Pages

google analytics

Showing posts with label Josephus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Josephus. Show all posts

Sunday, January 10, 2016

The Failure of Messianic Expectations



Expectations are tricky things. They can keep the fires of hope burning within us when all seems lost, or they can come crashing down around us in splinters and shards of disappointment when they’re not met.

Is a dream a lie if it don't come true,
or is it something worse? (Springsteen)

The people of Israel in the first century lived with a deep expectation, or rather, deep expectations, plural. They waited for a hero, a savior, a messiah but there was no one understanding of what this Messiah would be like. Some expected a warrior and a king, noble and powerful to lead them into battle and victory, a mighty man who would throw off the shackles of their foreign oppressors. Others expected a priestly messiah, who would lead the people to righteousness obedience before God and his torah. They lived with expectations drawn from their own deep longings and from the words of the Holy Scriptures. But there wasn’t a single unified expectation about the Messiah; there were many competing, multivalent interpretations. There was a deep sense of anticipation in the people, a longing, a dream of rescue and salvation, of restoration, redemption and succor, even if this longing was expressed in many different expectations.

So we find them at the beginning of this week’s text-the people of Israel filled with expectations and questions. They’ve come out to the wild place to hear the preaching of John and to be baptized by him in the waters of the Jordan.  Is he, could he be the Messiah, the Christ, the one that we’ve been waiting for?

What I find interesting here is that John the Baptizer had very little in common with the generally held expectations of the coming messiah: he was not a mighty warrior, not a prince or a king, and though he came from a priestly family, he’d (seemingly) renounced the priestly call to live the life of a prophetic hermit in the wildness, wearing camel hair and eating locusts and honey. John the Baptizer did not look like the generally conceived picture of the Christ.

Neither did he perform any (recorded) miracles. He did not provide miracle food for crowds of thousands, he did not walk on water (only shoved people under it), he calmed no storms, exorcised no demons, healed no lepers, restored no sight to the blind or voice to the mute. He did not cleanse the lepers or raise the dead. His reputation was based solely on his fiery preaching and his baptismal ministry. “Yet he moved people so mightily they began to suspect he was the messiah” (Robertson 42).

His words, his fire, his energy, his authenticity, his passion drew the people from across the land to the wild lands. They left the comfort of their homes to hear him preach repentance at the edge of the Jordan. And hearing him, their expectations and dreams were fired up again. After desperate years, after others had failed, after hurts and disappointments, the ministry of John at the water’s edge stirred up dying fire of their hopes.  And they questioned in their hearts whether perhaps he were the Christ. Could he be? Should we dare to hope again?

But if the people thought John might be the longed for Messiah, he would disappoint them. He told them directly, without ambiguity or hedging: he was not the one they desired. “I baptize you with water,” he said, “but he who is mightier than I is coming, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”  Even as his reputation grew, John was diminishing himself, pushing away the expectations the crowds foisted upon him. “I baptize you with water…he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into his granary, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire” (Luke 3: 16 – 17 RSV).

John, too, had a set of beliefs about the long expected savior-expectations that he was never quite able to reconcile with the one he believed to be the Messiah. At the end of his life, as he was locked up in Herod’s prison, he sent two of his disciples to Jesus to ask, “Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Luke 7:20 RSV). 

Expectations are tricky things. 

And Jesus confounds our expectations here as well; he comes into the story and is baptized in the Jordan by John.  Why? Why would he do this?  Baptism, while not a part of the regular practice of mainstream Judaism of that time and place, was not unheard of or uncommon. The Jewish historian Josephus, in his autobiography, wrote, “…but when I was informed that one, whose name was Banus, lived in the desert and used no other clothing than what grew upon the trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both night and day, in order to preserve his chastity… I imitated him in those things and continued with him three years” (Josephus “Life” 2).

And Banus and John were not alone in practicing a form of baptism; other baptismal movements also appeared in the area (Hartman 583). Banus, Josephus’ mentor, used baptism as method to preserve his chastity and self-control; also common during that time was a form of baptism given to gentiles who converted to Judaism (Hartman 583). But John’s message and preaching was of a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Luke 3: 3 RSV).

But why would Jesus, sinless Jesus, the Son of God, need to be baptized in a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins? Mark and Luke do not describe Jesus’ motives. He comes to John and is baptized by him without any word of explanation. Matthew, sensing something of our discomfort, pauses to have John question Jesus, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” and for Jesus to respond, “Let it be so now; for thus  it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:14 – 15) – but this doesn’t really give much of an explanation.

Our question lingers there in the water with Jesus. Our expectations come up against the person of Jesus and are stymied. They don’t fit. Our expectations don’t fit the fulfillment. Expectations rarely do.

Our expectations are too small or too large; they don’t fit.

When I was younger I expected that I would eventually begin to ‘understand’ things. I’m getting older now and that expectation is starting to feel ill-fitting. Young people often expect that they’ll be famous or that they’ll do something extraordinary, that they’ll change the world. “We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off” (Palahniuk).

People get married expecting that a spouse will make everything better. People start families, have babies because they expect that children will bring happiness and sense of completeness and fulfillment to their lives. There is often bitter disappointment when those expectations are shattered.

Expectations are tricky; they keep the embers of hope glowing within us, keep us longing for a better future. But when our expectations come up against reality they rarely fit. And what will we do?

Like the people of Israel in early years of the first century, going out into the wilderness to hear the preaching of John the Baptizer, our expectations for the messiah are frequently ill-fitted. Jesus confounds us at nearly every turn. He loves those we would despise. He forgives those we’d condemn. He relaxes codes that we would tighten. He tightens rules that we’d relax. He moves when we’d stay and refuses to leave when we’d get up and go.

He is variously described by his followers as a military general, a prince of peaceful non-violence, a capitalist CEO, a socialist liberator, a radical, a conservative, a hippy, a teacher, a hero, a king, a brother, a father, a lover. But when the person of Jesus is approached and considered without the baggage of our anticipations, each of those expectations is found wanting in some way. And the fault is not in Jesus, but in our expectations. 

If John the Baptist was unsure if Jesus was the one he was waiting for, if the people of the first century failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, was the failure in Jesus, or in their expectations? And if Jesus doesn’t meet our expectations, where does the fault lie?

Have we been disappointed with Jesus? Is the disappointment in Jesus or in the failure of our expectations?



Hartman, Lars. “Baptism.” Anchor Bible Dictionary-Volume I. New York, NY: Doubleday. 1992.

Josephus, Flavius. The Life of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregal Publication. 1960.

Palahniuk, Chuck. Fight Club. W.W. Norton. 1996.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament: Volume II Luke. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press. 1930.


Springsteen, Bruce. “The River” The River. Columbia. 1980.

Revised Standard Version: New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Biblical Limericks: Historical Impasse


Gamaliel mentions one Theudas,
who claimed to be somebody – an ass -
but he was killed, and then
Judas the Gal'lean
led his revolt during the census.

But, and here’s where it becomes a mess,
in the history of Josephus
this order is reversed;
he says Judas came first.
We have an historical impasse.

Acts 5: 36 – 38

Friday, January 30, 2015

Dido and Jezebel – Strong Women from Tyre


It’s been my personal challenge this year to read (or in some few cases to re-read) the classics of western civilization.  Thus far I have worked my way through Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey and currently I am about halfway through Virgil’s Aeneid.  It has been a pleasant challenge, and I have enjoyed finding connections to my study of the Bible.

Today my thoughts were on Dido.  As told by Virgil, Queen Dido (who is known in some sources as Elissa) fled from the Phoenician city of Tyre when her brother, Pygmalion, murdered her husband.  Pygmalion wanted his wealth, and wanted to be king of Tyre.  She fled from her murderous brother to Africa and founded the city of Carthage.  When Aeneus and his rag-tag band of refugees from fallen Troy arrive, Juno (who hates Aeneus and all Trojans) caused Queen Dido to fall madly in love with him, and to break her oath to be perpetually faithful to her dead husband.  Aeneus, while he loves Dido, cannot be bound to Carthage; his destiny lies in Italy and though he is anguished to leave, he abandons Dido.  Consumed by despair and rage and sorrow, Dido stabs herself with Aeneus’ sword and lays down upon a funeral pyre. 

Tragic stuff…

But it was the connection to Tyre that caught my attention this afternoon - being that the city of Tyre is so frequently mentioned in the scriptures of both the Hebrew bible and the Christian New Testament. 

While the historicity of these ancient tales might be rightly questioned, the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, in his book The Antiquities of the Jews preserves a list of the kings of Tyre.  And from that list of kings and a comparison with the Hebrew Bible and other sources we can calculate that the infamous Queen Jezebel was the great-aunt of Dido.

Say what we might about them, it seems that Tyre had a tradition of raising strong willed and powerful women.




 

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Reading the Flights of Birds as I’m Reading the Classics


I am enjoying my readings in the classics of western civilization, and especially in finding material that connects between the various books, and to the book that has been the focus of much of my study – the Bible.  So far this year I have read The Iliad, The Odyssey by the Greek poet Homer (maybe…), and I am currently working my way through The Aeneid by the Roman poet Virgil.  Next in the list is Civil War (also known as Pharsalia) by Lucan – though I may make a short detour to read Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra as it relates somewhat to Lucan’s material, and is structured somewhat on the relationship between Aeneas and Dido in The Aeneid.

One of the things that I’ve notice in all three books so far is the use of Ornithomancy – that is, reading the flight of birds to divine the future.  Ornithomancy is the Greek word; in Latin this was known as augury.  The word was initially used specifically for the interpretation of bird flights, but over time became applied to divination in general.  Augury is the root for our English word “inaugural.”  Roman priests (called augurs) would observe the flights of birds in order to predict whether or not a new leader would have a good or a bad year

In The Iliad Polydamas encourages the Trojan warriors to not attack the Greek ships:

Seek not this day the Grecian ships to gain;
For sure, to warn us, Jove his omen sent,
And thus my mind explains its clear event:
The victor eagle, whose sinister flight
Retards our host, and fills our hearts with fright,
Dismiss’d his conquest in the middle skies,
Allow’d to seize, but not possess the prize;
Thus, though we gird with fires the Grecian fleet,
Though these proud bulwarks tumble at our feet,
Toils unforeseen, and fiercer, are decreed;
More woes shall follow, and more heroes bleed.
So bodes my soul, and bids me thus advise;
For thus a skillful seer would read the skies.
(7. 255 – 266)

But Hector, Prince of Troy wasn’t so impressed by Polydamas’ reading:

The leading sign, the irrevocable nod,
And happy thunders of the favoring god,
These shall I slight, and guide my wavering mind
by wandering birds that flit with every wind?
Ye vagrants of the sky! your wings extend,
Or where the suns arise, or where descend;
To right, to left, unheeded take your way,
While I the dictates of high heaven obey.
Without a sign his sword the brave man draws,
and asks no omen but his country’s cause.
(7. 275 – 284)

The reading of the flights of birds occurs also in The Odyssey:

Now Zeus who views the wide world, sent a sign to him,
launching a pair of eagles from a mountain crest
in gliding flight down the soft blowing wind,
wing-tip to wing-tip quivering taut, companions,
till high above the assembly of many voices
they wheeled , their dense wings beating, and in havoc
dropped on the heads of the crowd – a deathly omen -
wielding their talons, tearing cheeks and throats;
then veered away on the right hand through the city.
Astonished, gaping after the birds, the men
felt their hearts flood, foreboding things to come.
And now they heard the old lord Halitheres,
son of Mastor, keenest among the old
at reading birdflight into accurate speech;
in his anxiety for them, he rose and said:

“Hear me, Ithacans! Hear what I have to say,
and may I hope to open the suitor’s eyes
to the black wave towering over them. Odysseus
will not be absent from his family long…
I am old enough to know a sign when I see one”
(2. 153 – 171, 177)

The suitors probably should have listened to Halitheres…

Augury also appears in The Aeneid where the goddess Venus (disguised as a young Spartan girl) tells her recently shipwrecked son, Aeneus:

I have good news. Your friends are restored to you,
your fleet’s reclaimed.  The winds swerved from the North
and drove them safe to port.  True, unless my parents
taught me to read the flight of birds for nothing.
Look at those dozen swans triumphant in formation!
the eagle of Jove had just swooped down on them all
from heaven’s heights and scattere3d them into open sky,
but now you can see them flying trim in their long ranks,
landing or looking down where their friends have landed -
home, cavorting on ruffling wings and wheeling round
the sky in convoy, trumpeting in their glory.
So homeward bound, your ships and hardy shipmates
anchor in port now or approach the harbor’s mouth,
full sail ahead.  Now off you go, move on,
wherever the path leads you, steer your steps.
(2. 473 -487)

Moving closer to the scriptures of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, we find that the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, makes mention of Ornithomancy in his book The Antiquities of the Jews:
Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea he came to the city Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower; and there he exhibited spectacles in honor of Caesar, for whose well-being he'd been informed that a certain festival was being celebrated. At this festival a great number were gathered together of the principal persons of dignity of his province. On the second day of the spectacles he put on a garment made wholly of silver, of a truly wonderful texture, and came into the theater early in the morning. There the silver of his garment, being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun's rays, shone out in a wonderful manner, and was so resplendent as to spread awe over those that looked intently upon him. Presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good) that he was a god; and they added, "Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature." Upon this the king neither rebuked them nor rejected their impious flattery. But he shortly afterward looked up and saw an owl sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, just as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow.  (Antiquities 19.8.2 343-361)
Though several translations of the Bible use the word “augury” in passages about divination, it is usually in the more generalized sense, and not specifically about Ornithomancy.  There are a couple of references, however, that seem to be specifically about reading the flight of birds as omens of the future.

Do not curse the king, even in your thoughts,
or curse the rich, even in your bedroom;
for a bird of the air may carry your voice,
or some winged creature tell the matter.
(Ecclesiastes 10: 20)

And the Greek Septuagint translation of Leviticus 19: 26  reads,“Eat not on the mountains, nor shall ye employ auguries, nor divine by inspection of birds.”

Augury or Ornithomancy was practiced all across the ancient world – from Rome to Babylon, and it shouldn’t surprise us that it shows up, at least a little bit, in the bible.

In addition to Ornithomancy, the bible refers to the obscure practice of Lecanomancy - which is divination by reading patterns observed in oil floating on the surface of water in a bowl or dish.  Joseph seems to have used this form of divination. (Genesis 44: 4, 15)  And King Nebuchadnezzar used Belomancy - divination using arrows to predict the future. (Ezekiel 21: 21)






Monday, March 17, 2014

The Mount of the Precipice – Maybe


Looking Down from the Precipice photo ViewDownfromtheMtofthePrecipice_zps33978d9b.jpgOne of the places we visited during our trip to Israel was the Mount of the Precipice – the traditional site for the event described in Luke 4: 28 – 30 after Jesus has delivered his first sermon in his hometown of Nazareth, “All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this.  They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him up to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him down the cliff.  But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.” (NIV)

As our bus approached the city of Nazareth, going up the steep slope, I remembered reading that not everyone is convinced of the historical or geographical accuracy of this story.  Some scholars tell us that there was no steep cliff in Nazareth from which the townspeople could throw Jesus; some are not convinced that Nazareth even existed in first century Palestine.

Neither Flavius Josephus nor the Talmud mentions the city of Nazareth.  This argument from silence (which isn’t exactly airtight conclusive) might be more convincing if we didn’t already suspect that Nazareth was something of an unimportant backwater burg. “Nazareth! Can anything good com from there?” asked one of Jesus’ early followers (John 1:46).  Why would such an unimportant place be mentioned? 

But historical evidence for a 1st century Nazareth is not altogether absent.  In 1962 archaeologists found an inscription in Caesarea Maritime listing the priestly families and where they settled following the Jewish war against Rome – including some who relocated to Nazareth. [i] So it does appear that there was a Nazareth in Jesus’ day, but whether or not there was a cliff there is another matter.



View Larger Map

John P. Meier – whose A Marginal Jew series on the historical Jesus I have found very helpful – says this: “The ending of Luke’s story…suffers from a historical difficulty.  Luke says that the angry Nazarenes dragged Jesus ‘to the edge of the cliff [literally, the brow of the mountain] on which the city was built, to throw him down the precipice.’ (Luke 4:29).  Actually, Nazareth lies in a sloping basin on the side of a hill; there are a number of higher elevations around it.” (Meier, 303)  [ii]

View of Nazareth from Mount of the Precipice photo MtofthePrecipice-viewofNazareth_zps6313d2a4.jpg

Robert J. Miller has said, “Luke generally seems poorly informed about Palestinian geography.  Aspects of his geography may therefore be fictive.” [iii]

As I stood on the traditional site (always taken with a large grain of salt) of the Mount of the Precipice, I wondered about that.  Modern day Nazareth (sometimes known as the “Arab capital of Israel” – roughly 2/3 Muslim 1/3 Christian) surrounds the traditional site on the north to the southwest.  (The modern Jewish city, Nazareth Iliit, is further to the north and east.) It does, as Meier said, rest in a sort of natural bowl on the side of the hill.  There are no steep cliffs there. 

But the traditional site isn’t so far removed (it’s about 2.5 miles) as to make it completely impossible is it?  Luke does say that they “drove him out of town….”

(Photo #1 looking down from the traditional site of the Mount of the Precipice. Photo #2 Looking West towards Nazareth from the Precipice.)



[i] Mythicist René Salm doesn’t accept this discovery - but  see James McGrath’s comments on Salm’s work.

[ii] Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew- Rethinking the Historical Jesus – Vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person Doubleday, New York, NY.

[iii]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection_of_Jesus   Footnote #1 –and yes, I know it’s Wikipedia, get off my case…

Thursday, November 21, 2013

The Sadducees Were the First Rush Fans


We know very little for certain about the Sadducees – one of the three prominent religious groups among the Jewish people at the time of Jesus – and most of what we know about them comes from people who opposed them (so we have to read it with a cautious eye...). 

But the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tells us that they rejected the concept of fate, opting instead for free-will. “And as for the Sadducees, they exclude fate and say that there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal. But they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the cause of what is good, and we suffer what is evil as a result of our own folly.”  (Antiquities XIII, 173)

And in the New Testament (Acts 23: 8) we discover the idea that the Sadducees rejected the concept of angels (and presumably demons as well).

Based on that I believe that the Sadducees were, in fact, the first Rush fans.




There are those who think that life is nothing left to chance,
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance.

A planet of playthings,
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive.
"The stars aren't aligned
Or the gods are malign"-
Blame is better to give than receive.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.

There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand,
The cards were stacked against them- they weren't born in lotus-land.

All preordained-
A prisoner in chains-
A victim of venomous fate.
Kicked in the face,
You can't pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.

Each of us-
A cell of awareness-
Imperfect and incomplete.
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet.

Monday, March 4, 2013

Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark - Part 2 - A Literary Act of War


In the first installment of my review of my friend, Joel Watt’s book Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark[i] I noted that I am in a bit over my head; specifically in that I don’t speak or read Greek.  So in Part II of the book when Joel quoted from Josephus –and didn't translate the Greek- I floundered a bit.[ii]

My first response was: “to the internets!”  But that wasn't as helpful as I had anticipated.  The copies of Josephus available on the web all seem to use a different numbering system than the one from which Joel was quoting.  No problem.  I’ll just go to the library.  But the small town library here doesn't even have a copy of Josephus.  All right... no problem.  To the bookstore!  While in St Paul, Minnesota over the weekend, I stopped at Barnes and Nobel to pick up a copy – but they didn't have one either; neither could they locate one in any of the Barnes and Nobel locations in the entire Twin Cities area.  Good grief!

Fortunately the end of my quest was at hand.  Near the Barnes and Noble store was a Half Price Books store. And they had a marvelous hardback and illustrated copy of the complete works of Josephus for a mere $7.99.   It even includes a conversion table for the differing number systems as an index at the back.  Huzzah!  Now armed with an English translation and a way to find the appropriate portions of the text, I went once more into the breach.

In chapter 3 (His Kydoimos) Joel sets the stage for slicing open of Mark’s gospel with the tool of Mimetic Criticism – and this requires locating the gospel in an historical setting – the “when” of the gospel (which in turn, helps us to understand the “why” of the gospel.) 

All through the tangle of that desperate fray stalked slaughter and doom.  The incarnate Kydoimos raved through the rolling battle; at her side paced Death the ruthless, and the Fearful Fates, beside them strode, and in red hands bare murder and the groans of dying men.[iii]

Kydoimos, according to the ancient Greek poets and playwrights, was the personification, the incarnation, if you will, of the noise and din and chaos and cacophony of battle.  Mark’s gospel begins, not in silence, but in the shout and clamor of the battles and skirmishes of the Jewish revolt against Rome.  Joel uses the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus to describe the rising volume of that battle noise, beginning softly enough in the early years of the first century and crescendoing through the year 70 CE with the destruction of the Temple and of the city of Jerusalem and the failure of the Jewish revolt.

“The aftermath of a year of civil war, terrible news coming from Judea, the unlikely return of Jesus, and the coming news being marshaled out at the tip of a legionnaire’s sword that Vespasian was now declared the Jewish Messiah caused the leaderless Christian community to contemplate how – or even if they should – move forward…The choice for the proto-Christian community is simple –either a dead brigand or a live victorious general who became the emperor of the entire world in Judea with the proclamation of a new Pax Romana. This is Mark’s social crisis – where is Jesus?” [iv]

Mark’s gospel is not“good news” of a warm and cuddly variety.  It is not marshmallow sunshine and strawberry scented rainbows.  The Gospel of Mark is nothing less than a literary act of war against the messianic claims of Vespasian, a polemical attack on the emperor’s claim to be the Messiah and Savior of the world. 

“Mark does not surrender and proves that resistance is not futile.  He finds his transcript and begins to reconstruct a reality challenging Augustan theology.”[v]

In chapter 4 (His Pedagogue) Joel compares the gospel of Mark to the writings of the Roman poet / historian Marcus Annaeus Lucan (commonly known as Lucan).  Once a prominent and popular poet and childhood friend of Emperor Nero, Lucan fell from the good graces of the Emperor when he began to criticize and challenge the Emperor and the Empire.  His short life came to a rather abrupt end (much like the gospel of Mark) when he joined a conspiracy against Nero.  The group was discovered and Lucan was convicted of treason and “encouraged” to commit suicide. 

Joel finds in Lucan’s writings a pattern and a style and a method that seems to have influenced the writer of the Gospel of Mark.  The poetic abuse of language, the multi-layered meanings, the polemical reversals… these are Lucan’s tricks copied into Mark’s writing.

This chapter was relatively short and I would have liked to have read more about Lucan.  But ultimately this isn't a book about Lucan… so the next several chapters turn to a mimetic reading of Mark’s gospel.



[i] Watts, Joel L. Mimetic Criticism and the Gospel of Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, Wipf & Stock, Eugene Oregon, 2013.
[ii] As before – this is not a criticism of Joel’s work.  The ignorance is mine.
[iii] Quintus Smyrnaeus – The Fall of Troy
[iv] Page 54
[v] Page 71

Saturday, May 5, 2012

He was "Cut" and "Not Cut" Where it Mattered - But it Didn't Matter




We don’t know his name. We don’t know his name, but we know a few things about him.  He was an Ethiopian eunuch, a treasury official in the court of the Candace – the queen of Ethiopia, and he had gone to Jerusalem in order to worship. We don’t know his name but five times within this short little narrative[i] Luke refers to him as “the eunuch.” We don’t know his name but for now I’ll call him Ebed. [ii]

It seems strange that Ebed would have gone to Jerusalem to worship.  He probably wouldn’t have been allowed.  It’s not likely that he wouldn’t have been welcomed.  Nearly everything about him would have excluded him from that very exclusive and exclusionary worshipping community. 

He was, quite obviously, foreign. He was a gentile. He was one of the “uncircumcised.”[iii] And as such, he could enter only the very outermost courtyard of the temple (provided that he behaved himself in a respectful manner); but he would not have been allowed to proceed any further. A low wall marked with a placard warning that transgressors would be punished by death blocked the way. 

No foreigner is to go beyond the balustrade and the plaza of the temple zone! Whoever is caught doing so will himself to blame for his death which will follow!

Animals marked for sacrifice were sold in these outer courts, but gentile worshippers like Ebed would not have been allowed to lead these sacrificial animals to the altar. 

And not only was he an uncircumcised gentile, but he was a Eunuch (as Luke reminds again and again).  He’d been emasculated, probably just before puberty.  Eunuchs often served as officials within royal courts, especially trusted to serve within the women’s quarters because of their lack of libido. Because their physical condition (usually inflicted upon them without their consent) lowered their social status, they could be easily killed and replaced without consequence.  A trusted eunuch might attain a lofted position within the royal courts, but only so long as he remained useful and obedient. 

But eunuchs were specifically (and repeatedly) barred from temple worship. “If a man’s testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD.” [iv]
The first century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, had some pretty harsh words concerning the treatment of Eunuchs:
“Let those that have made themselves eunuchs be had in detestation; and do you avoid any conversation with them who have deprived themselves of their manhood… let such be driven away, as if they had killed their children, since they beforehand have lost what should procure them; for evident it is, that while their soul is become effeminate, they have withal transfused that effeminacy to their body also.” [v]
Ebed had travelled some 1,200 miles (a journey that would have taken him about two months, even travelling in relative comfort and speed on a chariot, as he was) in order to worship the God of the Universe, but I have to wonder what his experience would have been once he arrived. Because he was both “uncut” (not circumcised) and “cut” (emasculated) he would have been cut off from the worshipping community.
Would he have been stared at? Would people have pointed at him? Would they have whispered about his dark skin, his strange accent?  Would they have bristled at his effeminate voice or pulled away in repugnance from his touch and his soft, un-calloused skin?
Or might Ebed have been welcomed (at least by some)? The torah of the Jews had pretty clear laws concerning the disbarment  of eunuchs from worship, yet within the tradition of the prophets came these words from God:

“Don’t let foreigners who commit themselves to the LORD say, ‘The LORD will never let me be part of his people.’ And don’t let the eunuchs say, ‘I’m a dried-up tree with no children and no future.’

For this is what the LORD says: I will bless those eunuchs who keep my Sabbath days holy and who choose to do what pleases me and commit their lives to me.

I will give them—within the walls of my house— a memorial and a name far greater than sons and daughters could give. For the name I give them is an everlasting one. It will never disappear!
” [vi]
The Hebrew bible included much that would have led the Jews to welcome and to embrace gentiles and eunuchs in their worship, but it doesn’t seem likely that he would have been welcomed.[vii]
Ebed was now on his way home again, travelling by chariot back along the road that would take him through the desert regions between Israel and the African continent.  As he rode in the chariot along that deserted desert road, near the ruins of the city of Gaza (once a proud Philistine city, now a nearly empty desolation), Ebed was reading from the Hebrew bible – specifically from the prophet Isaiah.  I wonder if he was drawn to that particular prophet because of his conciliatory words for the gentile and the eunuch. 
He was reading from a Greek translation of the Hebrew bible:
“He was oppressed and treated harshly, yet he never said a word. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter. And as a sheep is silent before the shearers, he did not open his mouth.

Unjustly condemned, he was led away. No one cared that he died without descendants, that his life was cut short in midstream.
” [viii]
These words come from passages about the “Suffering Servant” of Yahweh, but Ebed was having trouble understanding what he was reading.  Who was this oppressed servant?  Why had he been treated so harshly?  How could it be that no one cared that he died without the blessing and sign of God’s favor - descendants?  (Surely this was a point of concern for the eunuch Ebed….)
Ebed’s reverie was interrupted with a question: “Do you even understand what you’re reading there?”  The voice was breathless and panting.  Ebed looked up from the scroll and saw a man running alongside the chariot. This man was Philip the Evangelist[ix] who had been lead by an angelic spirit of the Lord to this wild and desolate place. 
Ebed answered his question with a question: “How can I understand it unless someone guides me?” And with that he invited Philip to join him in the chariot and the two of them poured over the words of the prophet.  Philip explained the words and interpreted them and “brought good Jesus news”[x] to the Ethiopian eunuch.
And as they went along that desert road they came to some water. It was probably not a lush garden oasis, but a muddy and already evaporating water-hole.  Ebed ordered the chariot driver to halt the horses and then turned to Philip and said, “Look, water!  What is to prevent me from being baptized?”
Well – just about everything. By the commonly accepted standards of the religious worshipping community, Ebed - who was both “cut off” and not “cut” where it mattered - should have been cut off from the worship of God.  He should have been detested and avoided by the faithful.  Philip had contaminated himself by merely stepping into the chariot with this foreign eunuch. But none of this mattered to Philip on that dusty road. The two of them went down from the chariot to the water and Ebed was baptized by Philip.
For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
For as many of you were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor [Ethiopian], there is neither [Eunuch nor virile father].
For you are all one in Christ Jesus.[xi]
The “good Jesus news” brought to the Ethiopian eunuch in that desert place was that the Kingdom of God welcomes those who have been oppressed, and those who have suffered.  The Kingdom of God embraces those who have been cut and cut off. The Kingdom of God is open to those who would have been shut out – precisely because the Christ, the Messiah himself was a suffering servant of Yahweh. He was led, like a silent lamb, to the slaughter.  He was unjustly condemned and has, by virtue of his perfect obedience as the suffering servant, taken all of our condemnation upon himself.
This is the “good Jesus news” that we all need to hear, and we all need to share.



[i] Acts 8: 26 – 40
[ii] Based on the Ethiopian eunuch who rescued the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 38: 7 – 13)
[iii] It is possible that this Ethiopian Eunuch was Jewish but not certain.
[iv] Deuteronomy 23:1
[v] Flavius Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whiston, 1905.
[vi] Isaiah 56:3-5
[vii] And this is not a slur against Jews in general.  The condemnation is equally applied to many Christian congregations as well.
[viii] Isaiah 53:7-8 (NLT) The NIV also translates verse 8 with reference to progeny.
[ix] Not to be confused with Philip the Apostle of the Gospels.  The Evangelist Philip was one of seven chosen to be the first deacons of the Church (Acts 6).
[xi] A slight paraphrase of Galatians 3: 26 – 28 for this occaision.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Nimrod 3

"Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power.

-Josephus
Jeff Carter's books on Goodreads
Muted Hosannas Muted Hosannas
reviews: 2
ratings: 3 (avg rating 4.33)

Related Posts with Thumbnails