Re: Rép. : Re: [Milton-L] Samson as suicidebomber

[James Rovira]

See, I think whether we are Christian or not we all tend to overly
Christianize accounts and practices in the Hebrew Scriptures.  There's
no association in the Mosaic law between taking a Nazarite vow and any
internal moral or psychological state.  The vow consists solely of a
series of external practices that in and of themselves comprise
faithfulness to the vow.  There's no intent beyond the practices.

The conditions of the vow are described in Number 6.  A Nazarite is
"separated" and "holy" to the Lord.  The words "separate" and "holy,"
however, signify the object being reserved for God's use.  They don't
necessarily signify a moral state beyond that which is necessary to
maintain ritual purity, the maintenance of which reserves the object
for God.

A distinction between outer ritual and inner intent is I think a later
development in the Hebrew Scriptures and I think tends to follow the
Babylonian exile, once the temple had been destroyed. Rabbinic Judaism
is said to originate in this period, the emphasis shifting from ritual
and morality to just morality once the temple had been destroyed.  The
teachings of Christ proceed from this tradition, reinforcing and
developing it.  He fought most with the Rabbis because they were the
most like him.

So in terms of the Hebrew Scriptures, it literally does not matter
that Samson was a selfish jerk, purely selfishly motivated, etc.
While he fulfilled the ritual requirements of the law he was used by
God.  While he did not, he could not.

Milton's appropriation of this tradition is another matter entirely.

Jim R

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:43 PM, JD Fleming <jfleming at sfu.ca> wrote:
> ok -- yes -- but the point I'm trying to emphasize is that Milton's Samson's strength returns with his hair even while he remains in an apparent state of psychological _dis_conformity with his vow -- wallowing in despair at the beginning of the play, considering himself alienated from God, etc. Samson's recrudescent strength, in _SA_, does not appear to entail a re-commencement of the divine intention that gave him his strength in the first place. Rather, the divine intention, having been impressed upon him, is completely and permanently effective, as it was impressed. Milton's Samson is capable of losing his strength by losing his hair; but he is not capable of losing the correlation between his hair and his strength. I took you to be thinking otherwise. JDF