It's a pun on the self-defined character of the Enlightenment philosophers as urbane.
Good article, it made me better understand your book.
Thanks. The way philosophy modifies perception is actually reflected in law. It is an important topic.
The pun went unnoticed in my case. “Urban legend” is such a common meme that it is hard to read the two words as they are.
Now, to the subject matter. Perhaps it is obvious to you, but to me it is not. Where do you see the patristic Catholic Christian reading of the Creation depart from the rabbinical?
I understand that there are modernizers in modern Catholicism, and I understand that a Christian will see in the Old Testament numerous prefigurements of Christ, that a Jew would say are not there. But where do you see a philosophical difference between someone like St. Paul, Irenaeus or Origen, and the rabbis contemporary to them, on the character and place of nature?
I understand one distinction. If one reads the Old Testament alone, he will see the nature at rest, because God rests. But a Christian knows that God is not resting: he gave us His daily presence in order to “make all things new”. That seems to be the point of Hebrews 4:1-11. But St. Paul is quoting Psalm 94/95:11, “I swore in my wrath that they shall not enter into my rest”. So it would be difficult for me to derive a philosophical difference from a passage in New Testament that quotes the Old over the matter of which day is more properly the Sabbath. Could you point to more distinctives like that?