Judäa—Syria Palästina. By Werner Eck. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism, vol. 157. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Pp. xiv + 307. €119.

The ‘politics of novelty’ seems a somewhat strange if not straightforwardly bizarre topic. What is meant by ‘novelty’ and under what sort of conditions would one be able to think of ‘novelty’ in terms of a politics? What does politics have to do with ‘novelty’, and conversely, ‘novelty’ with ‘polities’?

Este artículo académico trata sobre cómo Aquino entendía: a) la aprehensión de las primeras nociones intelectas universales: ens, verum et bonum simpliciter; b) la fructificación de los primeros preceptos y de los segundos preceptos prácticos en la persona genuinamente humana o racional; c) la ética, ley moral natural, como esencialmente derivada de la ontología. Ens compuesto de naturaleza humana, entendida metafísicamente y acto del ser, ordenado al bonum; d) por tanto, la ley natural solo tiene sentido desde una visión metafísica, (...) no meramente física o material. (shrink)

This article reports on the most important results of recent studies published in German that deal with Roman-dominated Judea/Palestine and contextualizes them within international research. Publications by Monika Bernett, Werner Eck, Linda-Marie Günther, Achim Lichtenberger and Julia Wilker offer an equally intense examination of the sources, but significantly differ in their perspectives. The question behind the examination asks whether this region has developed in a particular manner that has been shaped and created by Jewish religion and culture, or whether (...) it was a "normal" Roman province with a history shaped by the same circumstances and events as other parts of the Roman Empire. In the case of Judea, the findings of historical research are simultaneously at the center of contemporary legitimizing discourses. The discussion pleads for a cultural comparative historical investigation that critically questions the binary opposition of Jewish versus pagan. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The First (1996) Edition of the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre: A ReviewEdward ChamplinWerner Eck, Antonio Caballos, and Fernando Fernández, eds. Das Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1996. xiv 1 329 pp. 20 pls. Cloth, DM 142. (Vestigia 48)Can a committee write a report? Yes and no. The question of authorship is relevant as much to the book under review as to the (...) extraordinary text which it presents.The document is a very long Latin inscription (176 lines) recording a decree of the Senate passed late in a.d. 20 after the trial, suicide, and posthumous condemnation of Cn. Calpurnius Piso, the former legate of Syria. Copies began to turn up, all within the boundaries of Roman Baetica, in the late 1980s, one virtually complete, one partial, and fragments of some four or five other versions. Appropriately, their first publication has appeared in two versions, the one under review here in German, the other in Spanish. Most of the material is shared by both volumes, but the German edition adds a concluding chapter on the political importance of the document, while the Spanish version has considerably more on the physical properties of the bronze tablets and on the Spanish historical context—and on it the authors’ names are offered in alphabetical order. The German text scrupulously presents itself throughout as having three authors, and no hint is given as to who was responsible for which section. Let us speculate. The first three chapters, on the origins of the texts, on their physical condition, along with diplomatic transcriptions of each copy, and on the reconstruction and translation of the original text as received in Baetica, may represent the work of a team, but the subsequent chapters (4, prosopographical information; 5, the date of the trial; 6, commentary; 7, the transmission of the text to and within Baetica; and 8, the senatus consultum as political document) all bear the clear imprint of Werner Eck. That is, the prose is lapidary (Eck seems incapable of ambiguity or ellipsis); the erudition is [End Page 117] formidable; the argumentation is thorough, balanced, and imaginative; and the relative rapidity of publication is astonishing. Above all, Eck has made the book a work of truly international collaboration: between 1991 and 1996 he discussed the text at colloquia and at seminars in 38 universities (“among others”); some 60 scholars are thanked for help and criticism; and the notes are replete with specific acknowledgments to these and yet others for written and verbal comments and for reviews of unpublished work. The result is a formidable edition, clearly setting out the terms for future debates. Thus, appropriately for a decree of the Senate, the book is the work of one author, or of three, or of scores: for convenience we will call the author(s) E.As word of the SCPP’s discovery spread, scholarly excitement grew, for two reasons, one historiographical, one historical. Here is a contemporary version of a dramatic crisis familiar from the riveting account in Tacitus (Ann. 2.41–3.19): the bitter enmity between Tiberius’ legate Piso and Tiberius’ nephew and adopted son Germanicus Caesar, the suspicious death of Germanicus in 19, Piso’s trial and suicide, the passions of the plebs, the tensions within the domus Augusta and the Senate, and the brooding ambiguity of the princeps. Hence we can perhaps peer over the shoulder of Rome’s greatest historian in his study as he selects and shapes his material. At the same time, we are also offered a posed, but vivid and detailed, snapshot of power and ideology in the new principate at a time when the roles of the partners in government—that is, the princeps, his colleague (if any), and the Senate—are still being defined and the threat of civil war is still a real terror. And beyond these the document is a trove of information, constitutional, administrative, legal (both private and criminal), economic, linguistic, religious, prosopographical, topographical. To take but one instance, light is cast on several words in the evolving vocabulary of power, for here we find the earliest use of the word donativum in the sense of... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Tacitus and the Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone PatreRichard J. A. TalbertWhen our seminar organizers generously invited me to contribute a paper on a topic of my choice, it was a surprise to learn that no discussion of the relationship between Tacitus and the SCPP had already been proposed. This relationship is, after all, one of the most rewarding aspects stemming from the discovery of the document, though inevitably (...) in the limited space available here it will be feasible to explore only two or three dimensions of it.In my abstract, formulated far in advance, I proposed to discuss:1. The contribution, if any, which the SCPP makes to our understanding of Tacitus’ use of the acta senatus2. The placing of the trial episode in Tacitus’ narrative: in particular, if he has deliberately distorted the chronology of a.d. 20, how is our estimate of him as a historian affected, if at all?3. The ways in which Tacitus’ selection and focus of material compare with the SCPP.By the date the seminar convened, however, it was evident that I had no more than cautionary words to contribute about the acta senatus. We still need to establish their precise format, and the SCPP seems to be no help in this regard. In my book (Talbert 1984) I had argued that Tacitus did make extensive use of the acta, 1 and the discovery of the SCPP certainly has done nothing to alter that conviction. At the same time I grant that, even with the SCPP, we still lack proof of this extensive use. Indeed the sheer celebrity of Piso’s case surely diminishes the likelihood of such proof from the SCPP, because it is clear that for this particular episode there was an exceptional range of sources available. Tacitus makes a point of demonstrating how he exploited the range, seeking out evidence of appearances by Antonia (3.3.3), for example, and citing remarks that he recalled seniores making (3.16.1). I should [End Page 89] hesitate to join Werner Eck and Harriet Flower in stating unequivocally that—to use the latter’s words (1997, 709)—“Tacitus’ main source [for the trial] is the acta senatus.” But equally I could not support a claim that the acta senatus made no contribution to his account, either directly, or through one or more intermediaries.To move on to the character of Tacitus’ account and its placing within his narrative of the year 20, it is clear that much can hinge on when during the year the trial is reckoned to have taken place. Frankly, I am no longer convinced either by Eck’s view, or by my own modification of it introduced at the Capri meeting in 1994 and kindly noted by him in the definitive first edition. 2In brief, Eck dates the trial by taking the day that the SCPP was passed (10 December), and then immediately working back according to the intervals cited by Tacitus (3.13.1). At the outset two days were assigned to the prosecution of Piso, and then—after a six-day interval—his defense was to have three (this is the standard ratio of time for each side). In the event, it was after the first or second day of those three that Piso committed suicide. Thereafter, in Eck’s view, the trial was continued and concluded with a minimum of delay, although the only further indication of time offered by Tacitus (3.17.3) is that Plancina’s case took up two days. On this reckoning Eck can fairly maintain that the trial proceedings began somewhere between 28 and 30 November, and concluded with the SCPP on 10 December.At the Capri meeting I cautiously raised various concerns with this timetable. 3 For present purposes only the main one matters, namely that an extraordinary amount of pleading, testifying, proposing, and drafting will have to have been concentrated within an uncomfortably tight time frame. Consequently, I argued for pushing the start of the proceedings farther back into November by some days to permit a less hectic pace.Eck was evidently not persuaded, and perhaps this is of little consequence because clearly... (shrink)

Von theologischer wir philosophischer Seite wird bisweilen gefordert, Vergebung müsse unbedingt sein. Darüber hinaus wird bei Psychotherapeuten die therapeutische Wirkung der Vergebung betont, so dass Vergebung im Eigeninteresse der gekränkten oder geschädigten Personen zu liegen scheint. Dabei werden Gesichtspunkte der Gerechtigkeit und der Prävention und der Selbstachtung des Opfers übersehen, wie die im Artikel aufgezeigten Vorbehalte deutlich machen können. Dabei kommt speziell die Perspektive der Geschädigten, der Opfer stärker in den Blick. Außerdem sind die einschlägigen Mahnungen im Neuen Testament, die (...) die Unbedingtheit der Forderung nach Vergebung zu bestätigen scheinen, bei genauer Betrachtung durchaus differenzierter. (shrink)

Review text: "Aufs Ganze besehen präsentiert St. einen ambitionierten Entwurf, der Verschiedenstes auf eine Kernstruktur zu beziehen vermag. Vieles ist bedenkenswert und bietet Anlass, über Grundsätzliches und weitgespannte Zusammenhänge nachzusinnen."Stefan Berg in: Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik 2/2010 "Ein stattlicher Band von einem renommierten Verlag... "In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 29.9.2008.

I focus on the relationship between the coalition of ideas including constructivism and enactivism on the one side, and ontology in general on the other. Based on a certain logico-phenomenological attitude that dominated Polish philosophy in the 20th century I argue that ontology as such is not burdened with realistic or representationalist presumptions. Finally, certain more specific issues raised by the commentators are also addressed, including the very usability of the notion of cognitive niche and its role when it comes (...) to the problem of presentation. (shrink)

Buddhisten in Indien heute. Beschreibungen, Bilder und Dokumente. Detlef Kantowsky., Konstanz 1999. 216 pp. ISBN 30930959-3-5.

This paper is about participation in efficient risk sharing among agents who have ambiguous beliefs about uncertain states of nature. The question we ask is whether and how can ambiguous beliefs give rise to some agents not participating in efficient risk sharing. Ambiguity of beliefs is described by the multiple-prior expected utility of Gilboa and Schmeidler, or the variational preferences of Maccheroni et al. :1447–1498, 2006). The main result says that if the aggregate risk is relatively small, then the agents (...) whose beliefs are the most ambiguous do not participate in risk sharing. The higher the ambiguity of those agents’ beliefs, the more likely is their non-participation. Another factor making non-participation more likely is low risk aversion of agents whose beliefs are less ambiguous. We discuss implications of our results on agents’ participation in trade in equilibrium in assets markets. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Perception-Action Mutuality Obviates Mental Construction” by Martin Flament Fultot, Lin Nie & Claudia Carello. Upshot: In this commentary, I focus on several issues concerning the notion of presentation. I argue that Fultot, Nie and Carello do not pay sufficient attention to these problems, despite the fact that Gibson, compared here with Husserl, may be regarded as one of those thinkers who made an important contribution to this.

Th. 1. Güterlehre. -- Th. 2. Tugendlehre. -- Th. 3. Pflichtenlehre.

Studies in Mahayana G. C. Pande., Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, Sarnath, Varanasi 1993. xii, 179 pp. No price given. ISBN 81-900149-7-8, 81-900149-8-6.

The article examines philosophical conceptions of responsibility found in the contributions of Martin Buber, Hans Jonas and Emmanuel Levinas. It argues that, despite the significant differences of these contributions, they all share important goals, significant structural features, and corresponding challenges. All three thinkers try to overcome the solipsistic limitations of Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology as well as the egocentrism of Heidegger’s concept of "solicitude" or "self-care." All three try to overcome the Kantian subject-object dichotomy. All three understand responsibility as a bipolar (...) relation only. In consequence, all of them face similar challenges resulting from new forms of dichotomies and the exclusion of “thirdness” that are the result of their conceptual decisions. (shrink)