N-Town and Writing on the Ground

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
-John 8:3-9.

At least for me, this is one of the most enigmatic moments in the New Testament. Jesus, almost oblivious to the going-ons around him, crouches, scribbling something on the ground. Just what he wrote is never revealed and the text indicates that Jesus' spoken words- not the written words- were what affected the scribes and Pharisees. Yet, was the act of writing really unrelated to the events? From a literary point of view, I would have to say absolutely not. First off, the act of stooping and writing appears twice. It is obviously more than just an irrelevant aside, besides, I see no indication of the author of John being that execrable an author. Also, most early versions and references do not mention the act of writing.[1] An odd detail to add if it had no bearing on Jesus' words. Furthermore, is it reasonable to suppose that the scribes and Pharisees paid no attention whatsoever to Jesus' strange behaviour, that none even attempted to see what he was writing?
It seems likely to me at least that the writing had some bearing on the words Jesus spoke. The solution adopted by the author (or authors) of the N-Town play, The Woman Taken in Adultery, is as good a guess as any. By fleshing out the dry bones of a story, drama can often reveal important insights. A story has to be shown in order to be effective. Mere declamation wont do.
The N-Town author discovered an important plot device in the act of writing on the ground, using it to propel the story forward to its conclusion.

Jesus.     Look which of you that never sin wrought,
              But is of life cleaner than she;
              Cast at her stones, and spare her nought,
              Cleant out of sin if that ye be.

Here Jesus, again stooping down, shall write on the ground, and all the accusers, as if put to shame, shall go apart into three separate places.

Pharisee.     Alas, alas I am ashamed!
                    I am afeard that I shall die;
                    All my sins, even properly named
                    Yon prophet did write before mine eye.
                    If that my fellows that did espy,
                    They will tell it both far and wide;
                    My sinful living if they out cry,
                    I wot never where my head to hide.

Accuser.     Alas, for sorrow mine heart doth bleed!
                   All my sins yon man did write;
                   If that my fellows to them took heed,
                   I cannot me from death acquit.
                   I would I were hid somewhere out of sight,
                   That men should me me nowhere see ne know;
                   If I be take, I am afflight
                   In mickle shame I shall be throw.

Scribe.     Alas the time that this betid!
                Right bitter care doth me embrace;
                All my sins be now unhid:
                Yon man before me them all doth trace.
                If I were once out of this place,
                To suffer death great and vengeance able,
                I will never come before his face,
                Though I should die in a stable.[2]

As in John 8, Jesus invites the scribes and Pharisees to execute the law in its full severity, provided they are free from sin. Ashamed, the accusers all leave in different directions, each having seen Jesus write out the exact sins they were guilty of commiting. That, according to the N-Town play, was the purpose of writing on the ground. The play in its entirety, in the original Middle English is available online.[3] In terms of simplicity, immediacy and emotional impact, The Woman Taken in Adultery is one of the finest medieval plays.

[1]http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf

[2]Adapted by A. C. Cawley, "Everyman and Medieval Miracle Plays," pp. 140-141.

[3]http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/sdnt24frm.htm

John the Baptist and the Essenes

One of the riddles posed by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is what John the Baptist's relationship to the Essenes and the Qumran community would have been like. Was he a member of that community or not? Even if we approach this question cautiously, it seems a strange and striking coincidence that two groups in the same region (the Judaea, wilderness) at the same time (the early part of the first century CE) would be teaching a similar ideology (repentance, ritual purification, and an imminent eschatology), yet not have any contact or relationship one with another, be it positive or negative.
In a classic study, Otto Betz proposed that John the Baptist grew up in the Essene community, but left it to act as a prophet, preaching repentance to the wider Jewish community.[1]
I find this view not only appealing, but very persuasive too. It takes into account not only the similarities but also the differences between John and the Essenes.
I see no reason to believe that John lived in a cultural vacuum. Where and who we grow up around influences the path we take and the way in which we view things, be we prophets or be we laymen.

In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
-Matthew 3:1-4.

The Gospel of Matthew describes John the Baptist in terms reminiscient of the prophet Elijah's physical appearance, but also as the fulfilment of Isaiah 40:3.
The Essene community saw the same Isaiah verse as a call to separate themselves from the community at large and live in the wilderness as part of God's true society.

When such men as these come to be in Israel, conforming to these doctrines, they shall separate from the dwelling-place of the men of perversion in order to go to the wilderness to prepare there the way of truth, as it is written (Is.40:3): ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God!’—this means the expounding of the Law, decreed by God through Moses for obedience, that being defined by what has been revealed for each age, and by what the prophets have revealed by His holy spirit.
-Manual of Discipline 8:12–16.

This Manual of Discipline (Serech ha-Yahad, or the Community Rule) contains the rules of conduct to be followed by all those associated with the Essenes.
Josephus writes that although the Essenes did not utterly reject marriage, they would seek out "other persons' children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, esteeming them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners."[2] It seems more than likely that if John was brought up in an Essene environment then the same Isaiah verse that formed a large part of the Essene identity would shape the way that John (and his followers) conceived of his own mission.
Ritual purification was important to all Jewish groups, and Qumran was no exception, with several ritual pools (mikveh) being found there. still, the mere ritual of immersion was considered ineffective if the individual did not repent and accept upon himself God's commandments, as interpreted by the Yahad (the way the Essenes seemed to have refered to their community).

So shall all together comprise a Yahad whose essence is truth, genuine humility, love of charity and righteous intent, caring for one another after this fashion within a holy society, comrades in an eternal fellowship...
Yet he cannot be justified by what his willful heart declares lawful, preferring to gaze on darkness rather than the ways of light. With such an eye he cannot be reckoned faultless. Ceremonies of atonement cannot restore his innocence, neither cultic waters his purity. He cannot be sanctified by baptism in oceans and rivers, nor purified by mere ritual bathing. Unclean, unclean shall he be all the days that he rejects the laws of God, refusing to be disciplined in the Yahad of His society.
-Manual of Discipline 2:24-25, 3:3-6.

Josephus writes of John the Baptist that he was "a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to for the remission of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."[3]
Otto Betz described another common thread between John and the Essenes, the combination of the priestly and the prophetic.
"In ancient Israel the spirit of prophecy often opposed the theology of the priests (see, for example, Amos 5:22; Isaiah 1:11–13; Jeremiah 7:21–26). The prophets warned the people not to rely too heavily on the Temple and on the atoning effect of sacrifice. Both the Essenes and John the Baptist, however, succeeded in combining the prophetic and the priestly ideals in a holy life, ritually pure but characterized by repentance and the expectancy of the final judgment. John’s disciples were known to fast (Mark 2:18) and to recite their special prayers (Luke 11:1). These two acts of piety also appear in the Qumran texts. Infraction of even minor rules was punished by a reduction in the food ration, which meant severe fasting (Manual of Discipline 7:2–15). And there are several special prayers in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among them are the beautiful Thanksgiving Hymns from the scroll found in Cave 1. Cave 11 also produced a scroll of psalms in which new prayer were inserted into a series of Psalms of David.
The Qumran Essenes separated themselves from the Jerusalem Temple and its sacrificial cult. The Temple’s offerings of animals were replaced by the “offerings of the lips” (that is, prayers) and by works of the Law. Man must render himself to God as a pleasing sacrifice; he must bring his spirit and body, his mental and physical capacities, together with his material goods and property, into the community of God. In this community all these gifts will be cleansed of the pollution of selfish ambition through humble obedience to the commandments of God (Manual of Discipline 1:11–13)."[4]
In ancient Israel, the temple linked God and man and the sacrifices in it atoned for Israel's sins and transgressions. The Essenes considered the contemporary priests who officiated at the temple to be corrupt and perverse. The separatist community of the Essenes saw itself as truly holy, and applied the role of the temple to their community.

When such men as these come to be in Israel, then shall the party of the Yahad truly be established, an "eternal planting" (Jubilees 16:26), a temple for Israel, and- mystery!- a Holy of Holies for Aaron; true witnesses to justice, chosen by God's will to atone for the land and to recompense the wicked their due. They will be "the tested wall, the precious cornerstone" (Isa 28:16) whose foundations shall neither be shaken nor swayed, a fortress, a Holy of Holies for Aaron, all of them knowing the Covenant of Justice, and thereby offering a sweet savor. They shall be a blameless and true house in Israel, upholding the covenant of eternal statutes. They shall be an acceptable sacrifice, atoning for the land and ringing in the verdict against evil, so that perversity ceases to exist.
-The Manual of Discipline 8:4-10.

John taught a similar doctrine.

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
-Matthew 3:8-9.

Acording to Betz, "this famous saying contains a marvelous play on words in Hebrew. “Children” is banim; “stones” is abanim. The saying thus presupposes the idea of a living temple “of men.” John is saying that God can create genuine children of Abraham “from these stones” and build them into the sanctuary of His community. In the Temple Scroll from Qumran, God promises that he will “create” a sanctuary at the beginning of the new age; this he will do according to the covenant made with Jacob at Bethel (Temple Scroll 29:7–10). At Bethel, Jacob had declared: “This stone [the pillar that Jacob had erected] shall become the house of God” (Genesis 28:22). Both the Qumran community and John the Baptist believed in the creative power of God that will manifest itself at the end of time, as it did in the beginning. Then God will establish the true sanctuary and the ideal worship, which are anticipated both in the life of the Qumran community and in the life that John preached."
There are many more similarities between the life and teachings of John and the Essenes, but there are also some important differences which need to be pointed out.
The Essenes were a closed community within Israel, concerned with their own salvation, whereas John saw himself as a reforming prophet reaching out to all his people.
He didn't turn the people into monks living in the wilderness, but after repenting and being baptised they went back to their lives, their families and their jobs. John was the voice in the wlderness, the people weren't.
John also was outspoken in his politics, attacking the Herodians for their moral depravity, something the Essenes do not appear to have done.
I will leave Otto Betz the final word.

Both biblical traditions—the priestly one and the prophetic one—influenced the Essenes just as they did John the Baptist.
I believe that John grew up as an Essene, probably in the desert settlement at Qumran. Then he heard a special call of God; he became independent of the community—perhaps even more than the Essene prophets described by Josephus. With his baptism of repentance, John addressed all Israel directly; he wanted to serve his people and to save as many of them as possible.
The Essenes of Qumran no doubt prepared the way for this prophetic voice in the wilderness. They succeeded in combining Israel’s priestly and prophetic heritage in a kind of “eschatological existence.” The Essenes radicalized and democratized the concept of priestly purity; they wanted a true theocracy and sought to turn the people of God into a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:5–6).
A particular motif of their peculiar piety was the eschatological hope. In the age to come, they believed, there would be only one congregation of holy ones in heaven and on earth; then angels and men would worship together. Therefore, the liturgy and the sacred calendar used in heaven for the time of prayer and the celebration of the feasts served as a model for Essene worship even in the present. In heaven, animals are not sacrificed and offered to God; the angels use incense and sing hymns of praise. Therefore, on earth they had no need of the Jerusalem Temple. The Essenes believed that a living sanctuary of holy men could render a more efficient ministry of atonement than animal sacrifices, offered by an unclean priesthood (Manual of Discipline 8:6–10; 9:4–5).
But the Essenes also incorporated the traditions of the prophets into their beliefs. The prophet had little if anything to do with the Temple and sacrifice; the prophet tried to accomplish atonement through his personal commitment and effort to change the hearts of his audience. Because the Essenes were a movement of repentance, they adopted the prophetic tradition, despite their leadership of priests. Their Teacher of Righteousness was a priest who acted in a prophetic way.
This was true as well for John the Baptist. He was the son of a priest and practiced the laws of priestly purity in a radical way. But in his ministry for Israel he acted as a prophet, as the Elijah redivivusf to announce the coming of the Messiah. In his baptism, both traditions were combined, just as they were in the Essene philosophy: the priestly laws of ritual purity were combined with the prophetic concern for repenting, returning to God and offering oneself to Him. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that John the Baptist was raised in the tradition of the Essenes and may well have lived at Qumran before taking his message to a wider public.
-Otto Betz, Was John the Baptist an Essene?

[1]Betz, Otto. Was John the Baptist an Essene?. Bible Review, Dec 1990, 18-25.

[2]Josephus, The Jewish Wars, 2.8.2

[3]Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18.5.2.

[4] Betz, BR, Dec 1990.

Introducing the Synagogue

Last week in Sunday school someone commented that "Jesus never taught in the synagogues. He went out to the people."
I held my peace.
Laying aside the fact that the gospels do state that Jesus taught in synagogues, I want to address the assumption that synagogues were some sort of stronghold of a distant, detached religious elite. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In Hebrew a synagogue is beit-kneset, or the place of the assembly, or congregation. Knesset Israel is one of the epithets frequently applied to the entire Jewish community. Another term for synagogue was beit ha-am, or place of the people.
The synagogue was a building for the community, built and maintained by the community.

Theodotus, son of Vettanos, a priest and
an archisynagogos (head of the synagogue), son of an archisynagogosgrandson of an archisynagogos, built
the synagogue for the reading of
Torah and for teaching the commandments;
furthermore, the hostel, and the rooms, and the water
installation for lodging
needy strangers. Its foundation stone was laid
by his ancestors, the
elders, and Simonides
-The Theodotus Inscription.

This inscription shows the dual role of the synagogue both as a religious building and as a secular one. The scriptures were read and expounded in it, but it also contained guest rooms for lodging strangers. Lee I. Levine describes the synagogue as "the Jewish public building par excellence," and states that it functioned "first and foremost as the central communal institution in each community."[1]
The synagogue was where the community gathered, where meetings of all kinds were held, where children were given an education, where the community dealt with internal discipline and legal squabbles, where communal feasts were given, and where visitors could be lodged. On sabbaths and holidays people would gather to the synagogue to offer prayer and to read and expound portions of the Pentateuch and other biblical writings.[2] This was particularly important for members of the community in an age where literacy rates were lower than today, and where scrolls were rare and costly.
The synagogue readings were their most frequent exposure to the scriptures.
Rabbis, as we understand them, did not exist during Christ's day. They grew out of a Pharisaic movement led by Yohanan ben Zakkai in Jamnieh after the temple was destroyed. Even during the 3rd century the rabbis did not control the synagogue.
Rabbi Simeon would translate (and expound in the process) the Bible verses read in the synagogue of Tarbanat. The congregation requested that he only translate half a verse at a time, so they could explain it to their children. When R. Simeon refused, the congregation had him dismissed from his role as preacher.[3]
This would have been unimaginable if the people did not control the synagogue.
There is much more that could be written about ancient synagogues, but this introduction should be enough to dispell some common misconceptions encountered by the reader of the New Testament.
A final word on the picture at the beginning of my post. This is part of the synagogue discovered at Capernaum. It is several centuries later than Jesus, but is probably built over the one he frequented.

[1]Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity, pg. 139.

[2]Lee I. Levine, From Community Center to 'Lesser Sanctuary': The Furnishings and Interior of the Ancient Synagogue, Cathedra 60.

[3]Lee I. Levine, The Galilee in Late Antiquity, pg. 212.

The Prophetic High Priest

But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
-John 11:46-53.

Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, which alarmed the religious and political elite. Raising the dead was a distinctly messianic act, and the leaders were afraid that the majority of people would follow Jesus as the king and probably attempt to reestablish a Jewish kingdom. The Romans most certainly would come down like a ton of bricks on anything they considered a threat to their political hegemony. In the ancient world, where religion was public and political, this would mean that Jewish practices, such as temple worship, dietary laws, festivals and circumcision would have been abolished. The reign of the seleucid Antiochus Epiphanes and the disastrous aftermath of the Jewish revolts against the Romans bear ample witness that such fears were justified.
Caiaphas, the high priest at the time, spoke up, offering realistic political advice. By killing Jesus you would stop the popular movement. The author of John, however, interprets this as an unconscious prophecy of Jesus' true role.
John connects Caiaphas' ability to prophecy true prophecies with his role as high priest.
This is in keeping with how the high priesthood was understood in the Judeo-Hellenistic millieu, as the following quotes will show.
Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the mid 9th century AD, compiled the Bibliotheca, reviews of a couple hundred books he had read. He provides many extracts, including one from the Roman historian Diodorus, quoting On the Egyptians, a work of ethnography by Hecataeus of Abdera, a member of Ptolemy I's court.

Authority over the people is regularly vested in whichever priest is regarded as superior to his colleagues in wisdom and virtue. They call this man high priest [archierea], and believe that he acts as messenger [angelon] to them of God's commandments. It is he, we are told, who in their assemblies and other gatherings announces what is ordained.
-Diodorus, Library of History, 40.3.

Josephus relates an incident involving the Hasmonean high priest and ruler John Hyrcanus.

Now a very surprising thing is related of this high priest Hyrcanus, how God came to discourse with him; for they say that on the very same day on which his sons fought with Antiochus Cyzicenus, he was alone in the temple, as high priest, offering incense, and heard a voice, that his sons had just then overcome Antiochus. And this he openly declared before all the multitude upon his coming out of the temple; and it accordingly proved true; and in this posture were the affairs of Hyrcanus.
-Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 13.10, 3.

Josephus also describes an earlier incident of prophecy which occuredwhen Alexander the Great fought at Tyre and Gaza. The high priest Jaddua, a vassal of Darius, was reluctant to aid Alexander. This naturally did not sit well with Alexander, who planned to march on Jerusalem and punish its inhabitants. Jaddua called for public penitence and supplication in hope that God would avert the approaching disaster.

Whereupon God warned him in a dream, which came upon him after he had offered sacrifice, that he should take courage, and adorn the city, and open the gates; that the rest should appear in white garments, but that he and the priests should meet the king in the habits proper to their order, without the dread of any ill consequences, which the providence of God would prevent. Upon which, when he rose from his sleep, he greatly rejoiced, and declared to all the warning he had received from God. According to which dream he acted entirely, and so waited for the coming of the king.
-Josephus, Antiquites, 11.8, 4.

.
Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, says of high priests that they were also prophets.

The real genuine priest is at once also a prophet, having attained to the honor of being allowed to see the only true and living God, not more by reason of his birth than by reason of his virtue. And to a prophet there is nothing unknown, since he has within himself the sun of intelligence, and rays which are never overshadowed, in order to a most accurate comprehension of those things which are invisible to the outward senses, but intelligible to the intellect.
Philo, The Special Laws, 4.36.

In contrast with John description of Caiaphas prophesying, the above accounts are all positive, revolving around pious, virtuous high priests. This contrast shows how intertwined the idea of prophecy with the high priesthood was in John's time, that even a wicked high priest could make true prophecies.

Is Not This the Carpenter?

The traditional image of Christ's profession is that of a carpenter. Through the ages this image has been featured in works of art[1], literature[2], music[3], and even film[4].
In the 1970s, Geza Vermes challenged this understanding of Christ as a carpenter.

Those familiar with the language spoken by Jesus are acquainted with a metaphorical use of 'carpenter' and 'carpenter's son' in ancient Jewish writings. In Talmudic sayings the Aramaic noun denoting carpenter or craftsman (naggar) stands for a 'scholar' or 'learned man' :
'This is something no carpenter, son of carpenters, can explain.'
'There is no carpenter, nor a carpenter's son, to explain it'
Thus, although no one can be absolutely sure that the -sayings cited in the Talmud were current already in first-century AD Galilee, proverbs such as these are likely to be age-old. If so, it is possible that the charming picture of 'Jesus the carpenter' may have to be buried and forgotten. -Geza Vermas, Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, 21-22.

On the face of it, Geza Vermes presents a strong case. Is it though?
The talmudic passage geza Vermes refers to begins at the very end of the Balynoian Talmud, m. Avodah Zarah, 50a.

R. Joseph b. Abba said: Rabbah b. Jeremiah once visited our town. When he came he brought with him this teaching: If an idolater took stones from a Mercurius and paved roads and streets with them, they are permitted; if one of Israel took stones from a Mercurius and paved roads and streets with them, they are prohibited; and there is no carpenter nor carpenter's son who could dismantle it. R. Shesheth said: I am neither a carpenter nor a carpenter's son, yet I will dismantle it.
אמר רב יוסף בר אבא איקלע רבה בר ירמיה לאתרין ואתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה <עובד כוכבים> {גוי} שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וטרטיאות
מותרות ישראל שהביא אבנים מן המרקוליס וחיפה בהן דרכים וסרטיאות אסורות ולית נגר ולא בר נגר דיפרקינה אמר רב ששת אנא לא נגר אנא ולא בר נגר אנא ופריקנא

The phrase we-leyith naggar we-la bar naggar diparkeina literally means there is no carpenter or son of a carpenter to dismantle it.
The context is of a rabbinic debate in Babylon over the propriety of a Jew taking stones from a pile dedicated to Mercury and using them in construction. If a Jew does it, the road he paved is forbidden for Jewish use, yet the same thing done by an idolater is permitted. This is said by the Amoraic rabbis to be such a difficult question that there is no carpenter or son of a carpenter to dismantle it. We are obviously dealing here with a proverb, one that seems to mean a problem none can solve. Rav Sheshet says that though he is no carpenter or son of a carpenter, he can solve the problem. Rav Sheshet was a Torah scholar addressing other Torah scholars! If a carpenter was a metaphor for scholar, then the use of it here is rather bewildering. Geza Vermes' interpretation seems to be drawn from what Rashi had wriiten centuries earlier in his commentary to the Babylonian Talmud.

Carpenter... carpenter's son - scholar... scholar's son.
Diparkeinah - who could explain it and explain why the matter before us is difficult.
נגר בן נגר - חכם בן חכם
דיפרקינה - שיוכל לתרצה ולקמן מפרש מאי קא קשיא ליה

Elsewhere in the Talmuds, whenever the word naggar appears, it is always in the context of an actual carpenter or woodworker. Even Rashi explains bar naggara (carpenter's son) as an ordinary woodworker[5].
The context of Mark 6 does not fit a metaphorical reading of the word carpenter either.

And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him. And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. -Mark 6:1-3.

The people of Nazareth hear Christ teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath and are surprised, indeed, startled by his wisdom (and perhaps his originality as well). Why would that come as a surprise if carpenter were a metaphor for learned scholar? The surprise of the people is due rather to their not expecting one of the regular guys, a carpenter whose family everybody knows, to be able to expound scriptures like that.
An added factor to consider is that next door almost to Nazareth was the big, bustling city of Sepphoris, which was undergoing a building boom during Christ's lifetime. A carpenter would be a logical choice of profession. In those days, a carpenter was more of a contractor, he helped with blueprints, and tricky, technical work, such as hinges and shutters. It was one of the only professions to be paid in money. By today's standards, Christ was probably lower middle class.
All in all, I think the "charming picture" stands.



[1]Luca Cambiaso, "The Holy Family in the Carpenter's Shop: Jesus hold a lamp while Joseph carves a design."

[2]Elizabeth Linton, "The True History of Joshua Davidson."

[3]Christopher Wren, "Jesus Was a Carpenter."

[4]Owen Wilson's character in "Meet the Parents."

[5]See Rashi's commentary on the Babylonian Talmud, m. Baba Bathra, 73b.

[6]Miriam Feinberg Vamosh, Daily Life at the Time of Jesus, pg. 51.

He Gave His Cheek to Him that Smiteth Him

My friend Walker posted on his blog something I had written for an online debate with a notorious evangelical anti-Mormon over the context of certain portions of the Sermon on the Mount.

There are five occurences of smiting the cheek in the Old Testament. Six, if you count a duplicate in Chronicles.

The implications of smiting on the cheek are made clear in the following two scriptures.

"They have gaped upon me with their mouth; they have smitten me upon the cheek reproachfully; they have gathered themselves together against me." - Job 16:10.

"He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him: he is filled full with reproach." -Lam 3:30.

In these verses, smiting on the cheek is linked to insults. This holds true as well for the following three scriptures:

"And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may enquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so. Then the king of Israel called an officer, and said, Hasten hither Micaiah the son of Imlah. And the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat the king of Judah sat each on his throne, having put on their robes, in a void place in the entrance of the gate of Samaria; and all the prophets prophesied before them. And Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah made him horns of iron: and he said, Thus saith the LORD, With these shalt thou push the Syrians, until thou have consumed them. And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramothgilead, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the king's hand. And the messenger that was gone to call Micaiah spake unto him, saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good unto the king with one mouth: let thy word, I pray thee, be like the word of one of them, and speak that which is good. And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, what the LORD saith unto me, that will I speak. So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king. And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the LORD? And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.
And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil? And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee. But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee? And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself. And the king of Israel said, Take Micaiah, and carry him back unto Amon the governor of the city, and to Joash the king's son; And say, Thus saith the king, Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I come in peace. And Micaiah said, If thou return at all in peace, the LORD hath not spoken by me. And he said, Hearken, O people, every one of you." - 1 Kgs 22:8-28.

At the city gates (centre of public life), in front of the leaders of the people, Zedekiah slaps Micaiah on the cheek, humiliating him, this for attempting to deceive the kings.

"Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek." - Micah 5:1 (4:14).

The besieging enemy will smite the ruler with a rod (symbol of authority) upon the cheek, an humiliating gesture of subjugation.

"I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people, that have set themselves against me round about. Arise, O LORD; save me, O my God: for thou hast smitten all mine enemies upon the cheek bone; thou hast broken the teeth of the ungodly." - Psalm 3:6-7 (7-8)

The Psalmist calls upon the Lord to inflict a humiliating and crushing defeat on his enemies.

Now on to material from the rest of the ancient Near East:

In the "Descent of Ishtar into the Netherworld," Ereshkigal of the abode of the dead curses a eunuch (or government official) with a great curse and says:

"The food of the gutters of the city shall be your food;
The sewers of the city shall be your drink;
The shadow of the wall shall be your station;
The threshold shall be your habitation;
the besotted and the thirsty shall smite your cheeks."

The eunuch will live in the gutter, and be humiliated by the lowest of the low- the drunks and bums.

An Akkadian maqlu text preserves the following imprecation:

"I strike your cheek, I tear out your tongue." - G. Meier, "Die assyrische Beschworung Maqlu", 50, 8:101.

As part of the Akitu, or Babylonian New Year ritual, the urgallu, or priest, would do the following on day five:

"After reciting this, he shall remove the table; he shall summon the craftsmen together, he shall deliver the table with all that is on it to the craftsmen, and shall cause them to carry it to Nabu; the craftsmen shall take it, they shall go in the…to the bank of the canal; when Nabu arrives at ….they shall set it up for Nabu; when they have placed the table before Nabu, while Nabu is getting out of the ship Id-da-he-du, they shall offer the loaves of the table; then they shall place on the table water to wash the hands of the king. Then they shall conduct the king into Esagila; the craftsmen shall go out of the gate. When the king has come in before Bel, the urigallu shall come out of the chapel; then he shall receive from the hands of the king, the scepter, the ring, and the harpe, or ceremonial weapon; he shall take his royal crown; he shall bring these things in before Bel, and shall place them on a seat before Bel. He shall come out of the chapel; he shall strike the king's cheek; he shall place…behind him; he shall bring him before Bel; he shall pull his ears; he shall make him kneel on the ground; the king shall repeat the following once:

I have not sinned, lord of the countries; I have not despised thy divinity;
I have not destroyed Babel; I have not caused it to be scattered;
I have not shaken Esagila; I have not forgotten its rituals;
I have not smitten suppliants on the cheek;
I have not humiliated them;
I care for Babel; I have not broken down its walls."

- James Pritchard, "Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament", pg. 334.

Around 750 BC, the Aramaeans Mattiel, king of Arpad, and Bargayah, king of KTK entered into a parity treaty. On stela I from Sefire the following curses are recorded, to be heaped upon the violator of said treaty:

40. [Just as] this calf is cut in two, so may Mattiel be cut in two, and may his nobles be cut in two!
[And just as]
41. a [har]lot is stripped naked], so may the wives of Mattiel be stripped naked, and the wives of his offspring, and the wives of [his] no[bles!
42. And just as this wax woman is taken] and one strikes her on the face, so may the [wives of Mattiel] be taken [and…

The laws of eshnunna and the laws of Hammurabi both treat knocking out eyes, teeth, and slaps on the face as severe offences, for which large fines are levied.

A little after Christ’s time, we read in the Mishnah, t. Baba Kama 8:6 that, “If one boxes another man's ear, he has to pay him a sela. Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGalili says, [He has to pay him] a maneh [i.e., one hundred dinar;]. If he slapped him he has to pay him two hundred zuz; [if he did it] with the back of his hand, he has to pay him four hundred zuz. If he pulled his ear, plucked his hair, spat so that the spittle reached him, removed his garment from upon him, uncovered the head of a woman in the marketplace, he must pay four hundred zuz.”

The Tosefta Baba Kama 9:31 expands the ruling:

"If one struck someone with the back of his hand… he must pay four hundred zuz, not because it is a painful blow but because it is a humiliating blow."

Smiting the cheek was part of the humliations Christ was subjected to after his arrest.

“And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee? And many other things blasphemously spake they against him.” - Luke 22:63-65.

Nahum Sarna, in his article "Legal Terminology in Psalm 3:8," relates an account from the life of Abraham Shapira:

“In modern times, Abraham Shapira (1870-1965), head watchman of Petah Tikvah and a keen student of the ways and customs of the Bedouin, once observed the trial of two members of a tribe. One had been accused of stabbing someone with a sword, the other of having smacked someone on the face. The presiding sheikh dealt leniently with the stabber but severely with the other one. In explaining his verdict, he stated: ‘The striking of the cheek is a graver offence than stabbing with a sword, for the latter enhances the dignity of a man, while striking him on the cheek humiliates him.’"

Earlier in the same study, Sarna comments that “the various contexts make it absolutely clear , beyond the peradventure of a doubt, that to be struck on the cheek was an intolerable insult, a deep humiliation, not a mere slight to be soon forgotten.”

From personal experience growing up in Israel, I remember that fights, both among Jewish kids and Arab ones, did not get truly nasty until someone spat on another, or slapped him on the face. If that happened, knifings or severe beatings would immediately follow. Things could be patched up at any moment BEFORE such insults. After them, impossible without third-party intervention and serious peace-making efforts.

Back to the Sermon on the Mount, we saw that eye, tooth and smote cheek are mentioned together. The context could not be any clearer: Christ talked of not returning the ultimate personal insults. Nowhere does he say that man must not defend himself, family and friends. Nowhere does he say that if one does not follow that one is not a Christian.

Ye are Gods

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
I and my Father are one.
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

John 10:28-36.

For years Christ's dramatic defence as recorded in the Gospel of St. John has been interpreteted as refering to human judges. I could provide many examples, but this, from the NASB, should suffice.

Observe here, 1. The power and honour of magistrates; they are the mighty. They are so in authority, for the public good (it is a great power that they are entrusted with), and they ought to be so in wisdom and courage. They are, in the Hebrew dialect, called gods; the same word is used for these subordinate governors that is used for the sovereign ruler of the world. They are elohim.

http://www.biblebrowser.com/psalms/82-2.htm

Christians interpretators have followed medieval Jewish exeggets such as Rashi and Abrhaam ibn Ezra in this.

The judges were called Elohim due to the fact that they enact God's laws on earth.

Ibn Ezra on the Torah, Mishpatim (Exodus 21:6).

I do not intend to deal in depth right now with the meaning of the biblical passage, or with how interpretation developed, that will have to wait for a future post. In the meantime, I highly recommend Daniel O. McLellan's insightful blog posts on Psalm 82. http://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/psalm-82-2/

From a study of ancient Jewish literature, it becomes apparent that Jesus was not refering to human judges, but to a different tradition entirely. An early Amoraic work, the Midrash Numbers Rabba (or Bamidbar Rabbah) 16:24, relates the tradition that the Lord made the Children of Israel immortal, warning death not to touch them, but since they feared and would not accept the gift offered them the Lord made Israel as mere men again.
In John Jesus says "unto whom the word of the Lord came". Word, or davar, quite frequently meant a commandment, which commandment can be seen in this midrash.

They saw the counsel which the Lord decreed for them and straightaways ruined the counsel 40 days, for it is said (Proverbs 1): ye have set at nought all my counsel.
The Holy One, Blessed is He said unto them: I said that ye are not sinning and ye shall live and be as I am, as I liveth and am for Eternity and for Eternity of Eternities, for I decreed (Ps 82) gods are ye and sons of the Most High (Elyon) are ye all, and are as the ministering angels, which die not and yet after this great thing ye request to die, then die as man ye shall, even as the First Man (Adam) whom I commanded one commandment for to do and he should live and be for Eternity, as it is said (Gen 3): for the man was as one of us. And also: and created God the man in his own image, to live and be as he [God] is, but he [Adam] transgressed and nullified my decree, and ate from the tree, and I said unto him: for dust thou art.
So too are ye, as I said: gods are ye, yet have injured yourselves as man, so verily as man shall ye die.
ראו עצה, שיעץ עליהם הקדוש ברוך הוא ומיד קלקלו העצה מ' יום, לכך נאמר (משלי א): ותפרעו כל עצתי.
אמר להם הקב"ה: אני אמרתי, שאין אתם חוטאים ותהיו חיים וקיימים כמותי, כמו שאני חי וקיים לעולם ולעולמי עולמים.
(תהלים פב) אני אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כולכם, כמלאכי השרת, שאין מתים ובקשתם אחר הגדולה הזאת למות, אכן כאדם תמותון כאדם הראשון שצויתי אותו מצוה אחת, שיעשה אותה ויהיה חי וקיים לעולם, שנאמר (בראשית ג): הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו.
וכן: ויברא אלהים את האדם בצלמו, שיהיה חי וקיים כמותו, והוא חבל מעשיו ויבטל גזירתי, ואכל מן האילן, ואמרתי לו: כי עפר אתה.
אף אתם, אני אמרתי: אלהים אתם חבלתם עצמכם כאדם, אכן כאדם תמותון.

Bamidbar Rabbah, Parashat Hameraglim (16:24).

This tradition appears in the middle of a discussion on the misconduct of the 10 spies sent out by Moses, and how god's children frequently overturn God's counsel.