies are seen to be best served by existing local natural resources, workforce, skills and capital"
See https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/appropriate-technology
"Politics, culture and society influence the subjective definitions of appropriate technology." - false definition in this case, it is a scientific method, an true energy audit.
Culture may affect style.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_mass_heater
"According to various reports a rocket mass heater can reduce fuel consumption by 80 - 90% compared to "conventional" stoves"
Basic tools for living designed in an appropriate manner.
This is not the case when these methods are applied to unnecessary technologies. It can never be "appropriate".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtYLVLkWyGc
This should have been replicated world wide but all appropriate technologies require little energy input and so do not create significant amounts of money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology
There most certainly is a subjective element to appropriate technology like all things scientific: no one starts from nowhere as Thomas Nagel teaches us.
In the Wikipedia article: "Appropriate technology was meant to address four problems: extreme poverty, starvation, unemployment and urban migration."
So how's that working out for AT? From what I've seen, we have all four things in abundance throughout the globe. Nothing in this world is a panacea.
My point was never that it is being applied properly. It is the fact that this kind of knowledge and application exist.
The nature of AT means that GDP takes a major nose dive. It would mean the end of converting ecosystems into money.
James 3:17 is talking about טָהוֹר - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D7%98%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8
This is the basis of appropriateness - no more complexity then is necessary.
http://cranfordville.com/IBC%20Cologne/JasStudy10_3_13-18.pdf
Some useful background here.
The purity of James 3:17 is moral or godly purity, which is not exactly the same as physical cleanliness. Where does James mention non-complexity?
The file is helpful and contains plenty of good info. I'm familiar with the distinction between practical and theoretical wisdom, the latter of which was emphasized by Greek philosophers. The file also shows James is contrasting two kinds of wisdom. More later
From the Paideia James and Jude Commentary:
3:15. This is not the wisdom coming down from above [anōthen]. “This” bitter jealousy and selfish rivalry referred to in 3:14 are taken up again in 3:16. Although it is not explicitly called “wisdom,” such is implied. The three adjectives used in 3:15b are feminine and can only qualify sophia from 3:15a. James emphatically denies that it is the wisdom coming down from above, though it can be seen as wisdom from a certain perspective and is commonly so called. Here the sense of anōthen is “from God,” as it is in 1:17: “Every generous act of giving and every perfect gift is from above [anōthen], coming down [katabainon] from the Father of lights.” Of the thirteen uses of anōthen in the NT, five are in John, three in James, and one in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, and Galatians. In the three references in James and four of those in John, anōthen is a metaphor for “from God.” The description of the wisdom coming down from above (hē sophia anōthen katerchomenē) linguistically resonates with this description of the action of the generous gift-giving God. The wisdom coming down from above is an expression of God’s generous giving and is a perfect gift, which, if lacked by anyone, is given generously by God to everyone who asks in genuine faith (1:5–6; see the discussion on 1:5, 17–18; on the divine wisdom from above, see Sir. 24:1–12; Wis. 9:4). Wisdom as a gift from God is a dominant motif of the wisdom tradition (Prov. 2:6; 8:22–31; Sir. 1:1–4; 24:1–12; Wis. 7:24–27; 9:4, 6, 9–18) and is associated with Solomon and his request for wisdom from God (1 Kings 3:5–12, 28; Wis. 8:21–9:18).
The stark contrast of the alien wisdom of 3:15b with the wisdom of God of 3:15a is signaled by the use of the strong adversative alla at the beginning of 3:15b: but [alla] is earthly [epigeios], unspiritual [psychikē], demonic [daimoniōdēs] [wisdom]. This may appear to support an ascending order of seriousness or opposition to the wisdom of God in the three terms epigeios, psychikē, daimoniōdēs by which this other wisdom is characterized. The first term can be viewed as neutral, but there is no doubt about the negative evalu- ation of the third, and this might suggest that the middle term is ambiguous. However, this view does not give sufficient weight to the adversative alla (“but”) that introduces all three. The negative weight of alla implies that the three following adjectives define the alien wisdom as opposed to the wisdom from above, from God.
For טָהוֹר click through to the Arabic.
What is a pure substance?
Job 1:1, 28:28
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2028&version=NASB
See the contrast in Job 28, where mammon gets in the way of true wisdom.
http://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/download/5910/5694/
Without context, it's hard to say what Arabic means by pure substance, but the usage is theological. God may be the pure substance.
That's third cent CE thinking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatnez#:~:text=The%20relevant%20Biblical%20verses%20(Leviticus,(collectively%20known%20as%20kilayim).
Thank you, Duncan. Interesting material.
Post a Comment