About a month ago, some fellow religion colleagues and I were having dinner and started bantering. During the banter, I suggested a course on religion and food. At the time, I was half-joking, but I have been occasionally thinking about it over the past month and increasingly think it would be an interesting course. Anthropologists have long discussed food and culture, and so there is already a lot of theoretical material out there. And different religious traditions have food laws, customs, etc. There are the discussions of food and sacrifice, often looking at sacrifice as a meal or the ritualization of a meal at least. There is, in Christianity, of course, the ritualized meal of the Eucharist.
So I have been trying to think of different types of course that could approach religion through food. There could be a comparative course that discusses different religious traditions through food, meals, cuisine. There could be a course in my own specialization of ancient Christianity and Judaism in its ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern contexts that focuses on food and religion in those contexts. Perhaps a course on Food and Christianity through the ages form antiquity, medieval, to modern periods. It seems, indeed, like a very flexible topic that could be quite fruitful as an upper level undergraduate course or perhaps a more advanced master's level course.
So, right now I am thinking about pitching such a course, but also wanting to compile a bibliography, either for background information for me (as the instructor) or for assignments. Some initial thoughts that came to mind are as follows:
Theoretical (Mostly Anthropological and Sociological) Treatments:
Claude Levi-Strauss, The Raw and the Cooked
Claude Levi-Strauus, The Origin of Table Manners
Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (which covers some food laws of the Hebrew Bible)
Carole Counihan, Food and Culture: A Reader--this has a great deal of interesting essays including theoretical treatments, discussions of particular groups (such as Jean Soler's famous treatment on Jewish food laws; Douglas's famous analysis of the meal; etc.)
Courtney Bender, Heaven's Kitchen
Sacrifice and Food:
Marcel Detienne and Jean-Pierre Vernant, eds., Cuisine of Sacrifice
Christianity (in different periods):
Hal Taussig, In the Beginning was the Meal
Caroline Walker-Bynum, Holy Feast, Holy Fast
Food and Identity (including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim material):
David Freidenreich, Foreigners and their Food
David Kraemer, Jewish Eating and Identity Through the Ages
These are things that I thought of, but there has to be so much more out there on Christianity and Food, Judaism and Food, and especially religious traditions with which I am far less familiar. If anyone has any suggestions on Food and Religion from a particular theoretical vantage point, a particular tradition, or a particular period of time, or a particular region, I would be very interested in hearing them. Moreover, if anyone has actually taught such a course, I would be interested in hearing what you did, how it went, and what you might do differently.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Thursday, February 16, 2012
The Beauty of Moses
I have been working through the different references to Moses in the New Testament for an upcoming project. While there are some well-worn topics discussed by scholars (Jesus as a prophet like Moses; which, from the other perspective, makes Moses a Proto-Christ; Moses as faithful servant; etc.), I was struck by a detail--one of the smallest of details--that shows up in the Acts of the Apostles in Stephen's speech and again in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Acts 7 and Hebrews are often discussed together, particularly for their rather similar views of the temple and the notation of Moses making the tabernacle "according to the pattern" shown to him--used in both texts to suggest a temple not made with hands and that God does not dwell in hand-made temples.
But there is another detail that I had not previously considered about Moses they share: his beauty. When Stephen begins his discussion of Moses (which takes up about half of his speech), he states:
First the terminology. Both Acts and Hebrews have the same term as found in Exodus: ἀστεῖος. It literally means "of the city," much like "urbane." It has a range of meanings relating to urbanity, such as well-bred, courteous, polite, refined, elegant, clever, pretty, and, as translated here, beautiful or lovely. I also did a quick and dirty search, and, as far as I can tell, in the New Testament this term only shows up in these two places. So, for at least these NT writers, it is something that is associated with Moses and not found with anyone else.
While considering use, we should also note that it always refers to his "beauty" at birth. It is used, in fact, as the reason used for his parents' sparing him: they spared him, hid him, covered him because he was beautiful.
But this is missing a bigger question, I think. Of all the passages, issues, characteristics, events of Moses' life, why remember this? Why bring it up? Is this a fixed part of tradition? Are there other traditions of Moses' "beauty"? Are there competing traditions of other figures' "beauty" that are not necessarily in the canon? This question of why to recall this at all may seem odd when considering Acts 7 as a whole, where half the discussion is Moses--perhaps it is bound to come up. Stephen talks about all kinds of events in Moses' life: his life in Egypt, his Exile, the Exodus, his meeting with the angel on the mountain, Sinai (somewhat), the golden calf, and the Tabernacle. The passage generally emphasizes how the people failed to understand Moses' divinely appointed role and how they continually rejected him (using him as a prototype for the later rejection of Jesus). Oddly, with all of this detail, the Passover is absent. The actual Sinai experience is also rather vaguely discussed. So, one might just say Stephen's speech has it because it has so much of the tradition, but, really, some major aspects of the Moses tradition emphasized so greatly elsewhere are downplayed here (the giving of the Torah on Sinai, though the burning bush episode receives extensive treatment, and the downplaying of the Passover). This suggests that what does show up is important. What is more, Acts 7:20 has a little editorial shift not found in Exodus or Hebrews: not only was Moses "beautiful," but he was "beautiful before God." Other texts usually just indicate his beauty in the eyes of his parents; here it is divinely acknowledged beauty. It is a heightening of Moses' beauty.
Stephen speaks of Moses' beauty in a string of attributes of and actions by Moses. In fact, the text emphasizes Moses' great qualities stating, "he was mighty in his words and his deeds." How much more interesting, then, is it that Hebrews, which discusses Moses much more succinctly, also mentions this quality. There are only four events mentioned in Heb. 11:23-28: (1) Moses beauty as a child and his parents hiding him; (2) his rejection of his Egyptian upbringing in which he becomes sort of a proto-Christian: "He considered abuse suffered for Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt"; (3) his vision of God "seeing him who is invisible"; (4) and the Passover. So, when it comes down to the four things to mention "by faith" Moses (or Moses' parents) did: hiding him due to his "beauty" made the cut. While mentioned elsewhere in Hebrews, Moses' vision of the pattern of the tabernacle is not here (see Heb. 8:5). Also mentioned elsewhere is Sinai (Heb. 12), but it is not here (not explicitly anyway). So, we receive an emphasis on Moses' beauty, his suffering (something also suggested in Acts 7), his vision of the invisible (something actually denied in Acts 7, where he meets an angel and, even then, looks away), and the Passover (something again ignored in Acts 7). Between the two passages (again, without mentioning other parts of Hebrews), the only things that overlap as worth mentioning, as deserving emphasis are Moses' beauty and his suffering--suffering in a way that foreshadows Christ and Christ-followers.
So, clearly his beauty was important enough to heighten it (before God) and mention it in the sketchiest of biographies. So why recall this aspect of Moses? Put another way: why is this social memory pattern preserved? Why Moses the beautiful, Moses the urbane, Moses the lovely, Moses "of the astu" for the earliest Christians?
But there is another detail that I had not previously considered about Moses they share: his beauty. When Stephen begins his discussion of Moses (which takes up about half of his speech), he states:
At this time Moses was born and was beautiful (ἀστεῖος) before God. (Acts 7:20)Similarly, in the "hall of faith" chapter of Hebrews, one reads:
By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful (ἀστεῖον). (Heb. 11:23)I am not particularly surprised by its occurrence, in and of itself. It appears to be merely a reference to the LXX version of Exodus 2:2: "Seeing that he [Moses] was beautiful (ἀστεῖον) they sheltered/covered him for three months." There it translates the Hebrew טוב. To see where the NT authors found the tradition of Moses' beauty at birth, one need look no further than Exodus. Nonetheless, I think it is worth stopping and considering.
First the terminology. Both Acts and Hebrews have the same term as found in Exodus: ἀστεῖος. It literally means "of the city," much like "urbane." It has a range of meanings relating to urbanity, such as well-bred, courteous, polite, refined, elegant, clever, pretty, and, as translated here, beautiful or lovely. I also did a quick and dirty search, and, as far as I can tell, in the New Testament this term only shows up in these two places. So, for at least these NT writers, it is something that is associated with Moses and not found with anyone else.
While considering use, we should also note that it always refers to his "beauty" at birth. It is used, in fact, as the reason used for his parents' sparing him: they spared him, hid him, covered him because he was beautiful.
But this is missing a bigger question, I think. Of all the passages, issues, characteristics, events of Moses' life, why remember this? Why bring it up? Is this a fixed part of tradition? Are there other traditions of Moses' "beauty"? Are there competing traditions of other figures' "beauty" that are not necessarily in the canon? This question of why to recall this at all may seem odd when considering Acts 7 as a whole, where half the discussion is Moses--perhaps it is bound to come up. Stephen talks about all kinds of events in Moses' life: his life in Egypt, his Exile, the Exodus, his meeting with the angel on the mountain, Sinai (somewhat), the golden calf, and the Tabernacle. The passage generally emphasizes how the people failed to understand Moses' divinely appointed role and how they continually rejected him (using him as a prototype for the later rejection of Jesus). Oddly, with all of this detail, the Passover is absent. The actual Sinai experience is also rather vaguely discussed. So, one might just say Stephen's speech has it because it has so much of the tradition, but, really, some major aspects of the Moses tradition emphasized so greatly elsewhere are downplayed here (the giving of the Torah on Sinai, though the burning bush episode receives extensive treatment, and the downplaying of the Passover). This suggests that what does show up is important. What is more, Acts 7:20 has a little editorial shift not found in Exodus or Hebrews: not only was Moses "beautiful," but he was "beautiful before God." Other texts usually just indicate his beauty in the eyes of his parents; here it is divinely acknowledged beauty. It is a heightening of Moses' beauty.
Stephen speaks of Moses' beauty in a string of attributes of and actions by Moses. In fact, the text emphasizes Moses' great qualities stating, "he was mighty in his words and his deeds." How much more interesting, then, is it that Hebrews, which discusses Moses much more succinctly, also mentions this quality. There are only four events mentioned in Heb. 11:23-28: (1) Moses beauty as a child and his parents hiding him; (2) his rejection of his Egyptian upbringing in which he becomes sort of a proto-Christian: "He considered abuse suffered for Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt"; (3) his vision of God "seeing him who is invisible"; (4) and the Passover. So, when it comes down to the four things to mention "by faith" Moses (or Moses' parents) did: hiding him due to his "beauty" made the cut. While mentioned elsewhere in Hebrews, Moses' vision of the pattern of the tabernacle is not here (see Heb. 8:5). Also mentioned elsewhere is Sinai (Heb. 12), but it is not here (not explicitly anyway). So, we receive an emphasis on Moses' beauty, his suffering (something also suggested in Acts 7), his vision of the invisible (something actually denied in Acts 7, where he meets an angel and, even then, looks away), and the Passover (something again ignored in Acts 7). Between the two passages (again, without mentioning other parts of Hebrews), the only things that overlap as worth mentioning, as deserving emphasis are Moses' beauty and his suffering--suffering in a way that foreshadows Christ and Christ-followers.
So, clearly his beauty was important enough to heighten it (before God) and mention it in the sketchiest of biographies. So why recall this aspect of Moses? Put another way: why is this social memory pattern preserved? Why Moses the beautiful, Moses the urbane, Moses the lovely, Moses "of the astu" for the earliest Christians?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)