Davide's Notes

I just installed the SPIonic font. This post is just to test that I can use and display it properly. I'll need to use the character mapping frequently, so I've put a shortcut link to it on the left.

a!ggeloj, a)me/n, a!nqrwpoj, a)po&stoloj, Galilai&a, grafh&, do&ca, e0gw&, e!sxatoj, zwh/, qeo/j, kai/, kardi/a, ko/smoj, lo/goj, pneu~ma, profh/thj, sa/bbaton, fwnh/, Xristo/j, 0Abraa/m, Daui/d, Pau~loj, Pe/troj, Pila~toj, Si/mwn

(uhm, not always clear when to use the narrow and when the wide char for a given mark - the wide one seems just more centered)

UPDATE (June 30, 2004): Many thanks Tim and Jim for your comments. Obviously I am totally ignorant about this. Anyway: I've tried to read a few things about the matter, and I have found the following pages especially useful:

• Unicode, by Rodney J. Decker
• Unicode Polytonic Greek for the World Wide Web, by the Stoa consortium

My goal is to be able to write short Greek (and later on Hebrew) sentences on this blog. I won't necessarily read my blog always from the same computer, and I won't necessarily have control on which OS or fonts are installed on the computer I use. So the comment from Tim is appropriate (and yes, not everybody reading this will have SP fonts installed, although as Jim points out most scholars do -- on the other hand, I do not expect this blog to be read by many scholars). Therefore, and having seen that the W3C considers the <font> tag deprecated (cf. in particular the "face" attribute), I think that a better solution is indeed to go Unicode.

Having said that, perhaps the SP mappings still retain their usefulness e.g. when exchanging vanilla text messages in mailing list/group discussions, so I'll leave the link to the mapping as a reference.

Now, the problem is the workflow to be adopted to write posts with Greek sentences without too many frustrations or complications. This is what I've done so far. If anybody has advices, corrections, etc., do not hesitate to write.

1. I've modified the CSS for this page to include the following: <style type="text/css"> <!-- .Latin {font-family: Palatino Linotype, Palatino, Clas Garamond, Garamond, Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, serif;} .Greek {font-family: Palatino Linotype, Arial Unicode MS, Athena, Lucida Sans Unicode;} //--> </style> (but I think I can remove the "Latin" style)
2. I've installed Tavultesoft Keyman 6.0 and the Classical Greek keyboard mapping. This is on Windows XP; I still don't know how to enter Greek unicode characters in Linux.
3. When writing Greek sentences, I enclose them between <div class="Greek"> and </div> tags. I noticed that when displaying Greek text on my Linux workstation it does not make a difference whether I use these tags or not (probably because the browser falls down to a default Unicode font anyway, which is not really nice-looking - maybe it also does not have all glyphs). In Windows, leaving out the <div> tags makes the text to have an italic sort-of slant.
4. I was already using an HTML editor to compose especially my longer posts. It seems that Mozilla Composer handles Unicode well, so that's what I am going to use in this case. I can just copy and paste to the Blogger post. On the other hand, when Keyman is enabled I can directly type in Greek text in the Blogger post as well, and this is handy when I don't need an HTML editor.

To test all of this, these are the same Greek words I had put in my original post, this time using Unicode characters:


For reference, I have linked to the left bar the Keyman keyboard mapping and the README (the latter has notes on the accent marks).

The Synagogue and the Separation of the Christians by Judith Lieu on the web site for "Jewish-Christian Relations". Several other interesting articles there.

Meditate on the differences between these four more or less contemporary texts: John's Gospel, Letter to the Hebrews, 1 Clement, Revelation.

If these differences are not of time, are they differences of place, or of people involved, of personal inclination, of the pressure of external circumstances?

Some points:

• Define parting and reconcile the definition with the apparent lack of cohesive systems in the 1st century.
• John 9:22 (John 9:29 in the article is obviously a typo) and possible local interpretations (what do we mean by "synagogue" here?)
• Very interesting is Acts 13:16, where it appears that the synagogue is open to "men of Israel" and to "Gentiles who worship God". So, synagogue as a bridge; at the same time, is this realistic within a 1st century context?
• How to deal with the problem of education in the early church? (see notes on education) What about the Scriptures used by the church? Where were they stored/studied/discussed?
• Synagogue as second home for early Christians?
• Synagogue as a threat?

On church vs. synagogue:

It is intriguing how quickly the Christians come to use the term 'church'/ecclesia, almost exclusively of themselves, and 'synagogue' of the Jews. Christians not only use 'church' of the local community but also of the universal community, transcending the barriers of time and space.

This brings in the problem of the birth of ecclesiology and the related issue of ecclesiology as a key item for Christian self-identification. Why is this point markedly different in Judaism?

---

Categories: Church_History

A post not directly related to the BD this time. Re-reading Tacitus' Annals 15.44 on Nero's persecution of the Christians, the following sentence struck me as utterly modern:

exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat [...] per urbem etiam quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque.

and the urbs seems here a nice symbol of the information world (with the news deluge that inundates us every day) and of the Internet agora. No difficulties in finding modern implementations of exitiabiles superstitiones e.g. in economics and politics. Thanks Tacitus.

Interesting article (in Italian) by Andrzej Strus of the Salesian Pontifical University on Jewish Christians.

He says we can identify two periods, separated by the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 CE. In the first period, the Christian faith was very much connected to its Jewish roots.

See for example the attitude of Paul, minister of the Gentiles and still linked to the synagogue (Acts 9:20; 13:14) and to exterior signs (e.g. the circumcision of Timothy in Acts 16:3). On the other hand, in Philippians 3 he speaks of circumcision as "mutilation".

The date of 70 CE seems to me a handy but at least partly artificial periodization here. According to Eusebius (HE III,5.3), the Christians were commanded to leave Jerusalem before the war (so also Epiphanius). They would have gone to Pella. Stevenson dates this to c.66. This episode is then used to justify the destruction of the Temple (because it was as if "holy men had utterly deserted both the royal metropolis of the Jews itself and the whole land of Judaea" -- implicit ref. to Gen 18:33ff, Abraham intercession for Sodom). This reference to the "whole land of Judaea" seems not applicable to this period and rather reminds me of Hadrian's edict (dated 135), expelling all Jews from Judaea.

On the likeness of the flight to Pella, see Did Jerusalem Christians flee to Pella?. From the conclusion:

Some [Christians] remained in the Pella-Decapolis region and formed the nucleus of both the orthodox and heretical Christians found there in following centuries. Others returned not only to Jerusalem, to their old area on the southwest hill. Those who returned brought with them a bridge between the original Jewish Christian community and the predominantly Gentile church which had arisen by the beginning of the second century.

Some scholars believe there are possible NT references to this flight: Mark 13:14; Mark 16:7 (but Pella is in the Decapolis, east of the Jordan, not in Galilee); Matthew 10:23; Luke 21:20 (this has apparently not much to do with the flight per se); Rev 12:6.

The Jewish attitute toward the new Church can be seen in this anathema, included by 85 CE in the synagogue liturgy:

May the Nazarenes and the heretics be suddenly destroyed and removed from the Book of Life.

Anyway, that Jewish roots are affirmed in the early Church, there is little doubt. In Matthew's Gospel, Christ is the new Moses and the expected Messiah. Note that the Ebionites, Irenaeus tells us, "use the Gospel according to Matthew only".

Although Pharisees do not often appear in a good light in the Gospel (cf. Matt 23), Pharisees beliefs are not shown as always ostile to Christian thought: see example of Paul defending belief in the resurrection of the dead in front of the Sanhedrin against Sadducees in Acts 23. For an extra-biblical example, see later on James' martyrdom.

On the conversion of Jerusalem "priests" to the Christian faith see Acts 6. Chadwick contrasts this passage with the attitude of the Qumran community toward the Jerusalem temple. I am not sure this is so relevant. On contrasts on relationships with Gentiles within and without the Church see Acts 6-7.

It is perhaps interesting to note how little is known about the fate of the "mother-church in Judaea". Not much (if we exclude medieval tales) remains about the fate of the Apostles, and what remains seems to focus outside of Palestine (pointing to a rapid decline of Jewish Christianity).

• According to Polycrates (bishop of Ephesus, c. 185-195), John died in Ephesus; he traditionally lived with Mary (John 19:27). According to Eusebius, he spent 18 months on the island of Patmos (Dodecanese, 37 miles SW of Miletus), having been sent there by Domitian (debatable, was perhaps Nero) in 95 CE.
• Philip had four daughters (Acts 21:9). According to Polycrates, he died at Hierapolis (Pamukkale), Phrygia (although Polycrates speaks of only 2 daughters).
• The case of James is quite complex. Josephus (Ant. XX,9,1) says that he was stoned to death under the high priest Ananus in 62 CE. Josephus says Ananus was a Sadducee, and that the rigidity of the sect was at least part of the reason why James was condemned (keep in mind that Josephus was a Pharisee). This condemnation was apparently not shared by "those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and accurate in legal matters". It seems fair to say that the death of James was an important blow to the Jerusalem church and to Jewish Christianity at large. What emerges in the NT is at least the authority of James in the early church: see for example the way he speaks in Acts 15 and the passage from Gal at the next bullet. Eusebius seems also clear in putting James (and not Peter) at the head of the Jerusalem church (cf. HE II.1.2), and so does the author of the Gospel of Thomas (Thomas 12).
• Peter suffered martyrdom most likely in Rome under Nero (cf. 1 Clement and Ignatius to the Romans). His relationship with both James and Paul is not crystal clear (for example, cf the strong opposition between Paul and Peter in Gal 2:11ff). See also the role of James there.

Next: see the contribution of the Apostolic Fathers to the relationships between Jewish and Gentile Christianity.

---

Categories: Church_History

Mentioned by textweek: the new BBC series In the Footsteps of Muhammad. The programmes include Mecca, Jerusalem, Granada, Indonesia. Some interesting links on each of these pages.

Following a suggestion by Tim Bulkeley, I have created a Topical Index of this blog.

The categories are somewhat arbitrary and subject to change, but the idea is to mirror the structure of the BD syllabus as I go through it. The index is manually maintained, so I'll have to remember to update it.

A link to the index is also available on the left bar of this page.

UPDATE (June 25, 2004): the topical index page should now display correctly in Mozilla.

Text: Iudaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit. (Svetonius, cf. Acts 18:2)

This Chrestus may be a name for Christ, or just the name of a turbulent religious leader in Rome. If it is a reference to Christ, it may point to disturbances happening because of violent debates within the Jewish community about Christ as the Messiah. Or because of debates concerning the decisions of the recent council of Jerusalem (48-49, Acts 15).

It is possible and likely that at this early stage Judaism and Christianity were regarded as the same religion, so the expulsion may just apply to Christians only (Iudaeos expulit in the sense of "some Jews"). It is also possible that Iudaeos here are really people practising Judaism, and that Christianity has nothing to do with them (against Acts). Certainly this decree of expulsion contrasts sharply with Claudius' approach toward Alexandrian Jews ("I conjure you that, on the one hand, the Alexandrians show themselves forebearing and kindly towards the Jews who for many years have dwelt in the same city, and dishonor none of the rites observed by them in the worship of their god, but allow them to observe their customs as in the time of the Deified Augustus...", cf Claudius, Letter to the Alexandrians). On the other hand, Claudius is known to have been paranoic about his own safety, so the expulsion might have been justified had he for example seen in it a threat to himself. But a mass expulsion seems rather peculiar.

Acts say that when Paul arrived in Corynth (50) the expulsion had occurred already, and the expulsion is dated generally to 49 CE.

Regarding Nero (54-68) and its persecution, see Tacitus' Account of Nero's Persecution of Christians for a comment of the well-known passage from the Annals, questioning the persecution itself. Interesting comments on possible theological interpolations of Tacitus' text.

---

Categories: Church_History

What does the text tell us about the problems in the Church of Corynth? The suggestion by the AB article notwithstanding, financial issues are not mentioned in the letter. This does not exclude that these might have been a reason for the disturbances, of course.

The initial points shown in the letter (III) are:

• There is a rebellion
• The young against the old
• Every one abandons the fear of God
• The practice of envy resumes

Envy seems to play an important role. This is for Clement a common struggle, to be found in Corynth as well as in Rome (VII). This could point to well-known tensions, revolving (see later) around the appointments of community leaders.

To envy, pride is associated (XIV). But envy of what? Apparently, envy about the role of presbyters (as community guides).

In opposition to envy and pride, humility is exhalted (XIII.XIV-XVIII).

Envy and pride were at the root of the removal of some presbyters (XLIV). That this was a known problem for Clement is probably shown by his mentioning the fact that the Apostles themselves had predicted that this would have been a touchy issue. So, the main point of contention seems to be on who is to be appointed bishop (in the sense of presbyters: note how the two terms are used somewhat interchangeably).

The criteria that Clement gives in XLIV are that ministers that:

• have been appointed by the apostles or "by other eminent men", AND
• with the consent of the whole Church, AND
• who have blamelessly served in humble, peaceful and disinterested spirit, AND
• have had the good opinion of all for a long time,

these ministers cannot be dismissed. It would be interesting to know why he thinks that the "rebels" have not a "disinterested spirit". Certainly this might be a place where financial interest could have played a role (but again, no data about this in the text, and pride does not necessarily match well with it).

Apparently, the "consent of the whole Church" was considered by Clement a necessary precondition for the election of a presbyter, but not a valid point to dismiss that same presbyter (Clement explictly seems to suggest that part of the community was against those presbyters now). On the other hand, he also seems to suggest that the very fact of rebelling against the appointed presbyters de facto puts the rebels outside the Church community, so the criteria above cannot be taken very rigidly.

See also the textual problems in chap. XLIV related to the word "epimonen" in the process of designation of the presbyters via apostolic succession (Gebhardt/Harnack interpret as dispositio, praeceptum, which is somewhat rejected by Lightfoot).

---

Categories: Church_History

The reference to the Phoenix as a resurrection symbol in 1 Clement 25 caught my attention.

Some pointers:

• Pliny, Naturalis Historia
• De Ave Phoenice (Lactantius, ca. 300 CE)
• Jewish Heritage Online Magazine on the phoenix

There are numerous online sites offering more or less solid information about mystical traditions all over the world about the phoenix, but the questions that interest me are:

Where did Clement get this notion from, and why did he include the story in 1 Clement? Where do you else (esp. in other ancient Jewish or Christian writing) find similar references?

In 1 Clement it is explicitly a symbol of the resurrection.

Indeed Tertullian, for example, uses the phoenix in his On the Resurrection of the Flesh:

God even in His own Scripture says: "The righteous shall flourish like the phoenix;" that is, shall flourish or revive, from death, from the grave-to teach you to believe that a bodily substance may be recovered even from the fire. Our Lord has declared that we are "better than many sparrows": well, if not better than many a phoenix too, it were no great thing. But must men die once for all, while birds in Arabia are sure of a resurrection?

Incidentally, the Scripture passage Tertullian refers to here is Ps 92:12; Tertullian says Δίκαιος ὡς φοίνιξ ἀνθρήσει, but it is really "like a palm tree": this is a characteristic way of Tertullian's quoting a scripture which has even the least bearing on his subject (ANF footnotes).

The history of the phoenix can be found in early Egyptian inscriptions (2500 BCE in the Heliopolitan mythology of Atum/Re). A notable point of that legend is that the phoenix had (according to the Book of the Dead) the function to assist the soul going from the underworld to the sun.

Another important feature of the phoenix is that it reflects periodization of history. This is something we find quite clearly in 1Enoch and of course in Iranian thought. It is also present in a more latent way in scriptural passages (think for example of Gen 1-12, or Dan 7 - cf. also Matt 1:1-17). The phoenix seems to draw on this common background, with emphasis on the apocalyptic message.

The story itself is not unknown to the HB: "Then I thought, 'I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days like the phoenix'" (Job 29:18). Note that Job (19:25) is quoted in 1 Clement 26, immediately after the phoenix tale.

I found an online reference to a Jewish legend, where the phoenix's name is Milcham; in this legend, the phoenix would have been rewarded with immortality by God for being the only animal not to be persuaded by Eve to eat the forbidden fruit (a sinless animal, one could say).

Diogenes Laertius writes in his Life of Pyrrho that the phoenix reproduces asexually. This will develop into a standard Christian symbol of life after death.

Lactantius says that the phoenix lives in a place very much full of attributes typical of the Christian paradise (e.g., eternity).

Overall, it seems clear then that the symbol of the phoenix is a nice testimony to the continuity of traditions (with new or better specified meanings) in different contexts.

---

Categories: Church_History

Text here.

Eusebius tells us that Dionysius, bishop of Corynthus, writes in ca. 150 to Soter, bishop of Rome, that 1 Clement was read in the church:

In this same epistle [Dyonisius to Soter] he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: "To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement." (Hist. Eccl.4.23)

Again Eusebius:

In the twelfth year of the same reign [Domitian [81-96], so the year would be 92 CE] Clement succeeded Anacletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: "With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life." [quote from Phil 4:3]

There is extant an epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own. And of the fact that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness. (Hist. Eccl. 3.15-16)

It is not clear at all that this Clement from Philippi mentioned by Paul is the Clement author of 1 Clement. In addition to Eusebius, Origen supports this view (Origen is speaking of the death of the martyrs):

Among the Gentiles, too, it is recorded that many a one, when pestilential disease broke out in his country, offered himself a victim for the public good. That this was the case the faithful Clement assumes, on the faith of the narratives, to whom Paul bears witness when he says, "With Clement also, and the others, my fellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life." (Commentary on John, 6.36)

The reference Origen is making here is to 1 Clement 55: "Many kings and princes, in times of pestilence, when they had been instructed by an oracle, have given themselves up to death, in order that by their own blood they might deliver their fellow-citizens".

On the other hand, Ireneaus, who wrote before Origen, says that

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. (Haer. 3.3.3)

The reference to Linus here is 2 Tim 4:21 (and it does not seem it can be accurate, as it would assume monoepiscopacy in the 1st century).
Note that authorship of the letter to the Corinthians is given by Irenaeus to "the Church in Rome", not directly to Clement (and that is what is explicitly stated in 1 Clement 1: "The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth"). Unity of content and style suggests a single author, though. Anyway, Irenaeus does not seem to identify Clement of Rome with Clement of Philippi.

Tertullian also does not identify him with the Philippian Clement (and informs us that he had been ordained bishop by Peter):

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,-a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. (De praescr. haeret. 32).

Why is the text thought to be so authoritative in the early church? What is the purpose of the letter?

R.Knopf: [the letter is] extremely verbose in giving a great number of admonitions about the main issues of Christian conduct and life above and beyond the immediate occasion for the writing, so that one cannot see precisely what relationship these admonitions have to the real purpose of the letter.

As a matter of fact, the letter seems to be a sermon, concluded by a solemn liturgical prayer.

It is not clear from the letter what exactly caused the removal of the Corynthian presbyters (44.6). But certainly the matter must have substantially worried the Church of Rome. So, a first point is to understand the developments of the Church in Corynth. We know from Paul's letters that different patterns of Christianity developed there.

• The personal disciples of Paul.
• The followers of Apollo.
• Jewish Christians who identified themselves with Peter: they hold fast to their Jewish practices but do not demand the same from non Jewish Christians.
• Jewish Christians who demanded gentile Christians to become circumcised.
• Perhaps a gnostic pattern: according to this view, having gnosis would have permitted "everything", including "food sacrificed to idols" (cf. 1Cor 8:1ff). Cf. also the difference Paul makes between the strong and the weak believers.

Bauer: the considerations made about the future resurrection ("The Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection", 1 Clement 24ff) might be related to the fact that Corynth had a significant gnostic faction, which denied resurrection. Traces of this we find in 1Cor 15:12: "how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?", and in the Acts of Paul, where Paul disputes with gnostic leaders, who deny resurrection.

It could then be possible that the letter attests to the building up of an orthodoxy, against the gnosticizing Christians (attracted by the hellenistic world). The fact that some orthodox presbyters were deposed by the people (the young taking over the old) proves that the opposing faction enjoyed quite some support. The abundant references to OT history in the first part of the letter seems to reinforce the idea of a Christianity directly inheriting from Judaism, rather than a new (gnostic) religion.

Apart from perhaps ahistorical considerations of Roman supremacy, the Church in Rome was also worried about its own isolation from the eastern Churches. See Bauer.05. The assumption here is that gnostic developments in Rome were marginal.

This idea of the letter reinforcing orthodoxy and the importance of apostolic succession can be seen very clearly in the passage from Irenaeus above.

Now, we should probably not stretch this too much to mean that the Church in Rome, at the time of 1 Clement, was making claims to monarchical episcopate and primacy (since nothing is said in the letter about this). Certainly it is somewhat surprising to see how the Church in Rome at that early stage takes explicit side with a faction of another, distant Church. Interesting: one should remember that at this time "the Roman church possessed neither the means nor the position to effect such an intervention [to exile the younger persons who had raised the rebellion, 1 Clement 54:1ff]. That the author did not possess the authority he claims is evident from the rhetorical character of the letter: He must persuade by argument and induce by example; that is, it is not yet his to command." (AB)

Certainly to some extent the Church in Rome is acting as a leader Church ("modeled on the relations of the capital to the provinces", or mother-city to colony). The letter is to situated in a Greco-Roman context, and one of its main concerns is the exhortation to the Roman ideal of "peace and concord" (which underlines also the cosmic order as depicted in 1 Clement 20). The structure of the intervention of the Church of Rome (letter, witnesses sent to present and defend arguments in an attempt to bring back peace, invitation to exile as a mean to avoid trials) is modeled after the Roman state.

Some say that 1 Clement contains "the first patristic affirmation of the divine right of the hierarchy", referring to 1 Clement 42 and 44. What this means is that the priestly office derives, through apostles, bishops and deacons, from uninterrupted continuity from Christ, as mentioned above. Note that, in 1 Clement 42, the text purports to give biblical support to this by quoting apparently Isa 60:17:

Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops [overseers] in righteousness, and their deacons [servants] in faith."

In reality the Isaiah text reads "I will appoint Peace as your overseer and Righteousness as your taskmaster", and the LXX has "I will make your princes peaceable, and your overseers righteous." (actually the Hebrew has "overseer" in the sense of "oppressor" or "tyrant" and the overall context of Isa 60 seems rather extraneous to the point being made here by 1 Clement.) In any case, the introduction of the deacons here is due to this misquotation.

---

Categories: Church_History

It would be interesting to spend some time reflecting on the differences in educational paths, comparing for example traditional Jewish education vs education in the Roman world.

Some pointers:

• Holman Bible Dictionary
• Baker's Evangelical Dictionary

"There is no Mosaic legislation requiring the establishment of schools for formal religious instruction." (Holman)

Is this (can it be) any different in other ANE cultures? To start with, it seems to me that by "school" here we mean a place that somewhat sees beyond dynastic/sectarian/exclusive participation, and that seems anachronistic. Also, such a "school" seems to presuppose a significant literacy level and perhaps urban centers of some size (there was recently a brief note by NP Lemche on this).

On the other hand, the self-consciousness of the Israelites as the "chosen people" has the direct consequence that Torah itself is a kind of "formal religion instruction".

I think we should also be aware of the tendency to presuppose that formal instruction is required to be "producers of literary/cultural activity": see Amos and Micah for counter-examples.

Baker notes the following five points distinguishing the Israelite from other ANE religions:

1. Emphasis upon individual personality
2. Emphasis on the fatherhood of God (and importance of memory)
3. Personal freedom (free will -- although this is not always very clear, see notes on Essenes, Pharisees, Sadducees)
4. Israelites as a divinely chosen people hence nationalistic overtones. Perhaps this needs to be better qualified. Nationalism seems a late concept. See paper by David Goodblatt (which I would do well to study carefully also in its references), applying nationalism to the Second Temple period.
5. The doctrine of human sin and sinfulness. Perhaps better words here could be "trust/fidelity" and "memory" (human sin seems to evoke its Christian incarnation -- on the other hand, see e.g. 1QS, the Book of the Watchers, etc.).

Back for a moment to Goodblatt's paper, he says that "Second Temple sources which refer to education among the Jews do not mention a network of elementary schools or publicly supported teachers as the means by which children learn. Instead they refer to other means of education, such as private tutors for the wealthy and, most commonly, instruction by parents in the home." (think of Sirach here, both as a teacher for wealthy Jerusalem young men and in his typified picture of the role of the scribe, which may certainly assume a school.)

So, home (in the broad sense typical of a clan society) definitely seems to have a relevant role.

On the other hand, public readings may well have been a way of education (with varying degrees of formality). 2 Kings 23:1-3 is a "one time event" according to Goodblatt; I wonder whether the significance of the public reading in that case is for the audience in the fact that it was exceptional, or rather in that it was common practice but applied to the "new discovery". Deut 31:10-13 requires public reading of the Mosaic law every 7th year. It seems clear to me that such public reading events were integral part of the various festivals. NT Gospels attest in several places to the tradition of public readings in synagogues.

According to Josephus (Ant. IV,8,12), Moses said:

When the multitude are assembled together unto the holy city for sacrificing every seventh year, at the feast of tabernacles, let the high priest stand upon a high desk, whence he may be heard, and let him read the laws to all the people; and let neither the women nor the children be hindered from hearing, no, nor the servants neither; for it is a good thing that those laws should be engraven in their souls, and preserved in their memories, that so it may not be possible to blot them out; for by this means they will not be guilty of sin, when they cannot plead ignorance of what the laws have enjoined them. [...] Let the children also learn the laws, as the first thing they are taught, which will be the best thing they can be taught, and will be the cause of their future felicity.

Specifically on children's education, in Apion II,26 he writes that the law

commands us to bring those children up in learning, and to exercise them in the laws, and make them acquainted with the acts of their predecessors, in order to their imitation of them, and that they might be nourished up in the laws from their infancy, and might neither transgress them, nor have any pretense for their ignorance of them.

(ignorantia legis neminem excusat we would say, normally in a much more narrow sense)

In terms of methodology, perhaps it can be enclosed between, on the one hand, this quote from Novalis:

For the ancients, religion was already to a certain extent what it should become for us -- practical poetry

(romanticism and Jewish tradition? interesting. Think of Novalis' symbol of the blue flower?). This puts emphasis on rituals and practical hints in the context of tradition.

And, on the other hand, on the exposition method typical e.g. of the Mishnah. Cf the article "Talmud" by R. Goldenberg:

While the Mishnah looks like a code of rules for Jewish life, it apparently is something else. It requires more elucidation than it supplies, and it fails to tell how its contents might actually be put into practice. It is (he is speaking of Mishnah Berakhot), however, a remarkably seductive text: anyone studying these chapters will almost inevitable frame a list of questions for further inquiry [...] The Mishnah serves extremely well for the training of disciples or for the education of a community [...] [it] teaches the most important point of all: Jewish life is a life of constant study; one's Jewish learning is never complete while any part of it remains unexplained or incompletely integrated with the rest.

Further hints to be explored: Levites/Priests, Scribes, Prophets, Sages, Rabbi.

This blog has been recently mentioned in several other blogs I regularly read (among them, the Bible Software Review Weblog, the Biblical Theology Blog and the NT Gateway Weblog). I thank the authors of these blogs for their kind words, and above all for the resources they make available. I find them extremely useful.

Reflecting upon what Mark Goodacre and Rubén Gómez write about student blogs, I believe that the value of this blog for me is that it is personal: that is, it is really a place to jot down notes on what I read (or should read, or intend to read) or think. Group blogs and mailing lists are perhaps a different thing: there is (or at least there should be) more structure and formality, and normally the writing process is more event-driven. And the difference in context (for example, a class blog) clearly influences text, reader, and author (whereas here to some extent the role of the reader is confused with the role of the author). Also, blogging and assessment are perhaps not mutually exclusive, but I wouldn't want to think, before posting an item, that what I post here has a direct influence on my assessments (but details can certainly vary in this respect).

Having said that, I think that encouraging students to participate to e-list discussions (or group blogs) in the context of a course is a good thing, and one that I definitely miss as an external student. As a matter of fact, one of my perceived biggest disadvantages of being an external student is that it is basically not possible to get feedback from your teachers (exception made for the marks, which are of relative use).

Finally, I would be more than happy to see other student's blogs. I've put my email address on this page (dsalomoni at yahoo dot com), so if you are out there and would like to let me know of your blogs, or send me private comments, feel free to drop me a line.

Interesting colloquium with Niels Peter Lemche these days on the biblical-studies Yahoo! group. The first question deals with historicity of the biblical text. NPL indicates some questions to be asked:

• Who is the receiver of this history?
• Why was it written?
• And of course, by whom?
• And how did they write history in ancient times?

(ispirato dalle lezioni di Rabbi Rosenfeld)

Mose' ricevette la Torah dal Sinai e la consegno' a Giosue', Giosue' agli Anziani, gli Anziani ai Profeti, e i Profeti la consegnarono ai membri della Grande Sinagoga. Questi dissero tre cose: siate cauti nel giudicare, crescete molti discepoli, e create un recinto protettivo per la Torah. (Aboth 1.1)

Dobbiamo riconoscere come la lettura della Bibbia si trasforma nel tempo: dal tempo di Mose' (la rivelazione diretta), alla conquista della terra, alle intuizioni profetiche, per arrivare al periodo della sapienza. E in questo ultimo periodo cio' che ci illumina e' la Torah, la Scrittura, la fonte del nostro discernimento. Questa fonte pero' va riconosciuta come tale, e protetta: perche' sia sempre riconosciuto che essa (e non le nostre riflessioni) e' la luce. E' questo un rischio che sento particolarmente acuto nel mio bellissimo percorso di studio: il rischio di credere di poter illuminare io stesso intellettualmente la mia vita (con letture, riflessioni, esami, corsi, esegesi); invece di riconoscere che la illuminazione e' tale se e solo se rispetta il recinto che circonda la Scrittura, la sua storia e la sua tradizione (che e' anche la tradizione della "grande sinagoga", si intende).

Ciononostante, "crescete molti studenti": e' un nostro dovere quindi approfondire e godere della rivelazione divina (noi: sia come oggetto, sia come soggetto). Crescete studenti, dice un rabbi, non nel senso di creare delle copie esatte di voi stessi: ma in modo che ciascuno possa approfondire, secondo le sue proprie doti, la sua conoscenza della Torah. Questa ricchezza e diversita' di conoscenze e' poi fonte della gioia della condivisione.

E finalmente, il "recinto protettivo": e' facile pensare di abbandonare parte della Scrittura perche' (pensiamo) non piu' attuale o congeniale ai nostri pensieri. La Mishnah ci esorta a non cedere a questa tentazione, e Aboth ce lo ricorda nel primo versetto: la Scrittura e' "protetta". Ma non e' una protezione solo esterna a noi: e' nostro compito continuare nell'opera di creazione di questo "recinto protettivo". E questo possiamo fare con Deut 6:4-9.

Lessons by Rabbi Dovid Rosenfeld on torah.org. Full English text at Wesley Center.

Check out Diversity and Unity in Judaism before Jesus. Schematic differences:

• Pharisees - while "The Sadducees persuade only the well-to-do and have no popular following, [...] the Pharisees have the masses as allies." (Ant. 12.297-298).
  • Fate: certain events are the work of Fate, but not all; as to other events, it depends upon ourselves whether they shall take place or not.
  • Afterlife: the dead would be reconstituted with new physical bodies (cf. Dan 12:1).
  • Oral law: traditional teachings (Halakot) in addition to the biblical laws.
• Essenes
  • Fate: they believe that Fate is mistress of all things, and that nothing befalls men unless it be in accordance with her decree.
  • Afterlife: they believed in a non-corporeal afterlife.
  • Oral law: we know from e.g. 1QS that they had important purity rituals (cf Mk 7:2-4, where ceremonial washing is applied to Pharisees) not found in the biblical laws. Also, 4QMMT specifies that halakot are the reasons for their separation from the rest of the Jews.
  • The Bible: certainly the corpus of biblical texts found at Qumran does not coincide with what will later become the canon. Think of 1QapGen, or of the pesharim, or of the Psalms (containing a number of compositions not found in the canon later adopted by the rabbis).
• Sadducees - the Sadducees represent a religiously conservative element of Judean society. Their inability to assimilate new spiritual insights undoubtedly contributed to their extinction after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.
  • Fate: they do away with Fate, holding that there is no such thing and that human actions are not achieved in accordance with her decree, but that all things lie within our power, so that we ourselves are responsible for our well-being, while we suffer misfortune through our own thoughtlessness.
  • Afterlife: they did not believe in afterlife at all.
  • Oral law: they observed nothing apart from the Law of Moses (Ant. 13.297, 18.16).
  • The Bible: perhaps, given their attitude to oral law, they only accepted the Pentateuch as Scripture. Cf. Jesus in Mt. 22:23-32, quoting only Pentateuch passages when speaking to Sadducees (and not, for example, Dan 12).

Behavioral difference between Pharisees and Sadducees according to Josephus (Jewish War 2.164-166): "Now the Pharisees love one another and practice consensus in their community. But the Sadducees behave rather aggressively even towards each other. And they are as harsh in debates among themselves as with others".

On the concept of Fate in Josephus (cf Ant. 13.171), see the article The Fate of Josephus. In general, it seems clear that Josephus exaggerates the role of fate at least when he describes Essenes. Perhaps he was simply more concerned to express some overall differences (without particular concerns for accuracy) between strands of Judaism in a language that could be understood by his Hellenistic audience.

The pharisaic concept of free will is found e.g. in Pirke Aboth 3.19 (Rabbi Akiba: "All is foreseen, and free-will is given, and the world is judged by goodness, and all is according to the amount of work."), where free will is closely related to "the amount of work".

On the influence of foreign cultures for the development of theological concepts, esp. in the pharisaic strand:

• Resurrection of the dead: only appears after the Persian conquest, and may have been influenced by the Persian's Zoroastrian faith.
• Angelology/demonology: again, prior to the Persian era, angels were never named in the Bible.
• Hellenistic influence: note in particular the influence on Philo (less on Josephus, of Palestinian origin). At Qumran, a number of astrological texts were discovered among the Scrolls. Even though astrology was invented by the Babylonians, it was developed into a pseudo-science by the Greeks. It is this Greek form of astrology that appears in the Scrolls.

Qo 4:12 :

A cord of three strands is not quickly broken.

After some thinking, I've decided to change my study plan. So I will likely enter the following exams:

• New Testament Greek
• Introductory Biblical Hebrew
• Church History to 461 CE
• Christian Doctrine
• New Testament with Greek Texts
• Advanced Biblical Hebrew
• Johannine Writings in Greek

(it would be very strange not to include any Johannine writings in the degree I think)

Constraints: Introductory Biblical Hebrew can be offered for the last time in 2005, so now is the time; the same goes for Advanced Biblical Hebrews, likely to be present in 2006 for the last time. New Testament with Greek Texts requires New Testament Greek, so they must be offered in two different years.

I should ideally offer the first 4 (!) next year.

This leaves out important courses that I would have liked to take. For example:

• Romans in Greek
• Christian Ethics
• Liturgical Studies

but I prefer to spend more time in biblical studies at this stage. There will always be the possibility to register for "Supplementary subjects" once I get the degree.

The food of the Israelites and Egyptians was more of a vegetable than animal kind.

Their ordinary diet contained a larger proportion of farinaceous and leguminous foods, with honey, butter, and cheese, than of animal (2Sam 17:28-29). Still an entirely vegetable diet was deemed a poor one (Pro 15:17; Dan 1:12). Some kinds of locusts were eaten by the poor, and formed part of John the Baptist's simple diet (Mat 3:4; Lev 11:22). Condiments, as salt, mustard (Mat 13:31), anise, rue, cummin, almonds, were much used (Isa 28:25, etc.; Mat 23:23). The killing of a calf or sheep for a guest is as simple and expeditions in Modern Syria as it was in Abraham's days.

The children of Israel, when in the wilderness, are said to have looked back wistfully on the “cucumbers ... melons ... leeks ... onions, and the garlic” of Egypt (Num 11:5). All these things we find later were grown in Palestine.

For what regards fish, the present inhabitants of Moab and Edom make no use of the fish that swarm in the Arnon, the Ḥisa and other streams, but fishing is an important industry in Galilee and Western Palestine.

On nets: in the New Testament, σαγηνη, sagḗnē (Mat 13:47), is clearly the dragnet, and αμφιβληστρον, amphíblēstron (Mat 4:18), is clearly the casting net. The word most often used is δικτυον, díktuoň. Though this word is from dikeín, “to throw,” or “to cast,” the context in several places (e.g. Luk 5:4; Joh 21:11) suggests that a dragnet is meant. The dragnet may be several hundred feet long. The upper edge is buoyed and the lower edge is weighted. It is let down from a boat in a line parallel to the shore and is then pulled in by ropes attached to the two ends, several men and boys usually pulling at each end. The use of the casting net requires much skill. It forms a circle of from 10 to 20 feet in diameter with numerous small leaden weights at the circumference. It is lifted by the center and carefully gathered over the right arm. When well thrown it goes to some distance, at the same time spreading out into a wide circle. A cord may be attached to the center, but this is not always the case. When lifted again by the center, the leads come together, dragging over the bottom, and sometimes a large number of fish may be enclosed.

Keep in mind these notes: Beyond the Five-Paragraph Essay when preparing essays.