Hippolytus, Josephus, Essenes: Christian editing of Josephus?

Sid Green, a net-acquaintance, argues that Hippolytus in Refutation of All Heresies copied his information on the Essenes from Josephus, and the way that he presents the information indicates that Josephus has undergone editing by Christians.

I thought I'd compare the two to see how this idea works, and to flex my rusty NT blogging muscles. For reference, At the bottom of this post after the READ MORE fold I've placed both side by side, more or less topic by topic.

It's important to note that Hippolytus normally follows Josephus faithfully, line by line, sometimes even preserving interesting words or language from Josephus. There are, however, several interesting, and Green argues, telltale, differences.

First, Josephus writes:

then, that he will maintain just actions toward humanity; that he will harm no one, whether by his own deliberation or under order; that he will hate the unjust and contend together with the just;

...while Hippolytus, normally faithful to Josephus, suddenly veers from the Josephean text:

next, that he will observe just dealings with men, and that he will in no way injure any one, and that he will not hate a person who injures him, or is hostile to him, but pray for them.

Clearly the description in Hippolytus makes the Essenes more "Christian" in their outlook than the extant Josephus text does, since Hippolytus has the Essenes praying for their enemies. Did a Christian editor change the text of Josephus to make it less Christian, or did Hippolytus make the Essenes more Christian? If the latter, what could possibly have been his motive?

In discussing the four orders of the Essenes, Josephus writes:

They are divided into four classes, according to their duration in the training, [H] and the later-joiners are so inferior to the earlier-joiners that if they should touch them, the latter wash themselves off as if they have mingled with a foreigner.

...while in Hippolytus, where the [H] is above, he has an entire passage with no parallel in Josephus about fundamentalists who are tougher than average about rules, randomly circumcise people, and who are known as Zealots and Sicarii:

For some of them discipline themselves above the requisite rules of the order, so that even they would not handle a current coin of the country, saying that they ought not either to carry, or behold, or fashion an image: wherefore no one of those goes into a city, lest (by so doing) he should enter through a gate at which statues are erected, regarding it a violation of law to pass beneath images. But the adherents of another party, if they happen to hear any one maintaining a discussion concerning God and His laws— supposing such to be an uncircumcised person, they will closely watch him and when they meet a person of this description in any place alone, they will threaten to slay him if he refuses to undergo the rite of circumcision. Now, if the latter does not wish to comply with this request, an Essene spares not, but even slaughters. And it is from this occurrence that they have received their appellation, being denominated (by some) Zelotae, but by others Sicarii. And the adherents of another party call no one Lord except the Deity, even though one should put them to the torture, or even kill them.

..when you look at the passage carefully, the obvious seam in Josephus jumps out. He moves immediately from declaring that there are four types of Essenes to discussing the later-joiners relative to the early joiners. Whereas, in Hippolytus, the progression of ideas, from discussing what fundamentalists the more-Essene-than-the-Essenes are, to the late-comers, a progression that makes more sense.

A little further down, Hippolytus does not parallel a passage in Josephus about 'the war against the Romans' since that would likely make no sense to a reader a century removed from Josephus.

Further on, once again we are faced with the choice of either an editor removing a passage from Josephus or Hippolytus Christianizing the Essenes:

Josephus:

For the view has become tenaciously held among them that whereas our bodies are perishable and their matter impermanent, our souls endure forever, deathless: they get entangled, having emanated from the most refined ether, as if drawn down by a certain charm into the prisons that are bodies.

Hippolytus:

Now the doctrine of the resurrection has also derived support among these; for they acknowledge both that the flesh will rise again, and that it will be immortal, in the same manner as the soul is already imperishable.

In the extant Josephus passage, the Essenes believe the body will die but the soul will live. Hippolytus has them supporting a doctrine similar to that of Christianity with resurrection of both the body and of the soul.  Did Hippolytus make the Essenes more Christian? If so, whatever for?

The final passage I'd like to point out offers some very interesting changes. Josephus writes (I've marked them into two parts, A and B):

A
For the good, on the one hand, sharing the view of the sons of Greece they portray the lifestyle reserved beyond Oceanus and a place burdened by neither rain nor snow nor heat, but which a continually blowing mild west wind from Oceanus refreshes.

B
For the base, on the other hand, they separate off a murky, stormy recess filled with unending retributions. It was according to the same notion that the Greeks appear to me to have laid on the Islands of the Blessed for their most courageous men, whom they call heroes and demi-gods, and for the souls of the worthless the region of the impious in Hades, in which connection they tell tales about the punishments of certain men—Sisyphuses and Tantaluses, Ixions and Tityuses—establishing in the first place the [notion of] eternal souls and, on that basis, persuasion toward virtue and dissuasion from vice.

In Hippolytus this is completely different.....

A
And this locality the Greeks were acquainted with by hearsay, and called it Isles of the Blessed. And there are other tenets of these which many of the Greeks have appropriated, and thus have from time to time formed their own opinions.

B
For the disciplinary system in regard of the Divinity, according to these (Jewish sects), is of greater antiquity than that of all nations. And so it is that the proof is at hand, that all those (Greeks) who ventured to make assertions concerning God, or concerning the creation of existing things, derived their principles from no other source than from Jewish legislation. And among these may be particularized Pythagoras especially, and the Stoics, who derived (their systems) while resident among the Egyptians, by having become disciples of these Jews.

In Part A Hippolytus appears to make the claim that the Greeks have appropriated tenets of Jewish thought, though that's not completely clear. Josephus was ever eager to prove the antiquity of the Jews and their greatness. It strikes me that this is a very Josephean claim. Yet this claim is not found in the Josephean "original".

Part B is as different as night and day. Josephus gives a run-down of Greek beliefs, completely veering from his discussion of the Essenes to talk about how the Greeks established their own ideas of the soul. Hippolytus continues his very Josephean train of thought, attributing the development of Greek ideas of God to the Jews, claiming that Greek wise men got their ideas as the disciples of Jews, and fronting this with the very Josephean claim that Jewish ideas of the Divinity predate those of all other nations!

In fact, Josephus makes this exact claim of Hippolytus' in Contra Apionem, in Part II, where he asserts the antiquity of the Jewish law over those of other lawgivers among the non-Jews, points to cultural borrowings from the Jews now prominent among the Greeks, and claims that Pythagoras and other thinkers held ideas about God similar to those of the Jews, with the clear implication that they learned such ideas from the Jews.

Thus, it would seem that the position Josephus holds in the passage on the Essenes is the opposite of the one he holds elsewhere. Moreover, if you read the passages against each other, it almost looks as if Josephus is replying to Hippolytus' assertions that the Greeks depended on the Jews by saying that, no, the Greeks developed their own ideas based on their own mythological characters!

I think it is very clear, but especially in this last section that an editor, probably a Christian editor, has been at work adjusting Josephus to de-Christianize his discussion of the Essenes.

Once again, the two passages are set against each other in a long table below the READ MORE line. To save space I've reduced the font size, just hit CONTROL and + to increase the size of the font in your browser window.

Canon SX260 HS Review

Well well. I've finished a careful reading of Doherty's Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. I've got Price's book on the problems of mythicism and Ehrman's new volume waiting for me to put eyes on them. Expect reviews shortly. In the meantime, I've got a first impressions review of the new Canon SX260 HS I just got on my Taiwan blog with some sample pics.

Not yet....

Still trying to get going blogging here, but too much stuff going on right now.

Darrell Doughty on Tacitus Recovery

I was hunting for this page and found out it is no longer up at

http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/Tacitus.html

So I thought I'd save it here, out of the cache. Thank all gods for the Wayback Machine.

+++++++++++++++++

Tacitus' Account of Nero's Persecution of Christians.   Annals 15.44.2-8

Text and Discussion

This passage is often cited by Christian scholars as an early witness by a Roman historian to the presence of the Christian movement, as evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus, and as evidence for the persecution of Christians by the Romans (see E. Pagels, Gnostic Gospels, pp. 70f). It is a text, therefore, that requires careful and critical examination. On July, 19th, 64 CE, a fire started in Rome and burned for nine days, finally destroying or damaging almost three-quarters of the city, including numerous public buildings. Rumors spread that the fire had been planned by Nero. And according to Tacitus, to put an end to such rumors, Nero creatred a diversion by torturing and executing Christians.

ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos. et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit quos per flagitia invisos vulgus christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius christus. Tyberio imperitante per procuratorem pontium pilatum supplicio adfectus erat. repressaque in praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat. non modo per iudaeam originem eius mali. sed per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque .,. Igitur primum correpti qui fatebantur. deinde indicio eorum multitudo ingens. haud proinde in crimine incendii. quam odio humani generis coniuncti sunt .,. "Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race." (Tacitus, Annales, 15, 44)

Tacitus continues:

"Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames. These served to illuminate the night when daylight failed. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."

Literature Paul Keresztes, "Rome and the Christian Church, I. From Nero to Sereri," ANRW 2.23.1, 247-315; L. H. Canfield, The Early Persecutions of the Christians (New York, 1913); H. Fuchs, "Tacitus über die Christen," VC 4 (1950), 65-93; E.T. Klette, Die Christenkatastrophe unter Nero nach ihrem Quellen inbes nach Tac. Ann. XV, 44 von neuem untersucht (Tübingen, 1907); Charles Saumagne, "Tacite et Saint Paul," Revue historique 232 (1964), 67-110; "Les incendiaires de Rome et les lois pémales des romains," Revue historique 227 (1962), 337-360. Discussion According to Keresztes (251ff), it is "generally agreed" that what the Christians were actually accused of here was not arson, but "hatred of the human race" - although it is somewhat unclear what this would have included. Keresztes suggests that for Tacitus it would have included "the flagitia, the abominations, that were associated with the Christian name." (252). But we have no evidence for such an association at the time of Nero, or even the time of Tacitus. What "abominations" are in view here? Keresztes explains that "there should be no serious doubt that this quite abstract idea of odium, 'hatred,' without concrete proof of crimes, could be subject to juridical condemnation to death in view of the indubitable fact that the Christians were 'tried' by the cognito process of one of the highest magistrates of Rome, very likely the perfectus urbi." (252) But precisely this "indubitable fact" is in question here, i.e., the claim that "without proof of specific crimes" Christians were condemned to death by "one of the highest magistrates of Rome." According to Keresztes, the trial of the Christians in Tacitus' story "may be illustrated by the trial of Christ by the governor of Judea about thirty years earlier. The charges against Christ did not fall under any particular Roman law, but were allegations of some particular undesirable actions on which Pontius Pilate was asked to judge... Just as we still do not know the basis of Pilate's condemnation of Christ, we do not know the basis for the condemnation of Tacitus' Christians. Both Christ and the Christians of Rome may have been condemned by the judges for any one or any number of the allegations of 'undesirable' acts against them..." (253) This takes for granted, of course, that the account of Jesus' trail before Pilate is historical. We have to do here with legends in which the absence of specific accusations reflects the Christian view that the martyrs always were wrongly--one could even say illegally--put to death. Keresztes observes that what Tacitus' text actually seems to say is that Christians were convicted not "on account" of their hatred for the human race, but expressly "of hatred for the human race," and that this "sounds absurd even in the context of the undoubtedly arbitrary cognito extra ordinem." (254) Taking advantage of a textual variant, and a favorable alternative meaning for odium humanigeneris, Keresztes constructs a rather complicated argument for a "more natural meaning that could well be that of Tacitus." (254f). Keresztes recognizes, however, that this varient reading "could well be the result of an effort to 'correct' Tacitus by giving it a more banal meaning," and that his proposal has not found overwhelming support among scholars, who propose other ways of making sense out of the text. All such attempts to render what Tacitus says less "absurd" or less "objectional," however, are really attempts to preserve the authenticity of a legendary account, which from a historical perspective must have involved specific crimes and specific charges. In conclusion, Keresztes asks, "What then brought them to be persecuted as Christians some time between the fire of 64 A.D. and 68 A.D.?," and observes that "on the basis of ancient Christian sources (e.g., 1 Clem 5; 6), ... modern writers --i.e., Allard [1903], Canfield [1913], Klette [1907], Bacchus [1908], and Frend [1965])-- feel certain that the Christians were finally persecuted as a result of Jewish intrigues." "According to this thinking, the Christians were persecuted... as undesirable elements of society and as Christians. The situation may have been brought about by the enemies of Christianity [Jews?], through some legislation, as is suggested by solid Christian tradition. This may be corroborated by 'St. Peter's First Letter' (esp. ch. 4) where the Christian name certainly appears to be a capital crime for which it was desirable to suffer just as it was, by contrast, undesirable to suffer for crimes against the common law." (257) When all else fails, blame the Jews. In any case, one can not appeal here to writings such as Clement and 2 Peter since the assumption that Christians were persecuted by Nero has often been used to date these writings (Like Frend, Keresztes seems to think that 2 Peter had these events directly in view). In fact, however, both Clement and 2 Peter refelect a much later situation. General Observations The text is full of difficulties, and there are not a few textual variations in the mss tradition  (e.g., "Christianos" or "Chrestianos" or even "Christianus"? - "Christus" or "Chrestos"?) -- which at least reflects the fact that this text has been worked over. It is not even clear what Tacitus means to say - e.g., whether he implies that the charge of setting the fires brought against Christians was false; whether some Christians were arrested because they set fires and others because of their general "hatred for humankind"; what those persons arrested "confessed" to -- arson or being Christians? -- or whether they were executed by crucifixion or immolation, or some one way and some in another. But the real question concerns the historical reliability of this information -- i.e., whether we have to do here with a later Christian insertion. When I consider a question such as this, the first question to ask is whether it conceivable or perhaps even probable that later Christians might have modified ancient historical sources; and the answer to this question certainly must be yes! Then, with regard to this particular source, I note that the earliest manuscript we have for the Annales dates from the 11th century, and must therefore have been copied and recopied many times, by generations of Christian scribes (and Christian apologists). So there were certainly opporunities to modify what Tacitus originally wrote. Furthermore, it is highly remarkable that no other ancient source associates Christians with the burning of Rome until Sulpicius Serverus (Sacred History, 2.29), in the fifth century (c. 408). The dramatic and fantastic description of the tortures suffered by the scapegoats resembles the executions portrayed in legendary Acts of Christian Martyrs. And John Meir (who regards this text as early evidence for pagan recognition of a historical Jesus) tellingly observes (without perceiving its significance): "There is a great historical irony in this text of Tacitus; it is the only time in ancient pagan literature that Pontius Pilate is mentioned by name -- as a way of specifying who Christ is. Pilate's fate in the Christian creeds is already foreshadowed in a pagan historian," -- which could easily indicate Christian apologetic intervention. For all these reasons, therefore, one must at least conclude that this text is too problematical to serve as historical evidence for anything. I myself, however, regard it as probable that we have to do here with a later Christian elaboration. One might ask whether those passages in Christian or Roman writings before Severus are ones in which we would expect to find a reference to Christians being associated with the burning of Rome, and yet we do not? Well, Tertullian tells his readers, "Consult your sources; you will find there that Nero was the first who assailed with the sword the Christian sect" (Apol 5); but he makes no mention of Christians setting Rome on fire. If Tertullian had read Tacitus (which seems very probable), we would have to assume this information was probably not yet present. Other ancient historians also refer to Nero's persecution of Christians (Suetonius, Dio Cassius, Pliny the Elder), but none of these associates the persecution of Christians with the burning of Rome. Irenaeus makes no reference at all to a persecution under Nero. Origin has little to say about any persecutions. And although Eusebius knows the tradition of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul under Nero (HE 2.25) and even conceives the persecution of Christians under Nero -- "the first of the emperors who showed himself to be the enemy of the divine religion" -- as a kind of salvation-historical turning point in Christian history, he nevertheless makes no reference to the "multitude" of believers who supposedly suffered martyrdom under Nero at the time of the burning of Rome. The silence in early Christian sources concerning this event is deafening. It is often objected that "no matter what the textual or historical difficulties, no Christian would ever have written such phrases as 'pernicious superstition' or 'the home of the disease' or 'loathed for their vice' " -- that "such a Christian would have let such things stand if he was redacting the passage," and that "there is not a hint of Christian theology or tendentiousness in the entire chapter."  This is the most common argument against the possibility of a Christian interpolation here. However, the reference to Christ having been "crucified under Pontius Pilate" is certainly a "hint of Christian theology." As a historicization of the Christian myth it has the same significance here as it does in the Apostles Creed (c. 340). The reference to Christianity as a "pernicious superstition" characterized by "hatred for all humankind" could be verisimilitude, reflecting what Christian apologists later attributed to pagans and what someone thought Tacitus also might have said. The apologetic nuance of even these remarks, however, is the qualification "which was checked for the moment, only to break out once more" -- i.e., the idea that persecution of Christians is of little avail (cf. Acts 5:33-39). We might also ask how many Christians were present in Rome in Nero's time -- enough to constitute an "immense multitude"? The legends concerning persecutions of Christians in early times greatly exaggerate the actual events. (See the careful discussion by Robin Lane Fox in his book Pagans and Christians, 419ff). And the interpolation in Tacitus reflects this tendency. Even Frend (162) calls attention to the fact that this passage replicates language and motifs from Livy's account of the Bacchanal conspiracy - as something that Tacitus "may have had in mind," since Tacitus describes the persecution of Christians by Nero "in almost identicle terms." Two things are particuarly remarkable here. One is the reference to the "immense multitude" (multitudo ingens) that was convicted, a theme also found in Livy's account, but probably not appropriate for Christians in Rome in 60 CE. And the other is that in both cases the charge involved with setting fires. Since I have now spent so much time pondering this text, however, I might speculate a bit regarding its possible redactional composition. To begin with, it is not obvious here that Christians or anyone else were charged with setting the fire. The most probable meaning rather is that Nero created a "diversion" (the phrase subdidit reos is vague) in the form of a "spectacle" or "circus" - by "subjecting to the most extra-ordinary tortures those persons hated for their abominations by the common people..." -- i.e., persons later referred to as "criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment" (presumably for various crimes). And this may have been the original content of Tacitus' account, the purpose of which--reflecting his negative opinion of Nero--was to depict Nero in an ugly way: so we are told "... it was not as it seemed for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed." The confusing reference, however, to people being arrested because they "confessed" has the appearance of a Christian motif, as well as the idea that "based on their information," an immense multitude was convicted, which resembles what we read in Pliny and Christian Martyr Acts. So the Christian elaboration may include at least the identification of the despised people as "Christians" (christianosappellabat), the reference to Christ as the founder of the movement, his crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, and the revival of the movement in Judea and even in Rome, as well as the references to people confessing to be Christians and then ratting on their Christian brothers, and their being put to death because of their "hatred for the human race.". It is difficult to determine what else might be Christian elaboration. The description of the tortures suffered by the crimnals resembles what we find in Christian martyr legends. And the reference to "mockery" of those condemed to death and execution by crucifixion could be Christian motifs (cf. Mark 15:29-32; Mt 27:39-44; Lk 23:35-38). But the portrayal of Nero in the gardens driving his chariot may be original. And the conclusion could also be original: "Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished." Notice that the interpolated material constitutes a solid block:

"called Christians. The originator of this name (was) Christ, who, during the reign of Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontinus Pilate. Repressed for the time being, the deadly superstition broke out again not only in Judea, the original source of the evil, but also in the city (Rome), where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and become popular. So an arrest was made of all who confessed; then on the basis of their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of arson as for hatred of the human race."

And when this material is removed the text still makes perfect sense.

"Therefore, to put an end to the rumor Nero created a diversion and subjected to the most extra-ordinary tortures those hated for their abominations by the common people. Nero had thrown open the gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or drove about in a chariot. Hence, even for crimnals who deserved extreme and examplary punishment there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but glut one man's cruelty, that they were being punished."

One should finally recognize that, as Keresztes correctly observes, the portrayal of Christians being persecuted here suffers from the same ambiguities and difficulties as the crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospels. To be executed in such a way, the Christians would have been brought to trial before a Roman magistrate, where witnesses would be heard and charges evaluated. But as Keresztes observes, "Just as we still do not know the basis of Pilate's condemnation of Christ, we do not know the basis for the condemnation of Tacitus' Christians (ANRW 2.23.1, 253). Keresztes argues that we have to do here an cognito extra ordinem, and that in such cases the "quite abstract idea of odium, 'hatred,' without concrete proof of crimes" was probably sufficient to warrant condemnation to death. But this is unlikely. Keresztes simply assumes what must have been the case in order to make sense of what the Gospels and Tacitus relate when these sources are read uncritically. The entire story makes better sense, however, if Tacitus' original account related the execution of criminals who had already been convicted of serious crimes.

Well, still not here yet

I was going to be posting here, but then a local county government gave me a great gig that has me traveling most of my off days down in southern Taiwan. Hope to see you all by the end of the month.

Bible Argh from Newsweek

All over Facebook and Twitter is Newsweek's completely incompetent article on marriage and the Bible:

First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.

Stunning incompetence and illogic like this will be ripped to shreds on both liberal and conservative blogs. Should be a fun few days of reading. But it is the kind of thing that just begs the question of why Newsweek couldn't find some scholars of marriage and the Bible to write this piece. Or at least, find someone who had read Leviticus or the Gospel of Mark.

*Creak* Letting some light in...

I've decided to re-open this blog over the next couple of months. So let's let a little light into this place with some pics from my ride last week up in Miaoli, the county north of Taichung city where I live.

Cycling has become a kind of national sport in Taiwan, one that blends the emerging concepts of green leisure and sustainable lifestyle -- here in Taiwan marketed as a consumer ideal rather than a philosophy for living -- and Taiwan's industrial prowess. The island is a world center of bike manufacturing, and within 30 kms of my house are some of the most important component and frame makers on earth.

Looking northeast out of the town of Shihgang toward the central mountain range.

Orange groves. The mountains outside of Taichung city in central Taiwan are important fruit growing regions.

The Dajia River, looking east toward Dongshih.

Egrets are a common sight in Taiwan's waterways.

Me with the Liyu Reservoir behind me. The ridge I'm resting on is at about 400 meters above sea level.

Winter means the reservoir is at a low level.

Rolling down Route 3 to Miaoli County Route 130.

When we do 130 we always stop here for snacks and drinks.

130 is characterized by lovely views and steep 10-13% grades. Taiwan's mountainous areas are among the steepest in the world.

A colony of spiders.

A mother guards her brood.

Bamboo marches along the road.

Looking south towards Jhuolan, the wine grape region, and Hsinshe, the mushroom producing center of the area.

I'm a slow climber. It takes me about forty minutes of climbing to reach the top.

The restaurant where I'm eating lunch awaits me on the left, perched by the side of the road.

Because of the excellent views and mountain foods and temples, there is a steady trickle of tourists and as a result, infrastructure to serve them. Here I stop at the Mile High Cafe.

Hakka-style cooking is the specialty of the place.

The bike takes a break.

Lunch.

Waitress.

Nothing like lunch with a view.

The restaurant is well positioned just below the top of the ridge, which rises to about 800 meters.

Up at the top on a Saturday there's a respectable flow of day-trippers enjoying the good weather and the local festival.

In Taiwan, wherever people gather, so do vendors.

Enjoyable views from the summit.

The descent is wonderful.

Abandoned buildings are a common sight on Taiwan roads.

Like many roads in Taiwan, this one follows a river valley downhill.

It runs past local farms and restaurants catering to tourists.

From there I turn onto a much smaller road to the famous old collapsed Japanese-era railroad viaduct.

Bucolic scenery.

I have many pics of this ruin from previous rides through the area; here's an old one.

After the railroad viaduct the road climbs a small ridge, then falls into a peaceful little valley whose opening is crossed by the modern railroad bridge.

Never mind what they say; Taiwan's national sport is fishing.

Rolling through the valley, I leave the lovely part of the ride and get back on the crowded, noisy, four lane roads home....

CFP: Christianity and China, J of Amer-E Asian Relations

Here's a fascinating topic combining Christianity with foreign affairs in a key global location:

++++++++++++++++

H-ASIA March 25, 2007

Call for Articles: Special Issue of Journal of American-East Asian Relations
********************
From: "Dong Wang"

Call for Submissions for a Special Issue of the Journal of American-East Asian Relations

"Christianity in China as an Issue in the History of United States-China Relations"

The Journal of American-East Asian Relations publishes cutting-edge academic articles on trans-pacific international relations with a world-wide readership in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Contributions are sought from scholars in all fields of the social sciences and humanities for a special issue of the Journal, entitled "Christianity in China as an Issue in the History of United States-China Relations."

[more description deleted]

Inquiries and manuscripts should be sent to the Guest Editor of the
special issue by December 1, 2007:

Dong Wang (Guest Editor and Associate Editor of the Journal of
American-East Asian Relations)

Gordon College
dong.wang@gordon.edu

[Christianity] [China]

Esther as Taiwanese Opera

A Taiwanese opera group has decided to stage the Jewish tale of Esther from the Christian Bible using Taiwanese opera.

A rare combination of traditional Taiwanese opera and orchestral music with the Bible story of Queen Esther will be presented by Yage Theater at Taipei City Hall's playhouse at 7:30 p.m. today and tomorrow.

Yage Theater and Everlight Chemical Industrial Co. have invited senior citizens from five elderly homes to join the general public for the performances.

The play, titled "Palace Walls", is a musical about Queen Esther presented in the form of Taiwanese opera accompanied by orchestral music.

"Palace Walls" will depict the invisible walls erected with greediness in people's hearts and minds under the mounting pressure of modern life.

Executives of Yage Theater said the performances will not only be presented in an entirely new form of intermingled Eastern and Western arts, but they will also shed light on how people may exercise self-reflection and help jointly build harmony in the society.

The audiences invited to the performances will include current residents of five elderly homes in Taipei City, including the Taipei Municipal Guang Chih Care Home and the Shilin Old People Care Center, as well as elderly institutions in Datong, Xinyi and Songshan districts.

Yage Theater expects the performances will help spread the love of God to all corners of society, including the unprivileged sections.

[Taiwan] [Christianity] [Esther]

Revving up for Action

Watch this space. I'll be posting soon.

Blogging Issues

I haven't been around here in a while, and it doesn't seem likely I'll have much chance to blog here more than once or twice a month, as my work schedule has increased dramatically, since my parents are coming this summer and my son is going back to hideously expensive private school next semester (*gasp of pain*). I am also trying to finish two books this semester.



Lately I've been nurturing my Taiwan blog, which is now getting 350-450 visitors a day and requires some investment of time almost every day. That blog is my personal blog, where I post plenty of photos of my life, from panoramas to bugs, trips around Taiwan (most recently a doozy to Hoping Island in Keelung Harbor), and loads of snarky political commentary on Taiwan's complex international situation, history and the foreign media's inability to get either right, as well as links to doings around our crazed island, resources for understanding Taiwan, and suchlike. The Sword, alas, has a more restricted range of postings.

I'm sorry that I've been so neglectful of this blog, for I love The Sword very much, and I have a laundry list of stuff I'd like to lay out here. But never fear! I'm still around. Look forward in the next few months to more on where the writer of Mark had Jesus killed, on the claim that the gospels are "embellished history" as a version of Popper's conventionalist twist, and other stuff to raise your eyebrows and blood pressures! I'd also like to thank everyone who has spent a minute here, made a comment, or dropped me an email. You guys make it all worthwhile.

Michael

Mark 7:1-23

Back from celebrating Chinese New Year in Hsinchu to return to the discussion of Mark 7:1-23 on the NT Gateway blog. Goodacre was wondering about the problems translating the "parenthetical" comment at the end of Jesus' speech in 7:18-19:

Now it may be that the standard translation picks up the sense of this interpretative clause, even if it overstates it, but even there I am not sure. Could the person orally delivering Mark 7.18-19 have made this intelligible?:

He says to them, "Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?", cleansing all foods.

I am not convinced that we are reading Mark right here.

I on the other hand am tolerably convinced, actually, that the translations that make that terminal statement into an intelligible statement are on the right track.

The first thing to note about Jesus' longer statements is that they typically have an identifiable structure. This may consist of ABBA chiasms, but another preference is ABCABC structures, found, for example, in Mark 1:16-20, and in Mark 7:1-23. Here in Mark 7:18-19, Jesus' speech has a clearly identifiable parallel ABC ABC shape. First, let's lay out the structure of this short pericope. In Mark, the A brackets are chained together, and the A' bracket of the previous pericope is used as the A bracket of the following one, with few exceptions.

(RSV)
A And when he had entered the house, and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable.

B And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

B' And he said, "What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."

A' And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon.

This short pericope has a definite ABC ABC shape. Note that the B' bracket contains three statements. First comes a statement.

A: And he said, "What comes out of a man is what defiles a man.

This is followed by a description that functions as a definition:

B: For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.

and then a conclusion that is a complete thought:

C: All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."

The final thought is a complete one. The parallelism here suggests that the B bracket should be some kind of stand-alone statement, a complete thought, for Goodacre's reading of cleansing all foods.

First comes the statement, in the form of a rhetorical question:

A: And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding?

Then a definition follows:

B: Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?"

Since in the B' bracket A, B, and C are all complete thoughts, this suggests that in the B bracket C must also form a complete thought. It cannot be something as fragmented as cleansing all foods. It probably originally concluded the first thought (A) by following the writer of Mark's usual practice of using food as a metaphor for Jesus' teachings, and eating as absorbing and understanding them. I would bet good money that the original C statement was one of those hard-to-grasp Markan ambiguities, no doubt made worse by Mark's notoriously idiosyncratic Greek, and that it has been lost because no one could make sense of it. This verse is somewhat unstable in the manuscript tradition, perhaps indicating that the original must have required clarification.

[Christianity] [Gospel of Mark] [historical Jesus]

The Gospel Hoax by Stephen Carlson

The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith's Invention of Secret Mark
Stephen C. Carlson
Baylor University Press, 2005, 151 pages

"The way of testing it, therefore, was not to consider what the machine had read, but rather how it had read it....Regardless of the thoughts passing through the mind, the thought patterns record themselves unique to the person. I compared yours with a record of Murugan's which I found in Yama's laboratory. They were not the same. I do not know how you accomplished the body-change, but I knew you for what you were." Roger Zelazny, Lord of Light

One of life's simple pleasures is enjoying a book that unmasks a good hoax. Many a pleasurable hour I have spent with such works as Hugh Trevor-Roper's The Hermit of Beijing, Linda Sillitoe's Salamander: The Story of the Mormon Forgery Murders, and Robert Harris' Selling Hitler. Most recently I have been eagerly following the ongoing exposure of Gavin Menzie's fake Qing dynasty world map, which purports to be based on a Ming dynasty map from 1418. It was thus with great joy that I added Stephen Carlson's The Gospel Hoax, a well-written and educational unmasking of Morton Smith's forging of Secret Mark, to my list of must-read books on hoaxes and forgeries. Carlson offers a pithy, accessible work that presents not only a minute examination of the evidence, but also functions as a primer in how to understand hoaxes and fakes.

Secret Mark is a text allegedly discovered by Morton Smith in 1958. The text purports to be a lost passage from the Gospel of Mark, in which Jesus teaches an a young man the secrets of the kingdom of God, spending the night with him. The It comes authenticated by a letter from Clement of Alexandria, one of the patristic fathers, who attests to its unorthodox nature. Many academics questioned Secret Mark, but it managed to gain a certain acceptance among scholars, who, as Carlson points out, continued to use it as a resource even when in footnotes they noted its controversial nature.

Carlson requires just seven chapters and accompanying appendices to show that Secret Mark and its accompanying letter are both modern forgeries by Morton Smith, their alleged discoverer. Carlson demonstrates that Smith possessed the necessary means and abilities to obtain the 17th century volume in which the forger placed the text of the letter from Clement and the citation from Secret Mark, and to forge the text of the letter and of the Gospel passage. He also shows how Smith left tell-tale signs of forgery, and even encoded into Secret Mark and the Letter to Theodore the knowledge that he himself had forged the text, for Smith had a wonderful sense of humor. Finally, he demonstrates how Secret Mark is meant to appeal to a certain "ideological moment," the social and religious concerns of a particular period in history, identifies what Smith was writing to, and then shows how the passage of time has blunted the topicality of Smith's forgery, and thus, revealed it for the fraud that it is.

One of the most useful aspects of The Gospel Hoax is its discussion of the nature of hoaxes and forgeries. Carlson excels at making connections between how forgeries and forgers behave, and in locating those behaviors in Smith's own interactions with Secret Mark. For example, the key moment in any forgery is not its revelation but its initial authentication. Unless the object is authenticated by experts, it has no value, either as a hoax (a fraud perpetrated for personal motives, such as a practical joke) or a forgery (a fraud perpetrated for gain). The forger must thus gain control over the authentication process one way or another, to ensure an outcome beneficial to his cause. In Smith's case, Carlson shows how Smith managed the "authentication" of Secret Mark to give the appearance that it had been authenticated by experts, without any such authentication actually taking place. This strategy is quite common among forgers, and was used most recently in authenticating the fake Qing Dynasty map that purported to show that Chinese sailors had circumnavigated the world in the 15th century. As one Chinese expert noted in his debunking of the map:

Liu Gang bought the map for 4,000 yuan Renminbi from a Shanghai book dealer in 2001. Because he suspected at that time that the map might be a fake, he asked "five experienced collectors to verify the map and they affirmed that the map was at least 100 years old." Later, he asked a group of foreign "experts" (Professor Robert Cribbs, Dr. Gunnar Thompson, Charlotte Harris Rees, Lam Yee Din, Robin Lind, Gerald Andrew Bottomley and Anatole Andro) to examine this map (which in English was referred to as "The 1418 Map" to assesses its veracity. It was noted that "To date, all experts who have given their opinion on the 1418 map consider it to be genuine." I would like at ask how these "foreign experts" assessed a map from the 16th year of the Yong-le reign to be genuine.

If the reader peruses the website for 1421, he will find this statement of Charlotte Harris Rees:

"Although this map may seem shockingly modern for 1418 - based on my research it is what I would expect a Chinese map of that era to be. However, I have only seen a picture of this 1418 map. Others will have to fully authentic it. One thing we do know is that Chinese of that era had maps and that most of those maps were purposely destroyed during a period of China’s shut down from the world. That a map escaped the burnings and a later copy of it is now found seems plausible to me. . (The fact that my tax records from 20 years ago no longer exist does not prove that they never existed. Likewise, if I find my W-2 from 20 years ago, it does not mean that I just invented it.)"(emphasis mine)

In other words, Ms. Rees not only not a relevant expert, but has not even seen the map. Her degree is from a Bible college, Columbia International, and the fact that it is not given in her presentation indicates that it is probably not related to the topic at hand. Even knowing nothing about the absurd claims of the map, it is easy to see based on the behavior of Liu, the collector who allegedly found the map, that the map is a forgery. The "authentication" process has been controlled to yield an apparent authentication. Since a collector acting in good faith would have no need to stage-manage the authentication, the map is most probably a modern forgery. Smith's similar handling of the authentication of the manuscript of Secret Mark indicates, at minimum, his knowledge that the document was a forgery.

If this book has any flaws, it is that it is too short. Finishing The Gospel Hoax was rather like that disappointment experienced when returning to a buffet only to find that some scoundrel has already eaten the last piece of chocolate mousse cake. More, please! A minor nit: the figures could have used clearer pointers to what they were supposed to show.

In sum, a magnificent effort by Carlson, well-worth the investment in time and effort. Not merely of interest to New Testament scholars, this work will be useful to anyone who is studying hoaxes and forgeries. I look forward to more books in the future from Carlson on antiquities fraud.

[Christianity] [Gospel of Mark] [historical Jesus] [Secret Mark] [New Testament Studies] [fakes] [fraud] [forgery [Morton Smith]

Gibson on Mark 14: Was Jesus Killed in the Temple?

I finally got a minute to read Gibson's paper on the blasphemy charge in Mark 14, which he posted to the list a last week.

In this essay Gibson argues that the writer of Mark intended to compare the Sanhedrin who tried Jesus to the Zealots of the Jewish rebellion. Gibson locates parallels between the trial before Jesus and the sham trial of Zachariah son of Baruch by the Zealots:

"Here, as in Mk 14:54-63, we have a capital trial before a hastily summoned Sanhedrin. Here, as in Mk. 14:54-63, the trial occurs in the Temple precincts and in an atmosphere not only of crisis but of eschatological expectation centering in the God of Israel's imminent deliverance of his people from oppression and the destruction of Israel's enemies. Here, as in Mk. 14:54-63, those who convene the trial believe in holy war. Here, as in Mark, we have the appearance of false witnesses and the sounding of the theme of a predetermined verdict. Here, as in Mark, the one brought into court is a figure who is known and identified as standing in opposition to the ideology of those who have convened his trial. Here, as in Mark, the accused speaks out forcefully against the ideology of those who would condemn him. Here, as in Mark, the remarks of the accused evoke from his accusers both physical and verbal expressions of rage and indignation. Here, as in Mark, we find an outworking of a theme that standing on the side of the accused creates risks for those who might do so. And here, as in Mark, the one accused is handed over to mockery and an ignominious death."(p11)

Gibson follows Joel Marcus and the majority of exegetes in seeing Mark 13 as a reference to the Jewish War of 66-70. I argued several months ago on my blog that Mark 13 actually refers to the Bar Kochba revolt of 135. One part of my argument was that the writer of Mark coded a reference to the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus that Hadrian built on the Temple Mount. That makes a far better candidate for the "abomination of the desolation/makes desolation" than anything that happened prior.

The sequence in Mark 13 acts as a typology for the experience of Jesus during his Passion. The parallels run:

Disciples before Councils
Jesus before Sanhedrin

Disciples beaten in Synagogues
Jesus beaten after Sanhedrin Trial

Disciples before Governors
Jesus before Pilate

Disciples brought to trial and "handed over"
Jesus on trial and "handed over"

Brother betrays brother
Judas betrays Jesus

Disciples hated in Jesus' name
Reaction to Jesus' claim to be the Blessed One.

The very next verse is of course the "abomination of the desolation" which of course, if it completes the typology, is a reference to where Jesus died. Where was that?

TE Schmidt argued that Jesus' procession out to Golgotha was essentially a mock triumph. Schmidt was among a small number of exegetes who have observed that Golgotha may also be translated as head as well as skull. That would make Golgotha the Place of the Head. A Roman legend records that in Rome when a temple was being built on a hill, a human head was found with its features still intact. According to the legend, the soothsayers then said this meant the hill would be the head of all Italy. The hill was thus named Capitoline Hill. The significance of this should not be missed: the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus on Capitoline Hill, the Capitolium, the placed named after the Death's Head, was the terminus of every Roman triumph.

But as I just noted, there was also a hill in Jerusalem surmounted by a Capitoline Temple, the Temple Mount itself. The writer of Mark may be making an oblique reference to that Temple to Jupiter installed by Hadrian. Jesus was led out in triumph to a Capitoline hill, but it was another one, in Judea. That is what the author is trying to tell us.

That brings us back to Gibson, for Gibson's parallels imply a second vector on the question of the location of Jesus' death in Mark: Zachariah was killed in the Temple. Just like Jesus?

[Christianity] [Gospel of Mark] [historical Jesus]

Hurtado, Segal, Kloppenborg Criteria Discussion at Slate

Mark Goodacre left a parting Xmas gift on his blog, a link to a discussion between scholars Larry Hurtado, John Kloppenborg, and Alan Segal about NT historical studies. Alan Segal commented:

New Testament scholars who wanted to show that Jesus was a historical figure have developed over the last century criteria for judging the historical reliability of a source, like the New Testament, which was entirely written by believers. One criterion is that the story has to have a context in Judaism, as Jesus was born and died a Jew. Another criterion is that multiple sources in the early New Testament must attest to the story. But the most important arrow in the scholarly quiver has been and remains "the criterion of dissimilarity." The criterion sets a high standard: For scholars to arrive at an undoubted fact about the life of Jesus, they must eliminate as possibly biased everything that is in the interest of the early church to tell us. Conversely, for a fact about Jesus to be deemed historical, it must not be in the interest of the church to report it. It must be, in effect, an embarrassment for the early church. Thus, the criterion of dissimilarity is sometimes called the criterion of embarrassment.


........


For all the rigor of the standard it sets, the criterion demonstrates that Jesus existed. Here are some facts in the Gospels that embarrassed the early church: Jesus was baptized by John (a great theological problem). He preached the end of the world (which did not come). He opposed the Temple in some way (and this opposition led directly to his death). He was crucified (a disreputable way to die). The inscription on the cross was "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (the church never preached this title for Jesus and shortly lost interest in converting Jews). No one actually saw him arise (though evidently his disciples almost immediately felt that he had). Ironically, it's the embarrassing nature of these facts that assures us of their authenticity. The exalted figure of Jesus as a heavenly redeemer and the Lord of the Hebrew Bible, on the other hand, was the response of Jesus' closest disciples to the events of Easter morning. These are tenets of faith, not claims that can be demonstrated historically.

What's fascinating to me here is that these criteria discussions rarely expose the underlying assumption, built into these criteria, that the stories in the NT are history. None of the three discussants address this problem. For example, Segal writes that due to the criterion of dissimilarity, we know for a fact that:

Jesus was baptized by John (a great theological problem).

But all of Segal's conclusions here are incorrect. First, the Baptism by John was an embarrassment to the later proto-Orthodox Church. Whether it was embarrassing to other kinds of Christianities is highly problematical. We can see that built into this criterion is the unconcious assumption that the earliest tales of the Baptism are part of an proto-orthodox tradition, and not one that p-orthodoxy has taken over from some variant Christianity. Thus, the "theological" problem identified by Segal is an artifact of scholarly axioms about early Christianity that privilege that proto-orthodox tradition over other traditions, and has nothing to do with the text. The fact that this is found in Mark, who gives no inkling of being embarrassed -- indeed, constantly affirms the importance of John -- argues that the writer himself did not find it embarrassing/dissimilar, which means that it is absolutely irrelevant what later Church authorities (and 21st century scholars) might think.

The second problem is that it is an unexamined axiom of the embarrassment/dissimilarity criterion that the text contains history. For a text that does not contain history it will register a false positive. If in some bizarre future world the Lord of the Rings becomes a religious text, then it follows that in that future world, there will be some scholar arguing that Frodo's failure must be historical, since it would not have been recorded as it is too embarrassing.

One could add that there is a body of internal Christian evidence one could amass that shows this event never occurred. For example, in Acts 19 the writer of Luke has Paul encounter a group of adherents of John who are unaware of this seminal event in John's life and of John's relationship to Jesus. The evidence of other Christian writings, such as the Gospel of John, indicates that in the time when the gospels were written the followers of John were a thorn in the side of the followers of Jesus. Further, although Paul discusses the baptism in detail in Romans 6, he never refers to either Jesus' baptism or John the baptizer.

This takes us back to the problem of theology. If Mark was written, and intended as, a constructed fiction, then the whole idea of embarrassment or dissimilarity is completely misguided.

Many scholars have noted how the Gospel of Mark was written by paralleling the OT. It is my contention that its writer also drew on theology of Paul. In Mark, Jesus is never presented as the born Son of God -- that is a later development -- but as the Adopted Son of God. The writer's Christology is Adoptionist.

Once we understand this, it is easy to see what the writer drew on for his ideas: Paul. In Romans 8 Paul reminds his readers that believers are Sons of God:

14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.

15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you received a spirit of adoption, through which we cry, "Abba, Father!"

16 The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. (NAB)

The same theme appears in Galatians 4: believers are the adopted children of God, adopted through the sending of the spirit of God into the believer. Far from being theologically difficult, the writer's construction of the Baptism of Jesus is vintage Pauline theology, in which Jesus stands for the believer. It became awkward for later proto-orthodox Christians, who wanted to make Jesus the born son of God.

What is John the Baptist doing there? One can see several reasons why the creator of the Gospel of Mark used him. First, at the time he was writing, the followers of John and Jesus were rivals. Perhaps he is simply attempting to bridge that gap by assimilating John to the narrative tradition of Jesus. The writer of Mark may well have been a follower of John who switched sides and still have some reverence for John. Of course, from this remove it is impossible to be sure.

Another view of the fictional role of John in Mark can be obtained from the Greek novels of the first through third centuries. In such novels it was common to locate stories in a previous era, and use historical characters. Many other aspects of Mark appear to be conventions of these novels. I personally see the Gospel of Mark as a recruiting or baptismal document, whose geography and history are allegorical and symbolic, rather than factual. I doubt its author ever intended it as history. Hence, on that reading, the author simply recruits John into his story to play the role of Baptizer -- his historical association, after all -- and to play a narrative role. Standaert (1978) and Smith (1999) argue that the prologue follows the conventions of Greco-Roman tragedy, in which an actor comes out on stage at the beginning to familiarize the audience with the story. The actor plays the role of a messenger, often from the gods. After the introduction he disappears. Typically, while the audience is aware of what is going on, the characters remain in the dark until the recognition scene at the end. John fits perfectly in that role.

There's much to be discussed in this exchange between top scholars. Unfortunately, as they themselves aver, there is too much agreement between them.

Happy Holidays to All! 聖誕節和新年快樂!

[Christianity] [Gospel of Mark] [historical Jesus]