In a study questioning hotel owners from around the world rated tourists by nationality and, to my surprise, the worst tourists are not Americans but the French!
While the French got props for dressing well to travel, evidently they are even worse than Americans when it comes to speaking local languages where they travel and adapting to local customs. They are often viewed as arrogant because of that, and somewhat tightfisted (since they have different tipping customs in France where the gratuity is included in the bill). Most French vacation in France, preferring that to traveling abroad. Brits and Germans are considered the best international travelers from Europe.
The very best tourists in the world, not surprisingly, are the Japanese.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Monster Mash
James Crossley has posted an interview by the infamous NT Wrong with Frances Flannery on her journal about religion and monsters, "Golem," named after that most famous Jewish monster. The interview is available here and the journal itself is available online here. All of the articles are available to download as .pdf.
I am happy to see two articles in the current issue on my very favorite breed of monsters: vampires! (Yes, I am absolutely fascinated by vampires.)
I am happy to see two articles in the current issue on my very favorite breed of monsters: vampires! (Yes, I am absolutely fascinated by vampires.)
Caritas in Veritate
I am usually somewhat repelled when Pope Benedict XVI makes an official statement, but I am intrigued by the new encyclical Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) recently released. In it, he basically softens anti-abortion language and calls for more socialized programs (medical, etc.) and redistribution of wealth. Someone has been reading the Gospel of Luke!
There are some responses to it here and here.
Here are some snippets of comments from Thomas Reese, S.J. (the first link above):
Has B16 moved left in response to the economic crisis? Or has he always promoted such redistributive economic policies?
On the issue of abortion, Anthony Stevens-Arroyo notes:
Arroyo is rather pessimistic about the new encyclical flying in Catholic America (symbolized by Peoria--I have a lot of friends in Peoria!), but summarizes it as follows:
This might be one of the few times I am drawn into agreement with the current pope on something.
There are some responses to it here and here.
Here are some snippets of comments from Thomas Reese, S.J. (the first link above):
Pope Benedict's long awaited encyclical calls for a radical rethinking of economics so that it is guided not simply by profits but by "an ethics which is people-centered."
"Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end," he writes in Caritas in veritate (Charity in Truth), but "once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty."
....
Sounding like a union organizer, Benedict argues that "Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country's international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting development."
Rather the goal should be decent employment for everyone, which "means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being forced into labor; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering one's roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who have retired a decent standard of living."
The pope disagrees with those who believe that the economy should be free of government regulation. "The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from 'influences' of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way," he writes. "In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise."
....
While Benedict acknowledges the role of the market, he emphasizes that "the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the market economy." He unflinchingly supports the "redistribution of wealth" when he talks about the role of government. "Grave imbalances are produced," he writes, "when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through redistribution."
Although Benedict's emphasis in the encyclical is on the theological foundations of Catholic social teaching, amid the dense prose there are indications, as shown above, that he is to the left of almost every politician in America. What politician would casually refer to "redistribution of wealth" or talk of international governing bodies to regulate the economy? Who would call for increasing the percentage of GDP devoted to foreign aid? Who would call for the adoption of "new life-styles 'in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments'"?
Has B16 moved left in response to the economic crisis? Or has he always promoted such redistributive economic policies?
On the issue of abortion, Anthony Stevens-Arroyo notes:
Caritas in Veritate makes two assertions that will limit its appeal to Catholic America. First, the issue of abortion is made one of many and removed from the center stage of political issues. The pope sidesteps the argument that the primary political concern of Catholicism is to abolish abortion. This will surprise folks outside the Church who have caricatured Catholicism as a Johnny-one-note on political issues. More importantly, this papal encyclical will disappoint the American Catholics - laity and clergy alike -- who have considered abortion as the intrinsic evil that compels all the church's political attention.
I am not suggesting that the encyclical revokes Catholic opposition to abortion (see #28). However, the pontiff contextualizes pro-life teaching by calling for remedies to the socio-economic causes of abortion, and much of the encyclical is dedicated to various aspects of how to end poverty and uplift the world's population with ample food, clean water, educational opportunities and the like (#43-51). Catholic Democrats will rightly consider this papal document to legitimize their alternative approach to Pro-life politics over the abortion-only policies that sounded very "Republican Party." Thus, the current divide in Catholic America will not be bridged with this instruction from Benedict XVI. In fact, the pope gives ammunition to the pro-life Democrats in their effort to reduce the number of abortions by addressing larger social issues.
Arroyo is rather pessimistic about the new encyclical flying in Catholic America (symbolized by Peoria--I have a lot of friends in Peoria!), but summarizes it as follows:
The pope says governments should redistribute wealth to sustain domestic social services and whenever granting international aid. Unions are to be encouraged (#22, 25), immigrant workers are to be respected (#25), and the profit motive must be subordinated to morality and social justice (#35-37). The redistribution of wealth and energy with emphasis upon the quality of life fits the European context of a mostly Socialist economy better than the current economic structures of the United States. The culprits in a global economy, according to the pope are Capitalism and secularism (#37-38).
This might be one of the few times I am drawn into agreement with the current pope on something.
Lod Mosaic
The rerevealing of the Lod Mosaic has made the NYTimes:
I know this came across the Agade listserve recently. I just hope it comes to the Met during the spring of 2010, so that it is in NY while I am still at Columbia.
The late-Roman-era mosaic floor, one of the largest and finest in Israel, was unveiled by the authorities last week for just the second time since it was discovered 13 years ago in the dilapidated eastern section of this poor town near the international airport, south of Tel Aviv.
Some 1,700 years old, the magnificent tiled floor spreads over almost 2,000 square feet, shaded from the harsh summer sun by a thin awning and surrounded by a canvas fence. A panoply of colorful depictions of birds, fish, exotic animals and merchant ships, the mosaic conjures up an intriguing reminder of Lod’s more glorious past.
The archaeologists of the Israel Antiquities Authority believe the mosaic, which lacks any inscriptions, was commissioned by a wealthy individual who owned a grand villa here. Lod, which is mentioned in the Bible, was an important center in ancient times, and this part of it is known to have been a neighborhood of the rich.
....
The Lod mosaic was discovered in 1996, when Miriam Avissar, an archaeologist for the Israel Antiquities Authority, was sent to carry out a routine salvage excavation because the local council wanted to widen a road. This area of old Lod was already known to be rich in mosaics, but most were badly damaged or under buildings.
“I saw a white frame, then a tiger,” said Ms. Avissar, who has recently retired, recalling her first glimpses of the mosaic. “It was completely flat and in marvelous condition.”
Once exposed, the mosaic was put on public display for a single weekend, during which some 30,000 Israelis flocked to see it. It was then covered up again while the antiquities authority sought financing to carry out the necessary conservation work and to build appropriate facilities at the site.
Donations have now been found and the project is being revived. The mosaic was briefly revealed last Wednesday to news organizations, and is to open to the public for three days, starting Thursday. It will then be removed to a laboratory in Jerusalem for painstaking conservation. In 2010, a section will be sent to the United States for exhibit at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.
Two years from now, the entire mosaic is supposed to be returned to this patch of ground in eastern Lod and put on permanent display in a protected environment.
I know this came across the Agade listserve recently. I just hope it comes to the Met during the spring of 2010, so that it is in NY while I am still at Columbia.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Weddings, Tartans, and Other Historical Bunk
One of the historian's first questions (other than when and where?) is cui bono or who benefits? In historiagraphy (the history of history), the one who benefits is the historian.
A review article at Salon.com discusses this in terms of weddings, Scottish history, and even the origins of WWII:
Being partly of Scottish descent, I had discovered that the tartans were of recent origin a long time ago, and I knew the whole thing about the white wedding dress and church weddings as well.
Like the tartans, much of the article speaks of retrospective creations that create ethnic and national groups:
A review article at Salon.com discusses this in terms of weddings, Scottish history, and even the origins of WWII:
July 9, 2009 | Let's start with something small. Many people believe that each of the tartan (plaid) patterns worn by Scottish Highlanders corresponds to a particular clan and that kilts made of this fabric have served as the uniforms and emblems of that clan since time immemorial. But, as the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper pointed out in a famous essay titled "The Invention of History: The Highland Tradition of Scotland," that simply isn't true. "Indeed," Trevor-Roper wrote, "the whole concept of a distinct Highland culture and tradition is a retrospective invention," cooked up in the 19th century. Much the same can be said of the customs of the "traditional" wedding (the elaborate church ceremony, the white dress, etc.), which were concocted a the same time. In fact, for most of the history of Christendom, a wedding was a low-key affair conducted at home without the benefit of clergy.
....
Yet kilts and bouquets have more common with simmering Weimar-era resentment than might initially seem. Even trivial "bad history," as MacMillan would call it, can be driven by profound desires. Trevor-Roper judged the "artificial creation of new Highland traditions, presented as ancient, original and distinctive," to be an attempt to assert a Scottish identity as a kind of protest against "Union with England." The idea of a gallant, free, Scottish tribal past appealed to the sensibility of the Victorian era as, too, did the notion of a very special white wedding dress; the first one was worn by Victoria herself when she married Prince Albert. Just as Scots thrilled to the idea of a rich native culture with deep roots, so we like to believe that the modern vision of wedlock as a union founded in true love is hallowed and eternal. Convincing ourselves that weddings have always been wrapped in sacred and sentimental rituals is like a charm against our suspicion that marriage may not be that romantic after all.
Being partly of Scottish descent, I had discovered that the tartans were of recent origin a long time ago, and I knew the whole thing about the white wedding dress and church weddings as well.
Like the tartans, much of the article speaks of retrospective creations that create ethnic and national groups:
Some people embrace "bad history" because it reinforces their national, regional or ethnic identity, as in the case of the Serbs or those Japanese conservatives who want archaeologists kept out of the ancient tombs of the royal family for fear that the remains found there will indicate that the emperors have non-Japanese ancestors. People seeking to keep the Irish divided once perpetrated the myth that only Protestants fought alongside the British in World War I, when in fact 210,000 Irish Catholics and nationalists volunteered. Others use the past to deflect attention from their own mischief, like the governing elites in China, who dwell on its history of colonialism, persecution and victimization at the hands of the West in order to invalidate any criticism from outsiders as more of the same.
The Maccabiades
I was reading Le Monde, as I do to keep up my French, and ran across an article on the Jewish Olympics, the Maccabiah Games or the Maccabiades. I had never heard of these games before, but evidently they have been going on since 1932. It is an event recognized by the international Olympic committee, and in 2009, they expect more than seven thousand participants from sixty countries.
It seems to be viewed as a training ground for the larger Olympics, the next to be held in London in 2012.
I was probably most intrigued by the name of these games, drawing on traditions of the Judah Maccabee and his brothers, who revolted against Seleucid rule in the second century BCE, after Antiochus IV "Epiphanes" desecrated the temple and basically outlawed Judaism. Judah, as recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus, fought off the Seleucid army, took back and restored the temple (from which we get Hanukkah), and whose brothers eventually took Judea, ruling as high priests and military governors and then kings (only to be succeeded by Herod the Great in 40 BCE). Is it the militancy of the Hasmoneans that these games remember? There is the whole situation of the Hellenization of Jerusalem by the ruling classes just before Antiochus IV came down to squash the Jewish practices. 2 Maccabees, in particular, (tendentiously) portrays the Maccabean revolt as one between "Judaism" (the first time this term ever appears as an "ism" in literature) and "Hellenism," which would make an Olympic games in the name of the Maccabeans highly ironic. Nonetheless, the Hasmoneans themselves did later take on the trappings of Hellenistic life once they attained sovereignty. Now their name is combined with that ultimate pan-Hellenic event: the Olympics.
Les Maccabiah Games, ou Maccabiades, réunissent tous les quatre ans des sportifs issus de la communauté juive, même si les Arabes israéliens peuvent également y participer. Lors de la première édition, en 1932, "il y avait trois cent quatre-vingt-dix athlètes, représentant dix-huit pays, venus essentiellement d'Europe mais aussi d'Egypte et de Syrie", explique Georges Haddad, président de la fédération française culturelle et sportive Maccabi, qui organise le déplacement de la délégation tricolore. "Aujourd'hui, cette compétition omnisports en est à sa 18e édition, elle est reconnue par le Comité international olympique, et en termes d'effectifs c'est la deuxième plus importante après les Jeux olympiques." Les organisateurs prévoient en 2009 une participation record, avec plus de sept mille athlètes, venant de soixante pays, allant des Etats-Unis (mille quarante personnes), au Kazakhstan, avec la plus modeste délégation (quinze personnes : une équipe de football).
....
Ces "Jeux olympiques juifs" revêtent forcément un caractère culturel et communautaire. Ainsi "certains athlètes ont découvert Israël à travers la Maccabiade", explique Georges Haddad. Et c'est également ce désir de découverte qui a motivé Jason Lezak. "C'est quelque chose que j'ai toujours voulu faire, mais les dates se heurtaient avec celles des championnats du monde", a déclaré le champion olympique américain devant la presse. "C'est une occasion formidable, et c'est non seulement important de nager ici, mais aussi de voir Israël. C'est une expérience unique pour moi, pas seulement pour la compétition, mais pour tout le reste."
It seems to be viewed as a training ground for the larger Olympics, the next to be held in London in 2012.
I was probably most intrigued by the name of these games, drawing on traditions of the Judah Maccabee and his brothers, who revolted against Seleucid rule in the second century BCE, after Antiochus IV "Epiphanes" desecrated the temple and basically outlawed Judaism. Judah, as recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus, fought off the Seleucid army, took back and restored the temple (from which we get Hanukkah), and whose brothers eventually took Judea, ruling as high priests and military governors and then kings (only to be succeeded by Herod the Great in 40 BCE). Is it the militancy of the Hasmoneans that these games remember? There is the whole situation of the Hellenization of Jerusalem by the ruling classes just before Antiochus IV came down to squash the Jewish practices. 2 Maccabees, in particular, (tendentiously) portrays the Maccabean revolt as one between "Judaism" (the first time this term ever appears as an "ism" in literature) and "Hellenism," which would make an Olympic games in the name of the Maccabeans highly ironic. Nonetheless, the Hasmoneans themselves did later take on the trappings of Hellenistic life once they attained sovereignty. Now their name is combined with that ultimate pan-Hellenic event: the Olympics.
New Look
For my regular visitors, seeing my blog today would be a shock! I have changed the template and color scheme. I do this about once a year, because I get bored with seeing the same template all the time. If you have any suggestions on color scheme, etc., let me know!
Heb. 2:10-11: A Discussion
I am revising my dissertation chapter on Hebrews, and since I am relating it to cosmogonic patterns that interlink creation, rest, sanctuary, and enthronement (beginning with the Enuma Elish, through the Pentateuch, and finally placed in the heavenly realm in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Hebrews), today I am collating all of my references to creation (under which I, in fact, include restorative Day of Atonement rituals since they restore the temple--itself representative of the cosmos--to its original state of creation). In case you are interesting, in the broader trajectory, the Sabbath (rest) and the Sanctuary (particularly the Tabernacle) become interlinked in an interesting manner, often becoming equivalent symbols, or equivalent expressions of holiness (Pentateuch and Ezekiel) and, I would argue in Hebrews, they are equivalent symbols expressing God's heavenliness; all throughout the tradition, they equivalently express proximity to God in what I call sacred spacetime. In Hebrews the play on space and time is most marked in Chs. 3-4 (where the author plays with rest traditions) and Ch. 9 (playing with the tabernacle).
Back to creation, though. Most of the references are fairly straightforward and nicely interlink creation, restoration (through purification of sins) and enthronement (within the heavenly sanctuary), but I am a bit baffled by the pronouns in Heb. 2:10-11. I could look to all my commentaries, etc., but I thought it would be more fun to tap all those Hebrews folk I know are online:
When coming to verse 10, just previously the pronoun "he" was used for the Son, for Jesus, who is tasting death for everyone (his sacrificial restoration). As it is in 1:2-3, the sacrificial restoration is juxtaposed to creation. There it was the Son "through whom" God created the world. Yet, if one keeps pronominal consistency, then this passage becomes muddled. Because "he" perfects the "pioneer" through suffering. The pioneer who suffers is clearly the Son, so the "he" "by whom" and "for whom" all things exist must be God.
What about the next part? Keeping with references, who is the "he who sanctifies"? Is it God? Or Jesus, the Son? If it is God, we have some consistency in pronouns, but if it is the Son, we have without much notice switched back. In fact, I think it has switched back, since that makes the most sense in the context of being "brethren," with Jesus' followers being identified with Jesus, and with what follows in verse 14, emphasizing that because "the children" shared in flesh and blood, "he" partook of the same nature.
This raises another issue, however. If "he who sanctifies" and "those who are sanctified" have the same origin, or, literally, "are all from one," what does that mean? Does the sanctifier and sanctified have the same origin in creation (i.e., both being created beings, although one, once created now creates)? If one is preexistent, are all the rest somehow preexistent? Are they from the same origin by soul, by body? They partake of the same nature of blood and flesh in v. 14, but is this what v. 11 is referring to?
Perhaps the thrust of the passage pushes toward the natural commonality, since, again, the flesh and blood and issue of sanctification will come to the forefront with the first mention of the "faithful high priest" in 3:17, who makes expiation for sins. Still, I do wonder what the "every respect" entails in 3:17. V. 18 suggests there is even greater identification than flesh and blood, but even ability to be tempted (which gives the Son his compassion).
UPDATE: J.K. Gayle, having commented below, has appended a discussion of this to an earlier post. Gayle's translation nicely plays on the "beginning" and "end" language. Although I still think that the accusative aspect of the noun "beginner" and the verb aspect of "to end/complete/perfect" needs to be accounted for. In Gayle's translation we lose the doubled subjects. While we lose the subjects, Gayle's translation, nevertheless, does help account for the subject shifts with γάρ marking shifts in paragraphs more generally and shifts in subject here.
"Nature" from v. 14 probably is an overtranslation (by RSV) of παραπλησίως μετέσχεν which is something like "partook of common resemblance/equality." The language in Hebrews, I would agree, should be more broadly construed. Nonetheless, I am not sure the author would distinguish between "natural" and "supernatural" in the same way we do today. What we call "supernatural" would be perfectly "natural." This division strikes me as an Enlightenment distinction, although it may have had predecessors (perhaps in Aristotles distinction between "physics" and "metaphysics"). I think the underlying distinction here may be between created and uncreated, or, perhaps following Ken Schenck, between "shakable" and "unshakable" (Heb. 12:26-28). Even so, there is strong identification between sanctifier and sanctified, perfecter and perfected, having a common "origin," which instills mercy and compassion in the heavenly high priest.
FURTHER UPDATE: Ken Schenk has offered a helpful, clear reading of this passage in the comments below.
Back to creation, though. Most of the references are fairly straightforward and nicely interlink creation, restoration (through purification of sins) and enthronement (within the heavenly sanctuary), but I am a bit baffled by the pronouns in Heb. 2:10-11. I could look to all my commentaries, etc., but I thought it would be more fun to tap all those Hebrews folk I know are online:
ἔπρεπεν γὰρ αὐτῷ, δι' ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ δι' οὗ τὰ πἀντα, πολλοὺς υἱοὺς δόξαν ἀγαγόντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῆς σωτηρίας αύτῶν διὰ παθημάτων τελειῶσαι. ὅ τε γὰρ ἁγιάζων καὶ οἱ ἁγιάζόμενοι ἐξ ἑνὸς πάντες; δι' ἣν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἐπαισχύνεται ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοὺς καλεῖν
For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified have all one origin. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brethren. (RSV)
When coming to verse 10, just previously the pronoun "he" was used for the Son, for Jesus, who is tasting death for everyone (his sacrificial restoration). As it is in 1:2-3, the sacrificial restoration is juxtaposed to creation. There it was the Son "through whom" God created the world. Yet, if one keeps pronominal consistency, then this passage becomes muddled. Because "he" perfects the "pioneer" through suffering. The pioneer who suffers is clearly the Son, so the "he" "by whom" and "for whom" all things exist must be God.
What about the next part? Keeping with references, who is the "he who sanctifies"? Is it God? Or Jesus, the Son? If it is God, we have some consistency in pronouns, but if it is the Son, we have without much notice switched back. In fact, I think it has switched back, since that makes the most sense in the context of being "brethren," with Jesus' followers being identified with Jesus, and with what follows in verse 14, emphasizing that because "the children" shared in flesh and blood, "he" partook of the same nature.
This raises another issue, however. If "he who sanctifies" and "those who are sanctified" have the same origin, or, literally, "are all from one," what does that mean? Does the sanctifier and sanctified have the same origin in creation (i.e., both being created beings, although one, once created now creates)? If one is preexistent, are all the rest somehow preexistent? Are they from the same origin by soul, by body? They partake of the same nature of blood and flesh in v. 14, but is this what v. 11 is referring to?
Perhaps the thrust of the passage pushes toward the natural commonality, since, again, the flesh and blood and issue of sanctification will come to the forefront with the first mention of the "faithful high priest" in 3:17, who makes expiation for sins. Still, I do wonder what the "every respect" entails in 3:17. V. 18 suggests there is even greater identification than flesh and blood, but even ability to be tempted (which gives the Son his compassion).
UPDATE: J.K. Gayle, having commented below, has appended a discussion of this to an earlier post. Gayle's translation nicely plays on the "beginning" and "end" language. Although I still think that the accusative aspect of the noun "beginner" and the verb aspect of "to end/complete/perfect" needs to be accounted for. In Gayle's translation we lose the doubled subjects. While we lose the subjects, Gayle's translation, nevertheless, does help account for the subject shifts with γάρ marking shifts in paragraphs more generally and shifts in subject here.
"Nature" from v. 14 probably is an overtranslation (by RSV) of παραπλησίως μετέσχεν which is something like "partook of common resemblance/equality." The language in Hebrews, I would agree, should be more broadly construed. Nonetheless, I am not sure the author would distinguish between "natural" and "supernatural" in the same way we do today. What we call "supernatural" would be perfectly "natural." This division strikes me as an Enlightenment distinction, although it may have had predecessors (perhaps in Aristotles distinction between "physics" and "metaphysics"). I think the underlying distinction here may be between created and uncreated, or, perhaps following Ken Schenck, between "shakable" and "unshakable" (Heb. 12:26-28). Even so, there is strong identification between sanctifier and sanctified, perfecter and perfected, having a common "origin," which instills mercy and compassion in the heavenly high priest.
FURTHER UPDATE: Ken Schenk has offered a helpful, clear reading of this passage in the comments below.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Jesus and the God of Israel (Chapter 3: "Most High")
Amazingly, I am going to be able to fit all of my comments on chapter 3 of Bauckham's Jesus and the God of Israel in one post! Follow the labels back to see the earlier posts.
Chapter 3 is about “The ‘Most High’ God and the Nature of Early Jewish Monotheism”
Of all the chapters I have read, I have found this one to be the most informative. In it B calls for listings and tables of divine names and titles in early Jewish literature to see which are popular and which are not in particular genres and in particular provenances. I think such an extensive study would be most useful indeed!
This chapter takes a small step towards this with a study of the term “Most High.” He tries to account for its high frequency, its significance, and how it sheds light on early Jewish monotheism.
Of course, to do this he must rehearse defining “monotheism” and “inclusive” versus “exclusive” monotheism. Again, inclusive monotheism, in B’s definition, is when the highest God is superlative in a gradient set—the highest god is strongest, wisest, loftiest, developing out of older polytheisms of
“Because these definitions of God’s uniqueness drive an absolute difference in kind between God and ‘all things’, they override any older gradient features of the Israelite-Jewish worldview (such as survive in some of the vocabulary used) and create an essentially binary view of reality.” (109)
In fact, this is quite a sophisticated observation, noting (in other words) how older terminology sediments, persists even as such terminology shifts in meaning. “Most high” may have originally presumed a “gradient” pantheon (whether we call it “inclusive monotheism” or simply “classical polytheism”). This definition of divinity, again, was inculcated (or perhaps maintained) by monolatry.
In this chapter, I see a lot more qualifying remarks, and recognitions of changes from the early Israelite-Jewish matrix into what emerged in the (late?) second temple period.
“Early Judaism turned monolatry (which had originally been concomitant of henotheism) into a powerful symbol of exclusive monotheism.” (109).
Unlike his earlier chapters, B is no longer equating monolatry (“practical monotheism”) with monotheism, but sees more of a process, perhaps a “dialectic” (I would say “dialogic”) process between them. With such statements as these, I am not sure we can completely label Bauckham as providing a “static” model of Jewish conceptions of God as James McGrath has recently said in his latest book (Only True God, 12-15), although, to be fair, this essay was not available when McGrath’s book was in press and B’s earlier work (and his earlier chapters in this same book) do present a fairly static view. Yet now these qualifying statements in this chapter are forcing me to reevaluate this. Perhaps B sees more dynamism between Israelite and second temple literature and more static in late second
On the issue of worship, B also notes:
“While appropriate honour might be accorded high-ranking creatures (but not in contexts where it might be mistaken for divine worship, and so usually not to angels or to rulers who claimed divinity), worship was different because it was acknowledgement of the transcendent uniqueness of the God of Israel.” (109).
With all of these qualifying remarks, nuancing his model to a greater degree than before in this book, B gets down to business and discusses the term “Most High.” It occurs 31 times in the Hebrew Bible (outside of Daniel; he excludes Daniel here and places it in
B thinks this title is a good test case because “most high” seems amenable to “inclusive monotheism” and can be found in widespread usage with regard to supreme deities in other systems of the Hellenistic and Roman periods—Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc., use this term. But as B would be the first to point out, the usage of the same term does not necessarily indicate the same meaning of that term, although it may.
To discuss this, he turns to one of his favorite texts: Deuteronomy (his other favorite is Second Isaiah). The extant passage of Deut. 32:8-9 has significant differences between the MT, LXX, and 4QDeutj. In this text the “Most High” apportions the nations either according to the number of the “sons of
An important note on terminology in the
Subsequently, B surveys “Most High” in early Jewish literature. Most uccurrences fall under three issues (with exceptions for poetic parallelism, habit, etc.):
(1)
(2) God as sovereign (seemingly most obvious association of “most high”). He discusses the holy of holies as the heights of heaven (which, in fact, probably should be mentioned under (1)), interlinking God’s sovereignty and cultic worship. Prayers with “most high” address God as supreme over all. Underlines God’s role as universal ruler and is connected with judgment.
(3) Use by or in relation to Gentiles: It is used in the literature by Gentiles to refer to Jewish God or by Jews referring to their God when in communication to Gentiles. Some uses here may be authentic, but probably a literary convention (especially with Gentiles referring to Jewish God as “most high” in Jewish literature!). This though links back to (2), since the title that denotes universal sovereignty would be the name most appropriate for Gentile usage (since they do not have the name “YHWH” revealed to them). In this way, the title “most high” in late second
Additionally, the term is very highly prevalent in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. There are 68 occurrences in 4 Ezra alone! 2 Baruch uses it more in combination with other titles, like “Mighty One,” which appears 43 times in comparison with the 24 occurrences of “Most High.”
For the remainder of the chapter, B discussion how the “most high” relates to the “gods.” He notes that very few biblical texts use “Elyon” in the context of the council of lesser gods (Deut. 32:8-9; Ps. 97:9; Ps. 82:6). He claims that these are isolated, unusual cases and would not influence the early Jewish reader (!?!?). I will reiterate my objection to this reasoning. Just because something is isolated or rare or is not the dominant trend, does not mean it is not significant, important, or influential. An early Jewish reader may have, in fact, been fairly taken by these passages. Three passages is often the amount of evidence he presents elsewhere to make his points; for example, he only posited three readers for the “established” understanding of the Deuteronomy passage above.
He further notes that in many passages “Most High” does not necessarily mean “the highest of the gods” but could be locative—that God is “on high.”
Even Psalm 82, he claims, the most “polytheistic” passage, has its supposed polytheism contradicted by the judgment that the “sons” will die like humans (v. 71):
“The strong impulse to draw an absolute distinction of kind between YHWH and all other reality, characteristic of Second Temple Judaism, is here already at work, despite the use of the very old terminology that was not designed to express that.” (119)
He writes that you cannot read “forward” these passages’ reconstructed original meaning to be how they were read by later Jews. I agree on this point. He recognizes that the language of the divine council is an older concept and that in the
Ok, so what we’ve been waiting for in wading through some of the statistical data: why
But this usage allows ambiguity—Greeks used the term primarily as a morphologically superlative whereas Jewish usage tended to be semantically superlative. Greeks see the “most high” has the highest in a series, but Jews use it for “God Most High.” So, this ambiguity and potentials for misunderstanding might be why Diaspora Jews avoided it for internal usage and only to meet Gentiles half way. When use by Philo, for example, he has to explain this differentiation of usage (Leg. 3.82).
B leaves open the issue of epigraphic usage, which is much muddier (although its ambiguity is itself an important datum). He also leaves aside the question of whether there was a general cult to Theos Hypsistos that spawned Jewish, Greek, and Christian usage. I find it disappointing that he does not triangulate his discussion by exploring epigraphic usages. A discussion of the Jewish epigram in the cave to Pan is an interesting case-in-point, although this may not be relevant for a chapter on “Most High.” It is something that is relevant to his more general discussion of ancient monotheism, nonetheless. Luckily, McGrath does discuss material remains in his book.
At the end of the chapter, B gives helpful tables of texts, provenance, and frequency of usage of the title “Most High.” I hope his further endeavors will seek out other divine titles in the same way. This is definitely the most informative chapter so far.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Sharp Word in 1 Enoch and Hebrews
I recall, but cannot pinpoint at the moment, Bauckham dismissing the importance of the Enochic corpus for early Christology (he was speaking of the famous scene of the enthronement of the Chosen One (later revealed as Enoch himself; 71:14) who will judge as "the exception who proves the rule" that no one other figure than God is enthroned and has rulership fo the cosmos. I tend to think the Enochic literature had a much further readership (or hearership), however. Clearly early Christians were reading Enochic books and considered it authoritative (see Jude), and, before the discovery of Aramaic fragments at Qumran, we only knew of 1 and 2 Enoch through Christian preservation, through the Ethiopic and Slavonic Churches respectively.
There is a passage in this very same Book of Parables in 1 Enoch, where the Chosen One is enthroned the reminds me of Hebrews.
First let's take a look at 1 Enoch 62:2:
And the Lord of Spiritsupon the throne of his glory, and the spirit of righteousness was poured upon him.And the word of his mouth will slay all sinners,and all the unrighteous will perish from his presence.
So we have the enthronement of the Chosen One, who is an exalted human figure, and his "word" slaying sinners and the unrighteous.
If you take this in reverse order, you might have Hebrews 4:12-16:
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (RSV)The passage then continues with the confidence a follower of Jesus has, since Jesus is the great high priest enthroned at the right hand of God. Enthronement is a preoccupation of Hebrews, and, in fact, the famous prologue commences this entire homily with Jesus' enthronement as Son. In chapter 4's enthronement passage coming on the heels of an extended meditation on unfaithfulness, the language of this sharp sword of the word of God, a scene of judgment in which Jesus' followers have hope while the unfaithful do not, sounds like an embellished expression of the slaying word of God of the enthroned Chosen One in 1 Enoch. Do we explain this similarity by the author of Hebrews appropriating an Enochic idea and elaborating it with great literary skill, claiming that this Chosen One is not Enoch, but Jesus? Or does everyone just think that the word of God in a scene of judgment in which a secondary figure exacts that judgment is sword-like and can slay? It is possible, but all of those elements only occur in these two passages so far as I know (although I would love for others to point out others for me). Whether independently expressing the same idea or not, when seeing these passages side by side, I must make an aesthetic judgment and note the much greater literary quality of Hebrews--this author was truly a gifted writer. Very few could express sword division more beautifully.
And Enoch Peed His Pants
As I am rereading 1 Enoch in George Nickelsburg's translation (since I cannot read Ge'ez), one thing I am noticing (and something I had noticed before on a more limited basis) is when Enoch is seized with fear and falls on his face. The first time this happens he ascends through the "houses" of the heavenly temple and comes into the inner chamber. At that point:
This passage in the Book of Watchers, in fact, follows an important part of the typical prophetic call narrative, where a prophet is called, has a vision, or something, and acts in some way to express unworthiness. Like Enoch here, for example, Ezekiel constantly falls on his face and is even picked back up by his hair! But one thing I do not recall ever seeing before in the typical scene of unworthiness or humiliation of the prophetic figure is what happens to Enoch in the Book of Parables:
For the most part, this follows the previous prophetic call humiliation. Enoch again experiences fear and trembling and falls on his face. But, unlike before, his "loins were crushed" and his "kidneys were loosened." I don't know if I should speculate on the crushing of the loins, but perhaps we should assume and hope that he had already begat Methusaleh before this vision! I am unaware of another prophetic/visionary figure who claims his loins were crushed. Ouch! In addition, I am unaware of any other visionary claiming his kidneys were loosened. If we were doing a "dynamic equivalent" translation, we could say that Enoch peed his pants. How embarrassing it must be to come before the "Head of Days" (60:2) with a sharp pain in a wet crotch!
Fear enveloped me, and trembling seized me,and I was quaking and trembling, and I fell upon my face(1 Enoch 14:13-14)
This passage in the Book of Watchers, in fact, follows an important part of the typical prophetic call narrative, where a prophet is called, has a vision, or something, and acts in some way to express unworthiness. Like Enoch here, for example, Ezekiel constantly falls on his face and is even picked back up by his hair! But one thing I do not recall ever seeing before in the typical scene of unworthiness or humiliation of the prophetic figure is what happens to Enoch in the Book of Parables:
And great trembling stook hold of me, and fear seized me,and my loins were crushed, and my kidneys were loosened,and I fell on my face.(1 Enoch 60:3)
For the most part, this follows the previous prophetic call humiliation. Enoch again experiences fear and trembling and falls on his face. But, unlike before, his "loins were crushed" and his "kidneys were loosened." I don't know if I should speculate on the crushing of the loins, but perhaps we should assume and hope that he had already begat Methusaleh before this vision! I am unaware of another prophetic/visionary figure who claims his loins were crushed. Ouch! In addition, I am unaware of any other visionary claiming his kidneys were loosened. If we were doing a "dynamic equivalent" translation, we could say that Enoch peed his pants. How embarrassing it must be to come before the "Head of Days" (60:2) with a sharp pain in a wet crotch!
Where Wisdom Dwells (NOT!)
Wisdom did not find a place where she might dwell,so her dwelling was in heaven.Wisdom went forth to dwell among the sons of men,but she did not find a dwelling.Wisdom returned to her place,and sat down among the angels.Iniquity went forth from her chambers,those whom she did not seek she found,and she dwelt among themlike rain in a desertand dew in a thirsty land.(1 Enoch 42:1-3; trans. Nickelsburg).
What a burn for Sirach 24! In fact, George Nickelsburg calls this passage a parody of Sir. 24, where Wisdom searches the whole earth for a place sto stay and lodges in Israel on Zion:
"And he [the Creator] said, "Make your dwelling in Jacob,and in Israel receive your inheritance." (Sir. 24:8)
Once Wisdom returns to heaven, Iniquity goes out. Iniquity clearly offers some sort of consolation as "rain" and "dew," but supposedly these would be temporary salves, pleasures that lead away from the eternal Wisdom, who, unlike in Sirach, can only be found in heaven. But who are those Inquiry found but did not seek? Is it that Iniquity seeks no one, but people seek her? Or, if the first part is a parody of Sir. 24, is this taking its lead from Prov. 9:13-18? Perhaps teh entire structure of this brief passage resembles all of Proverbs 9, since it too begins with Wisdom's place and ends with the "foolish woman," the counterrepresentation to Wisdom as Iniquity is here.
Yay for Codex Sinaiticus!
As nearly every other biblioblogger has noted already, the Codex Sinaiticus is now fully online (it seems). It originally went online last July 24 (2008), showing Mark (and I think one or two other biblical books). It has taken this long to get it fully in operation. Now you can read the entire thing.
Here is a snippet from the homepage:
It is really a fantastic site and gives you much important information (in addition to the digitized photographs of the codex itself).
Here is a snippet from the homepage:
Codex Sinaiticus
Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript – the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity – is of supreme importance for the history of the book.
It is really a fantastic site and gives you much important information (in addition to the digitized photographs of the codex itself).
Saturday, July 4, 2009
The Church of Twitter
The NYTimes is running a short article on religion and technology: how Jewish, Christian, and Muslim groups have embraced facebook, twitter, etc., but with some tensions.
It is fairly well-known that evangelical Christian groups are more technologically savvy with other religious groups lagging behind. Rick Warren and Joel Olsteen were some of the first (well-known) religious figures to be found on these social networking sites. Last year, the Pope started a facebook page.
I liked how the article opened on a passion play:
The question is: are these social networking sites somehow organizationally and intrinsically anti-authoritarian and, in fact, anti-traditional. Moreover, while they bring people together, they also keep people apart, alone with their computers. As such, are they intrinsically anti-community? Or if "anti-" is too strong a term for any of these questions, at least resistant to them?
The trade-off is that for more access to the faithful, you give up some control and you give up privacy--indeed, you may not ever know who is reading and listening and misinterpreting. You lose context. I am on a particular social networking site myself, but I tend to just keep my "friends" my friends.
What do you think?
It is fairly well-known that evangelical Christian groups are more technologically savvy with other religious groups lagging behind. Rick Warren and Joel Olsteen were some of the first (well-known) religious figures to be found on these social networking sites. Last year, the Pope started a facebook page.
I liked how the article opened on a passion play:
Things went smoothly for the first hour of the Twitter experiment at Trinity Church in Manhattan on Good Friday in April.
While hundreds of worshipers watched the traditional dramatization of the Crucifixion from pews in the church, one of New York’s oldest, thousands more around the world followed along on smartphones and computers as a staff member tweeted short bursts of dialogue and setting (“Darkness and earthquake,” “Crucify him!”).
The trouble began in the second hour.
Twitter’s interactivity — its essence — made it easy for an anonymous text-messager to insert an unscripted character into the Passion play: a Roman guard who breezily claimed, “I’ve got dibs on his robe.” When another texter introduced a rogue Mary Magdalene, the intrusion only confirmed the obvious: Twitter’s trademark limit of 140 characters per message is no bar against crudity.
The question is: are these social networking sites somehow organizationally and intrinsically anti-authoritarian and, in fact, anti-traditional. Moreover, while they bring people together, they also keep people apart, alone with their computers. As such, are they intrinsically anti-community? Or if "anti-" is too strong a term for any of these questions, at least resistant to them?
In online debates and private discussions, leaders of all faiths have been weighing pros and cons and diagramming the boundaries of acceptable interactions: Should the congregation have a Facebook page, or should it be the imam’s or priest’s? Should there be limited access? Censoring? Is it appropriate for a clergy member to “friend” a minor?
Some recoil at the informality and unpredictability of the crowds marshaled by social media, and at their seeming immunity — even hostility — to the authority of established institutions. More deeply, some in the clergy see a basic tension between the anonymous world of online life and the meaning of religious community.
“In Judaism, we believe that God resides in the community — among people in the same room at the same time, hearing each other’s voices and looking in each other’s eyes,” said Rabbi Gerald C. Skolnik of the Forest Hills Jewish Center in Queens, who also wanted it known that he carries an iPhone and a laptop and is talking with his congregation about a Facebook page.
“But can you tweet a minyan?” he asked, referring to the quorum of 10 people required for most Jewish devotions. “I don’t think so.”
....
“If total control is what you want, social media will frustrate you,” he said, reprising his advice to the clergy. “But the trade-off is the ability to hear and learn, reach out in new directions.” Many clerics, desperate to connect with young people, have been like radio dispatchers using the wrong bandwidth, he said. “The young don’t do e-mail anymore,” he said. “They do Facebook.”
....
The anxieties are different for every group. Some Muslim clerics have told followers to avoid making statements on social networking sites that antiterrorist investigators might misinterpret as suspicious.
It is assumed to be an irresistible listening post, said Farid Senzai, research director for the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, a Middle East policy group. Some imams advise people to avoid discussing politics, and especially to avoid mentioning Afghanistan or Pakistan, even if they have relatives there, he said.
For Roman Catholics, whose tradition requires every church in the world to follow the same liturgical script on any given Sunday, the main issue is message control. “It gets messy,” said Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York. “When people can post comments on your site, things can degenerate unless you are constantly monitoring.”
The trade-off is that for more access to the faithful, you give up some control and you give up privacy--indeed, you may not ever know who is reading and listening and misinterpreting. You lose context. I am on a particular social networking site myself, but I tend to just keep my "friends" my friends.
What do you think?
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The Vatican to Investigate U.S. Nuns
According to the NYTimes:
NT scholars may recognize Saunders from her book on John: Written that You May Believe. Although I admit I haven't read it.
Check out the rest of the article from the link above. Many of the nuns feel that there is not precipitating or justifying cause for an intervention at this time.
One of my committee members is a NT scholar nun.
The Vatican is quietly conducting two sweeping investigations of American nuns, a development that has startled and dismayed nuns who fear they are the targets of a doctrinal inquisition.
Nuns were the often-unsung workers who helped build the Roman Catholic Church in this country, planting schools and hospitals and keeping parishes humming. But for the last three decades, their numbers have been declining — to 60,000 today from 180,000 in 1965.
While some nuns say they are grateful that the Vatican is finally paying attention to their dwindling communities, many fear that the real motivation is to reel in American nuns who have reinterpreted their calling for the modern world.
In the last four decades since the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, many American nuns stopped wearing religious habits, left convents to live independently and went into new lines of work: academia and other professions, social and political advocacy and grass-roots organizations that serve the poor or promote spirituality. A few nuns have also been active in organizations that advocate changes in the church like ordaining women and married men as priests.
Some sisters surmise that the Vatican and even some American bishops are trying to shift them back into living in convents, wearing habits or at least identifiable religious garb, ordering their schedules around daily prayers and working primarily in Roman Catholic institutions, like schools and hospitals.
“They think of us as an ecclesiastical work force,” said Sister Sandra M. Schneiders, professor emerita of New Testament and spirituality at the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, in California. “Whereas we are religious, we’re living the life of total dedication to Christ, and out of that flows a profound concern for the good of all humanity. So our vision of our lives, and their vision of us as a work force, are just not on the same planet.”
....
The investigation was ordered by Cardinal Franc Rodé, head of the Vatican office that deals with religious orders. In a speech in Massachusetts last year, Cardinal Rodé offered barbed criticism of some American nuns “who have opted for ways that take them outside” the church.
Given this backdrop, Sister Schneiders, the professor in Berkeley, urged her fellow sisters not to cooperate with the visitation, saying the investigators should be treated as “uninvited guests who should be received in the parlor, not given the run of the house.” She wrote this in a private e-mail message to a few friends, but it became public and was widely circulated.
NT scholars may recognize Saunders from her book on John: Written that You May Believe. Although I admit I haven't read it.
Check out the rest of the article from the link above. Many of the nuns feel that there is not precipitating or justifying cause for an intervention at this time.
One of my committee members is a NT scholar nun.
Biblical Studies Carnival XLIII
The forty-third biblical studies carnival is up. Pat McCullough has translated The Apocalypse of Eve, which predicted two of my postings this past month: one on Augustinian farting and the other as part of the meme on the five most influential books that have affected the way I read ancient literature, particularly biblical literature.
I am not immediately sure why I am "Jared the Pebble."
I am not immediately sure why I am "Jared the Pebble."
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Costs of Higher Education
In the NYTimes "Room for Debate," there is a discussion on the worth of a master's degree in the current economic crisis. Again, my department chair has joined the discussion, offering his currently characteristically pessimistic perspective. He is right, however, that the M.A. is often a cash cow for a university and that its importance and worth will vary on a case by case basis on what you are getting it for, etc. Anyway, take a look, especially if you are going back to school because of the difficulties of current job market.
A Sabbath Poem
Because I read a lot on the Sabbath, I am largely drawn to places in literature and poetry where the Sabbath pops up. It shows up, for example, in a few Paul Celan poems. It is rumored that toward the end of his life, he kept a copy of Abraham Joshua Heschel's amazing meditation on the Sabbath on his nightstand. I just ran across a Dickinson poem that also speaks of the Sabbath, differentiating between the Sabbath of church and the Sabbath of creation/nature (or perhaps Nature):
She presents this nature's Sabbath as a more direct link to God (God is, indeed, the clergyman!) than to any organized religious service.
I personally do some things differently for the Sabbath--for example, I never do research on the Sabbath. I do think it is important to have one day set aside, although I don't think it matters what day you choose.
How do you, my dearest readers, keep the Sabbath?
Some keep the Sabbath going to church;
I keep it staying at home,
With a bobolink for a chorister,
And an orchard for a dome.
Some keep the Sabbath in surplice;
I just wear my wings,
And instead of tolling the bell for church,
Our little sexton sings.
God preaches,-a noted clergyman,-
And the sermon is never long;
So instead of getting to heaven at last,
I'm going all along!
She presents this nature's Sabbath as a more direct link to God (God is, indeed, the clergyman!) than to any organized religious service.
I personally do some things differently for the Sabbath--for example, I never do research on the Sabbath. I do think it is important to have one day set aside, although I don't think it matters what day you choose.
How do you, my dearest readers, keep the Sabbath?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)