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.

Ramhal on the Path of the Upright

I have written this work not to teach men what they do not know, but to remind them of what they already know and is very evident to them, for you will find in most of my words only things which most people know, and concerning which they entertain no doubts. But to the extent that they are well known and their truths revealed to all, so is forgetfulness in relation to them extremely prevalent. It follows, then, that the benefit to be obtained from this work is not derived from a single reading; for it is possible that the reader will find that he has learned little after having read it that he did not know before. Its benefit is to be derived, rather, through review and persistent study, by which one is reminded of those things which, by nature, he is prone to forget and through which he is caused to take to heart the duty that he tends to overlook.

A consideration of the general state of affairs will reveal that the majority of men of quick intelligence and keen mentality devote most of their thought and speculation to the subtleties of wisdom and the profundities of analysis, each according to the inclination of his intelligence and his natural bent. There are some who expend a great deal of effort in studying the creation and nature. Others devote all of their thought to astronomy and mathematics, and others to the arts. There are those who go more deeply into sacred studies, into the study of the holy Torah, some occupying themselves with Halachic discussions, others with Midrash and others with legal decisions. There are few, however, who devote thought and study to perfection of Divine service - to love, fear, communion and all of the other aspects of saintliness. It is not that they consider this knowledge unessential; if questioned each one will maintain that it is of paramount importance and that one who is not clearly versed in it cannot be deemed truly wise. Their failure to devote more attention to it stems rather from its being so manifest and so obvious to them that they see no need for spending much time upon it. Consequently, this study and the reading of works of this kind have been left to those of a not too sensitive, almost dull intelligence. These you will see immersed in the study of saintliness, not stirring from it. It has reached the stage that when one sees another engaging in saintly conduct, he cannot help but suspect him of dullwittedness. This state of affairs results in evil consequences both for those who possess wisdom and for those who do not, causing both classes to lack true saintliness, and rendering it extremely rare. The wise lack it because of their limited consideration of it and the unwise because of their limited grasp. The result is that saintliness is construed by most to consist in the recitation of many Psalms, very long confessions, difficult fasts, and ablutions in ice and snow - all of which are incompatible with intellect and which reason cannot accept.

Truthful, desirable saintliness is far from being conceptualized by us, for it is obvious that a person does not concern himself with what does not occupy a place in his mind. And though the beginnings and foundations of saintliness are implanted in every person's heart, if he does not occupy himself with them, he will witness details of saintliness without recognizing them and he will trespass upon them without feeling or perceiving that he is doing so. For sentiments of saintliness, fear and love of God, and purity of heart are not so deeply rooted within a person as to obviate the necessity of his employing certain devices in order to acquire them. In this respect they differ from natural states such as sleep and wakefulness, hunger and satiety, and all other reactions which are stamped in one's nature, in that various methods and devices are perforce required for their acquisition. There is also no lack of deterrents which keep saintliness at a distance from a person, but then again there is no lack of devices by which these deterrents may be held afar. How, then, is it conceivable that it not be necessary to expend a great deal of time upon this study in order to know these truths and the manner in which they may be acquired and fulfilled? How will this wisdom enter a person's heart if he will not seek it? And since every man of wisdom recognizes the need for perfection of Divine service and the necessity for its purity and cleanliness, without which it is certainly completely unacceptable, but repulsive and despised - "For God searches all hearts and understands the inclination of all thoughts" (I Chronicles 28:9) - what will we answer in the day of reproof if we weaken in this study and forsake that which is so incumbent upon us as to be the very essence of what the Lord our God asks of us? Is it fitting that our intelligence exert itself and labor in speculations which are not binding upon us, in fruitless argumentation, in laws which have no application to us, while we leave to habit and abandon to mechanical observance our great debt to our Creator? If we do not look into and analyze the question of what constitutes true fear of God and what its ramifications are, how will we acquire it and how will we escape wordly vanity which renders our hearts forgetful of it? Will it not be forgotten and go lost even though we recognize its necessity? Love of God, too - if we do not make an effort to implant it in our hearts, utilizing all of the means which direct us towards it, how will it exist within us? Whence will enter into our souls intimacy with and ardor towards the Blessed One and towards His Torah if we do not give heart to His greatness and majesty which engender this intimacy in our hearts? How will our thoughts be purified if we do not strive to rescue them from the imperfections infused in them by physical nature? And all of the character traits, which are in such great need of correction and cultivation -who will cultivate and correct them if we do not give heart to them and subject them to exacting scrutiny?
-Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto (Ramhal), the introduction to Mesilat Yesharim.

Hillel and the Donkey Driver

A story is told about a donkey driver who came to Hillel the Elder. He said to him: ‘Rabbi, see how we are better off than you (Babylonians), for you are put to great trouble with all this travelling when you ascend from Babylon to Jerusalem, but I go forth from the entrance of my house and lodge in the entrance to Jerusalem’. He waited a bit and then said to him: ‘For how much would you rent me your donkey from here to Emmaus’? He answered: ‘A denarius’. ‘How much to Lod?’ He answered: ‘Two’. ‘How much to Caesarea?’ He answered: ‘Three’. He said to him: ‘I see that, in so far as I increase the distance, you increase the price’. He answered: ‘Yes, price is according to distance’. He said to him: ‘And should not the reward for my own feet be (at least) the equivalent of a beast’s feet?’ This is what Hillel used to maintain: ‘According to the painstaking, the reward’...
-Avot de Rabbi Nathan B”, Anthony Saladrini, trans., Leiden, 1975.

The above gives a rough idea of distances in the first centuries CE, and what a donkey driver might have charged for the journey. Each stage of the journey is roughly a day's distance, and would cost a day's wages.

El-Amarna Letters Online

http://www.specialtyinterests.net/eae.html

The El-Amarna Letters come from a diplomatic archive in Egypt, correspondence from Egypt's Canaanite vassals, and are an unparralelled resource for studying the geo-political background to the world of the Bible and ancient Israel. They can be read online now, at the link provided above! Enjoy.

Ritual Curses Then and Now

If against a man his companion lifts the tongue, or if he
invokes the gods against him, this is the ritual suitable for him: They
bring out to the grassland a loaf of bread and a jug of wine. He
breaks the loaf on the left and puts it on the ground, then he offers
wine on the left, and speaks in the following way: “Whatever
person has lifted the tongue before the gods, whoever invoked
the gods against me, as this grass is dry, let himself and his house in
the same way go dry too.
-KUB 17.28 ii 33-47

The above is part of an ancient Hittite ritual invoking a simile curse against slanderers and cursers. Imagine my surprise the other day when my Ukrainian wife mentioned similar rituals in Slavic magic, as practiced by village znakhari*
A search of the internet revealed one example which I'll reproduce here.
http://www.belmagi.ru/azag/otvragov2.htm

In your garden pick some weeds and recite over them:As this grass becomes dry, thus shall every tongue cease to speak of me and spread slander about me. The grass shall become dry and my enemy shall cease from troubling me. Amen.
When the grass becomes dry, cast it to your enemies. They will forget about you- they will have their own troubles to overcome.

Of course the two are not identical, nor is there any reason to suppose that spells are stationary, yet the combination of tongues, grass and dryness in context of a ritual involving a curse is remarkable.

*A znakhar or znakharka is both a healer, fortune-teller and witch.

Enoch the Shoemaker or Why God Took Up Enoch

And I asked my teacher Rabbi Yehudah the Preacher Ashkenazi, of blessed memory, what the matter of Enoch was, by virtue of which he had merited all this[1], for the matter of Elijah was known, but why Enoch?
He said that he recieved[2] that Enoch was an ushkaf, that is, he sewed together shoes, and with every incision and incision that he would make using the stitching awl, he would bless with a whole heart and perfect intent the Name, be blessed[3], and extended the blessing to Metatron the exalted, and never did he forget during even a single incision to bless, but would always do so, until because of so much love he was not, for God took him and he merited being called Metatron and his virtue is very great indeed.

ושאלתי את פי מורי הר׳יהודה הדרשן אשכגזי ז״ל מה היה עניין חגוך שעל ידו זכה לכל זה, כי עניין אליהו ז״ל ידוע, אבל חנוך למה, ואמר שקבל שחנוך היה אישכף כלומר תופר מנעלים, ובכל נקיבה ונקיבה שהיה נוקב במרצע בעור, היה מברך בלב שלם ובכוונה שלימה לשם ית׳, וממשיך הברכה למטטרון הנאצל, ומעולם לא שכח אפי׳ בנקיבה אחת מלברך אלא תמיד היה עושה כן, עד שמרוב אהבה איננו כי לקח אותו אלהים (בראשית ה׳) וזכה להקראות מטטרון ומעלתו גדולה עד מאד.

Rabbi Isaac of Acre, in Meirat Einaim, pg. 47

Rabbi Isaac ben Samuel of Acre was an early kabbalist who lived between 1250-1340, and lived in the port city of Acre until it was captured by the Mameluk sultan al-Ashraf Khalil in 1291. R. Isaac himself was taken prisoner. After his release he moved to Italy and Spain. He is perhaps best known through the controversy over the origins and antiquity of the Zohar, the central book of the Kabbalah. His testimony amounts to the only contemporary historical evidence on the publication of the Zohar, so its importance cannot be overrated. For more on that, see I. Tishby's The Wisdom of the Zohar, pg. 13-18.
R. Isaac belonged to the main branch of Kabbalah, the theosophical-theurgical one. In other words, the contemplation of the upper reaches and also of how man affected them. The above quote from R. Isaac is a clear theurgical statement. God in kabbalistic thought is represented by a series of emanations, the ten sephirot, each with its unique names and attributes. Metatron the exalted was considered to be malchut, the tenth and lowest sephirah. This Metatron is distinct from the created Metatron, Enoch, who is merely given that title.
Enoch, who lived before the commandments were given to Moses, loved God and served him whole heartedly, focusing his love and intents on God during such a mundane and menial act as sewing together shoes. This blessing caused power to flow downwards to the lowest sephirah. Because of this great love of Enoch for God, he was taken up and exalted. Abstract emotion and devotion, without accompanying acts, do not suffice to cause a change in the world. The opposite also holds true.
Moshe Idel surmises that although it is filtered through R. Isaac's kabbalistic leanings, this story reflects a rich but lost Enochic tradition in the possesion of the German Pietists (Hasidei Ashkenaz) of the 12th century, which itself preserves older material. He points out that the German R. Yehudah recieved this traditions from an anonymous master, presumabely also a German. Idel further points out that in some Muslim legends Idris (Enoch) is a tailor.[4]

[1]His ascent. Unlike Elijah, where we are given his story before his ascent, the Bible records of Enoch merely that he walked with God, and he was not, for God took him. This brevity puzzled R. Isaac.

[2]Heb. kibel, which implies a teaching or saying given to one by one's teacher or master.

[3]A common term for God in medieval Jewish literature.

[4]See chapter 4 of Moshe Idel's The Angelic World- Apotheosis and Theophany, Miskal, 2008, from where I have drawn most of the material for this post.