Author Archives: dorscribe@aol.com

Philip and James – Saints and Apostles

Rubens apostel philippus.jpg

Philip the Apostle – the saint we know is being celebrated on Monday, May 2…

* * * *

The next major Feast Day is Monday, May 2. That’s the feast of St. Philip and St. James, Apostles. It’s normally celebrated on May 1, but this year May 1 falls on a Sunday, so it got transferred.

The days’ readings are: Isaiah 30:18-21, Psalm 119:33-40, 2 Corinthians 4:1-6, and John 14:6-14. That’s according to lectionarypage.net, which has a three-year cycle of Bible readings for Sunday services.

But see also St. Philip & St. James, from Satucket. It has a two-year cycle of Daily Bible Readings. (You get through the Bible in two years.) And that site shows some debate on “St. James:”

The New Testament mentions at least two persons named James, probably at least three, and perhaps as many as eight. This is as good a place as any to sort them out.

The bottom line: We seem to be none to sure which St. James is being celebrated on May 2. But for a complete list of all eight possible candidates – for the post of the “James” being celebrated on May 1 (or 2, along with Philip) – see St. Philip & St. James.

At the top of that list-of-eight is James the Greater. (Seen at left.)

He’s also called James the son of Zebedee, and I wrote about him in St. James the Greater. On the other hand, the americancatholic.org piece on Philip and James said the James here was the Son of Alphaeus:

We know nothing of this man except his name, and … that Jesus chose him to be one of the 12 pillars of the New Israel… He is not the James of Acts, son of Clopas, “brother” of Jesus and later bishop of Jerusalem and the traditional author of the Letter of James. James, son of Alphaeus, is also known as James the Lesser to avoid confusing him with James the son of Zebedee, also an apostle and known as James the Greater.

Be all that as it may… The James the Greater post said he has a Feast Day all his own, on July 25. It also noted that – according to tradition – he was the first apostle to be martyred. (Some time around 44 A.D.) And that according to tradition, he’s the patron saint of pilgrims:

In the spiritual literature of Christianity, the concept of pilgrim and pilgrimage may refer to the experience of life in the world (considered as a period of exile) or to the inner path of the spiritual aspirant from a state of wretchedness to a state of beatitude.

On that note, the post cited a book by James Roose-Evans, Passages of the Soul: Ritual Today.

The book noted that a sense of ritual “should pervade a healthy society.” (Apparently ours is none too healthy that way.) The book added that a big problem these days is that we’ve “abandoned many rituals that used to help us deal with big change and major trauma.”

In turn the book called a pilgrimage a “ritual” – a ceremonial act – “on the move.”

The book also noted that a good pilgrimage can be “one of the most chastening, but also one of the most liberating” of human experiences. Which led to the following observation, a la Dirty Harry: “So, punk, do you feel like getting chastened and liberated?”

(For more on a chastening-liberating pilgrimage I took – back in November 2014 – see Returning from a pilgrimage – and the coming holidays.)

But getting back to St. Philip… (We know a lot more about him.) The post Total love – and “the Living Vine” talked about the Sunday Bible readings for May 3, 2015. The first reading – Acts of the Apostles (8:26-40) – told about Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch:

Philip the Evangelist was told by an angel to go to the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, and there he met the Ethiopian eunuch… The eunuch was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah, and had come to Isaiah 53:7-8. Philip asked the Ethiopian, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He said[,] “How can I understand unless I have a teacher to teach me?” …Philip told him the Gospel of Jesus, and the Ethiopian asked to be baptized. They went down into some water and Philip baptized him.

The post also noted that as a eunuch the Ethiopian was beyond the pale – if not untouchable – from a legalistic standpoint. That was because of Deuteronomy 23:1. The King James Version – the Bible that God uses – puts the matter rather delicately: “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.“

Yet Philip, guided by God’s Spirit, does not hesitate to share the good news of God’s love and salvation with this less than whole Ethiopian and to baptize him into the faith, to welcome him into the life of the Christian church. This new faith is for all, God’s love is for every human being no matter what disability or disease or affliction has come our way.

(See “Wesley Uniting Church.”) In other words, the point of Acts 8:26-40 – and Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch – is that God’s Love is Universal. (See also Jonah and the bra-burners.)

So here’s to “Philip and James – Saints and Apostles,” and their Feast Day.

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Philip the Apostle – Wikipedia. The caption: “St. Philip, by Peter Paul Rubens, from his Twelve Apostles series (c. 1611), at the Museo del Prado, Madrid.” That article added: “In the Roman Catholic Church, the feast day of Philip, along with that of James the Just, was traditionally observed on 1 May, the anniversary of the dedication of the church dedicated to them in Rome (now called the Church of the Twelve Apostles).” A note: “James the Just” is third on the Satucket list, just below James the Greater and James the Lesser.

The image of St. Philip and St. James together is courtesy of catholicculture.org/culture/liturgicalyear. That site indicated that the Feast Day – May 1 or 2 – honors “James the Less:”

St. James the Less, a brother of the Apostle Jude, was of Cana of Galilee. He is the author of one of the Catholic Epistles in the New Testament. He was favored by an appearance of the Risen Christ (I Cor. 15:7). After the dispersion of the Apostles he was made Bishop of Jerusalem. He was visited by St. Paul (Gal. 1:19). He spoke after Peter at the meeting of the Apostles (Acts 15:13).

Another note: The “Daily” Bible readings for St. Philip & St. James include: Psalm 119:137-160 (morning); Psalm 139 (evening); Job 23:1-12; John 1:43-51 and/or John 12:20-26.

Re: Isaiah 53:7-8: “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth… For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.” The passage is said to refer to the sufferings of Christ. See John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible.

Re: “Beyond the pale.” See also The Pale – Wikipedia.

Re: “Untouchable.” See also Dalit – Wikipedia.

Re: Jonah and the bra-burners, which said the Book “ain’t about no stinkin’ whale:”

Clearly, the Book of Jonah … is the product of that school of Jewish thought which was universalist and which opposed the nationalist view… It is the universality of God and the attribute of divine mercy that are the lessons of Jonah. Those who think of the book as nothing more than the story of a man and a whale miss the whole point. (E.A.)

There used to be a lower image, and it was courtesy of the Wikipedia article, The Baptism of the Eunuch.

More on “arguing with God” – and St. Mark as Cinderella

Leave a reply

St. Mark, second from the right. (His symbol – a lion – sleeps in the right foreground…)

* * * *

This post talks about two recent Daily [Bible] Readings, and an upcoming Feast Day. (The one for St. Mark, on Monday April 25.) And here’s a note about the painting above.

St. Mark – second from the right – is seated directly above his symbol, a lion. (John, author of the fourth Gospel, is at the far right, standing and dressed in white.) I mention all this because – as noted – St. Mark’s feast day is next Monday, April 25.

But first I wanted to talk about the Old Testament Daily Office Reading for last Monday, April 18.

That reading is Exodus 32:1-20. I first wrote about that passage in Arguing with God. That’s when Moses went up on Mount Sinai to get the 10 Commandments from God. But back at base camp, the Children of Israel were partying up a storm. (Maybe since they’d just been freed from 400 years of slavery.) Which naturally made God mad.

God got so mad that He decided to destroy the Children of Israel and start all over again, with just Moses. In the Good News Translation of Exodus 32:10, God said to Moses: “Now, don’t try to stop me. I am angry with them, and I am going to destroy them. Then I will make you and your descendants into a great nation.” (Emphasis added.)

But here’s what happened next, from the King James 2000 Bible:

And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why does your wrath grow hot against your people … ? Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains… Turn from your fierce wrath, and change from this evil against your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants… And the LORD turned from the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

That’s Exodus 32, verses 11-14. (The “KJ2” link is at the top, second from the far right.)

Arguing with God noted the difference between Moses “pleading” or “beseeching” God. But the point is that what Moses was really doing was using his powers of persuasion to get God to change His Mind. In plain words, you could say that Moses was arguing with God.

And that’s a concept that many Christians – including most Fundamentalists or “Conservatives” – would find highly incongruous. And speaking of Moses, the Old Testament Daily Office Reading for Wednesday, April 18, talked about how Moses got in touch with God. (While the ancient Hebrews spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness.)

That reading was Exodus 33:1-23, and it includes Exodus 33:7-11:

Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, far off from the camp; he called it the tent of meeting… When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and the Lord would speak with Moses… Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.

Keep in mind that Moses was writing about – and referring to – himself in the third person.

That’s writing called illeism, and I wrote about that style of writing about this time last year, in Moses and “illeism.”

But more to the point, it goes to show “just when, where and how Moses came to write the first five books of the Bible. (The Torah.) I contemplated that subject – as illustrated at left – in My Lenten meditation, from last February.

Among other revelations, I found that it could be argued that Moses got his idea of “One God” from his time as a Prince of Egypt. And from the fact that Akhenaten – the Pharaoh who ruled 100 years before Moses – seems to have first introduced the idea of one God – monotheism – to the Egyptians. (But they just weren’t ready for that idea.)

And that while Moses may have written parts of the first five books of the Bible, he may have had to rely on oral tradition for some of his history. (See also Moses [and] the Burning Bush.)

But now it’s time to get back to St. Mark and his Feast Day. It’s celebrated next Monday, April 25, and you can see the full set of Bible readings at St. Mark, Evangelist.

See also St. Mark’s “Cinderella story”,” from last April 25. That post talked about how Mark’s account “is (or was) the most ‘dissed‘ of the Gospels.” That is, for many centuries the Early Church Fathers pretty much neglected Mark’s Gospel. (St. Augustine called Mark “the drudge and condenser” of Matthew.) Foe one thing, his written Greek was much “clumsier and more awkward” than the more-polished writing in Matthew, Luke and John.

The result? Mark’s was the “least cited Gospel in the early Christian period:”

But “this Cinderella got her glass slipper,” beginning in the 19th century… That’s when Bible scholars finally noticed the other three Gospels all cited material from Mark, but “he does not do the same for them…” And as a result of that, since the 19th century Mark’s “has become the most studied and influential Gospel.”

In other words, later scholars concluded that Mark “started the process and set the pattern of and for the other three Gospels.” And that belated recognition – of Mark’s as the real trend-setter of the Gospels – is where the Cinderella-story metapor comes in.

Then too, ever since then people have been struggling with the idea of God, just like Jacob did…

* * * *

File:Leloir - Jacob Wrestling with the Angel.jpg “Jacob wrestling with the Angel…”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Peter Paul Rubens: The Four Evangelists, which noted: “Rubens portrayed the four evangelists while working together on their texts. An angel helps them… Each gospel author can be identified by an attribute. The attributes were derived from the opening verses of the gospels. From left to right: Luke (bull), Matthew (man [angel]), Mark (lion), and John (eagle).” See also Four Evangelists – Wikipedia.

The full Daily Office Readings for Monday, April 18, 2016 are: Psalm 41, 52 (morning); Psalm 44 (evening); Exodus 32:1-20; Colossians 3:18-4:6(7-18); and Matthew 5:1-10.

The image of Moses is borrowed from On Moses and “illeism.” See that post for the full references.

The full Daily Office Readings for Wednesday, April 20, 2016 are: Psalm 119:49-72 (morning); Psalm 49, [53] (evening); Exodus 33:1-23; 1st Thessalonians 2:1-12; and Matthew 5:17-20. The indented quote in the main text of Exodus 33:7-11 is from the Revised Standard Version. The link in the main text will take you to the New International Version.

The lower image, courtesy of Wikipedia, is Jacob Wrestling with the Angel, by Alexander Louis Leloir(1865). Leloir (1843-1884), was a a French painter specializing in genre and history paintings. His younger brother was painter and playwright Maurice Leloir.

Paul restored – from the Damascus Road

Leave a reply

“Ananias Restoring the Sight of St. Paul” – after his Damascus road experience…

* * * *

Last week’s post was Doubting Thomas – and Peter Restored. (Including the image at right.) This week’s post is about Paul being “restored.”

He got restored from his state of “ungrace.”

As a result of that transformation, the Apostle Paul got transmogrified. I.e., changed from being the early Church’s deadliest enemy to being second only to Jesus in the history of that early Christian Church.

Note that the “Peter Restored” part of last week’s post was based on the Gospel for the Third Sunday of Easter. (April 10.) “That is, in John 21:1-19, ‘Jesus restored Peter to fellowship after Peter had previously denied him.'” But one thing that post missed was the first reading, Acts 9:1-6, (7-20). That reading told about Paul’s Damascus road experience.

And it continued the theme of being “restored to grace.”

But first it described Paul “in his former state” – of ungrace – beginning with this:

Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

I wrote about Paul‘s experience in Peter confesses, Paul converts. (About the June 29 Feast Day that “remembers both Peter and Paul, together.” See also St Peter and St Paul, Apostles. See also the Conversion of St. Paul at Wikipedia.) That is, before his Damascus road experience, Paul was a zealous Pharisee who intensely persecuted the early Christian Church. But God had other plans.

One example of Saul-Paul’s former life – as persecutor of the early church – was his part in the stoning of Stephen, in Acts 7:57-8:3. (“Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison.”)

See also Galatians 1:13-14, where Paul wrote about his being “extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” Accordingly, he intensely “persecuted the church of God” – that is, the new Christian Church he thought heretical – “and tried to destroy it.”

But then he had his Damascus Road Experience. In that experience he was literally struck blind, for three days. Accordingly, Paul was “pretty much dragged kicking and screaming into his position of authority,” within the new Christian Church he’d formerly tried to destroy.

The end result? Paul became “no less than the ‘second founder’ of Christianity.” (Second only to Jesus that is.)

Put another way, Paul is generally considered to be “one of the most important figures of the Apostolic Age.”

Or consider this: “Paul’s influence on Christian thinking arguably has been more significant than any other New Testament author.” (See Paul the Apostle – Wikipedia, with the image at right.) So one object lesson from all this could be: “Be careful who you persecute!”

But seriously, we now turn to the readings for next Sunday, April 17. (Which this year is the Fourth Sunday of Easter.) Among those readings is the Twenty-third Psalm. And that psalm deserves more discussion.

See for example Psalm 23 – Wikipedia, which prompted the painting below.

Eastman Johnson painted it in 1863, and called it “The Lord Is My Shepherd.”

Wikipedia noted the painting’s imagery, including an “African-American man reading the first part of a Bible, possibly the Book of Exodus. He is sitting against a blue jacket, which may indicate service in the Union army.” Then there’s also this note:

Eastman Johnson painted The Lord Is My Shepherd only months after the Emancipation Proclamation of New Year’s Day, 1863. The image of a humble black man reading from his Bible was reassuring to white Americans uncertain of what to expect from the freed slaves. But the simple act of reading was itself a political issue. Emancipation meant that blacks must educate themselves in order to be productive, responsible citizens. In the slave-holding South, teaching a black person to read had been a crime; in the North, the issue was not “May they read?” but “They must read.”

Also as to that artistic imagery, Wikipedia noted that reading man – formerly a slave – was “sitting against a blue jacket, which may indicate service in the Union army.”

That is, the reading man apparently served in the so-called “United States Colored Troops.” (Established by General Order Number 143 on May 22, 1863, ) And those troops – which included “Pacific Islanders, Asian Americans and Native Americans” – were the “precursor to the Buffalo Soldier regiments of the American Old West.”

Which is a pretty good metaphor for the transforming power of Jesus…

* * * *

Eastman Johnson‘s 1863 painting “The Lord is My Shepherd…”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Conversion of Paul the Apostle – Wikipedia. The full caption: “‘Ananias Restoring the Sight of St. Paul’ (c.1631) by Pietro da Cortona.”

See also Ananias of Damascus – Wikipedia, which noted his name means “favored of the LORD.” The actual restoration of Saul-Paul’s sight was described in Acts 9:17-19 NIV:

Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord – Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here – has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized,and after taking some food, he regained his strength.

Re: Psalm 23. Wikipedia noted that the text of the psalm, “beloved by Jews and Christians alike, is often alluded to in popular media and has been set to music many times.” The article cited a number of examples of the psalm being set to music, including Johann Sebastian Bach‘s “Cantata No.112 Der Herr ist mein getreuer Hirt, BWV 112.”

Re: the “transforming power of Jesus.” In case I’m being too subtle, the link is to 1st Timothy 1:12-16:

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me … putting me into service, even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor… It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience… (E.A.)

Also on that note, see Galatians 4:3, in the NLT: “that’s the way it was with us before Christ came. We were like children; we were slaves to the basic spiritual principles of this world.” As to the last passage, I prefer the RSV: that “we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe.”

The lower image is courtesy of Psalm 23 – Wikipedia, which included the caption noted above. The indented quote is courtesy of The Lord Is My Shepherd by Eastman Johnson / American Art.

* * * *

Doubting Thomas – and Peter Restored

Leave a reply

About Peter denying Jesus: Next Sunday’s Gospel – April 10 – tells how he got “restored to grace…”

* * * *

Here’s a heads up: The Gospel for the Third Sunday of Easter is all about the Restoration of Peter. (Peter – who became a saint – is seen at right.) That is, in John 21:1-19, “Jesus restored Peter to fellowship after Peter had previously denied him.” (Not just once, but three times.)

But Jesus did more than that.

He specifically charged Peter to “feed my sheep.”

Note also that this express restoration of Peter – by Jesus – is unique to John’s Gospel:

All four gospels record Peter’s denial of Jesus, and all of the synoptic gospels record how Peter “wept bitterly” after the rooster crowed. John omits this detail [about Peter weeping bitterly], but he is unique in describing the restoration scene between Jesus and Peter.

All of which reminds us that Jesus is willing to do the same thing for us today. That is, He’s willing to forgive and forget – referring to us – for all the times in the past that we’ve disappointed Him. (Or “fallen short.” See Romans 3:23.) Just like He did with Peter.

For more on the shortcoming itself, see Denial of Peter. The article noted that the “emotional turmoil and turbulent emotions behind Peter’s denial and later repentance have been the subject of major works of art for centuries.” For example, in the painting at the top of the page (by Gerard van Honthorst): “A young maidservant accused the apostle Peter, in the yellow cloak, of knowing Jesus Christ. Fearing for his own safety, Peter denied the acquaintance…”

So much for the Bible readings coming up next Sunday, April 10. (See also the notes…)

As for last Sunday (April 3), the Second Sunday of Easter (or the Sunday after Easter) is also – and always – “Doubting Thomas Sunday.” (He’s shown at left, with Jesus.)

That’s because the Gospel for the day is always John 20:19-31. It tells about how Doubting Thomas got his name. (And in turn how his name became a byword for any and every “skeptic who refuses to believe without direct personal experience.”)

One of the first posts I ever did for this blog was First musings – The readings for “Doubting Thomas” Sunday. That post noted the term was “a reference to the Apostle Thomas, who refused to believe that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to the ten other apostles, until he could see and feel the wounds received by Jesus on the cross.”

Which brings up the spiritual questions raised by Thomas and his “doubting.”

First of all: “If you doubt and question your faith will it become stronger?”

In other words, how do we as Christians deal with our doubts? About the Bible and about the life of Jesus? Put another way: “The flip side of that [first] question is: ‘Should we just blindly believe?'” For boot-camp Christians the answer is simple: You shouldn’t have any doubts.

In other words, you should “blindly believe.” But for the rest of us – the ones who don’t want to stay Bible buck privates the rest of our lives – the best answer was noted in First musings:

Remember Thomas, the disciple, who wouldn’t believe in Christ’s resurrection until he put his hand into Jesus’s wounds. He went on to die spreading the gospel in Persia and India. God gave us free choice, He doesn’t want us to be robots, He could have made us like that, but wanted us to choose for ourselves. You learn and grow by questioning. (E.A.)

File:Leloir - Jacob Wrestling with the Angel.jpg That – to me – was the best answer. And for more on that idea – and position – see On arguing with God. That post noted that Jacob got his name changed to Israel precisely because he wrestled with God.

And so he became “Patriarch of the Israelites.”

I also wrote about Thomas in Doubting Thomas’ “passage to India.” Among other things, that post noted the key difference between “skeptical” and “cynical.” The difference?

Being skeptical means “having reservations,” while the “main meaning of cynical is ‘believing the worst of people.” (Or, being “distrustful of human sincerity or integrity.”) On the other hand, the Bible itself tells us to approach the Faith with the proper sense of “reservation:”

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

See 1st John 4:1, emphasis added. See also About Saint Thomas the Apostle.

That site said that after the Ascension of Jesus, the Apostles as a group decided who would go where, and for what missionary purpose. And those disciples told Thomas to go to India.

He objected, saying he wasn’t healthy enough for such travel, and that “a Hebrew couldn’t possibly teach the Indians.” Then too – like Saint Patrick – he became a literal slave:

A merchant eventually sold Thomas into slavery in India. It was then, when he was freed from bondage that this saint began to form Christian parishes and building churches… Thomas built a total of seven churches in India[. He is] an example of both doubter and a staunch and loyal believer… After all, each of us has both of these characteristics residing deep within ourselves – both moments of doubt and those of great spiritual strength…

Indeed, you might say that developing such “great spiritual strength” is only possible by having – and overcoming – those “moments of doubt.” (See also resistance training.)

And finally, a note about two recent Daily Office Readings of interest.

The first is the New Testament reading for Thursday, April 8, 1st Peter 2:11-25. That included 1st Peter 2:13 and 14: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.”

For more on that thought – especially appropriate in this season of politics – see On dissin’ the Prez. Which noted Acts 23:5: “Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.”

And finally there’s the Gospel for today, April 9, which includes John 16:12, where Jesus said: “I have much to say to you, but you are not able to grasp it now.” Which of course supports my theory that it doesn’t pay – spiritually – to be a “boot-camp Christian.”

In the meantime, we remembered Thomas – doubts and all – from last Sunday. And this Sunday we remember Peter, who first denied Jesus three times, then got “restored to grace…”

* * * *

Christ’s Charge to Peter, in which Jesus is both “forgiving and stern…”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of the link Denial of Peter, in Restoration of Peter – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The full caption: “The Denial of St. Peter by Gerard van Honthorst (1622-24).” The description of the painting is courtesy of The Denial of St. Peter – ArtsConnectEd.

For more on forgiving and forgetting, see Does the Bible instruct us to forgive and forget?

The four readings for the Third Sunday of Easter – April 10 – are: Acts 9:1-6, (7-20), Psalm 30, Revelation 5:11-14, and John 21:1-19.

For more on St.Thomas in this post, see On St. Nick and “Doubting Thomas.”

The lower image is courtesy of Restoration of Peter – Wikipedia. The caption: “Christ’s Charge to Peter,” by Peter Paul Rubens (circa 1616). As to the forgiving and stern: “Paul Barnett notes that Jesus’ approach to Peter in John 21 is ‘both forgiving and stern.'”

On Eastertide – and “artistic license”

Leave a reply

“Moses doesn’t like this. Moses doesn’t like this one bit…*“

* * * *

Last (Holy) Saturday night, I stayed home and watched part of The Ten Commandments. (Noted further below.) That’s where Moses – as seen in the image above – comes in. And by the way, the “quote” is pure illeism: “the tendency in some individuals to refer to themselves in the third person.” That’s where the imaginary quote – “Moses doesn’t like this. Moses doesn’t like this one bit“ – comes in. (Moses wrote the First Five Books of the Bible in the third person.)

There’s more on that later, but first a note: Many churches this year will celebrate the Annunciation on April 4, instead of the usual March 25. (See e.g. The Lectionary Page.) That is:

The Annunciation would normally fall on Friday, March 25, 2016. That day, however, is Good Friday, and Annunciation is never celebrated during Holy Week. It is transferred, therefore, to Monday, April 4, 2016, the first open day after Easter Sunday.

See also An Annunciation-Good Friday anamoly. Then there’s Easter Season – AND BEYOND, which noted that Easter isn’t just one day, it’s an entire season. (Aka Eastertide.) In turn, Eastertide is defined as that long period – of 50 days – from Easter Sunday to Pentecost. (For more on Pentecost, see Pentecost – “Happy Birthday, Church!”) But before we get into that, I wanted to make a few comments on watching part of The Ten Commandments, the Saturday night before Easter Sunday.

(The real version, the one with Charlton Heston. You know, the one God watches?)

I happened on the movie while channel surfing the night of Holy Saturday. I came in just as Moses was about to learn he wasn’t really a Prince of Egypt, as he’d been taught “since birth.” As the faithful reader will know, that was pretty much the topic of my Lenten meditation.

(Briefly, What did Moses know, and when did he know it?)

As for watching the movie: Some time and a lot of commercials after I started watching, I realized this Hollywood version was a whole lot longer than the original. So I pulled out my trusty Bible and checked. Sure enough, in a short time I found Exodus 2:11-14, telling what made Moses to flee to Midian (seen at right):

One day, after Moses had grown up, he went out to where his own people were and watched them at their hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people. Looking this way and that and seeing no one, he killed the Egyptian and hid him in the sand. The next day he went out and saw two Hebrews fighting. He asked the one in the wrong, “Why are you hitting your fellow Hebrew?” The man said, “Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?” Then Moses was afraid and thought, “What I did must have become known.” (Emphasis added.)

That’s it. That’s all there was to the Bible version. But Cecil B. DeMille turned those four short verses into what seemed like hours of viewing time. (Including commercials of course.) He also added a host of complicated sub-plots that simply aren’t anywhere to be found in the Bible.

From which – I figured – there had to be some kind of object lesson.

Unfortunately, the Bible doesn’t give any clue about how Moses knew those two fighting Hebrews were “his own people.” (That passage follows right after Exodus 2:10, describing how Moses was adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter: “When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh’s daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying, ‘I drew him out of the water.'”)

The point of all this being: The 1956 Hollywood-DeMille version of this passage featured a great deal of artistic license, used to fill in a whole lot of blanks in Exodus 2:11-14.

If you don’t believe me, read the Wikipedia plot summary of the movie yourself. You’ll see that the mere summary alone is much longer than the Bible account. For another thing, you’ll see that the movie included a whole lot of drama that the Bible doesn’t even infer.

You’ll see things like Moses growing up to be a winning Egyptian diplomat, and general. (As in “winning a war with Ethiopia.”) Then too there’s the torrid love affair between Moses and Nefretiri. (Played by a very hot Anne Baxter.)

The movie also had Moses meeting “the stone-cutter Joshua.”

Incidentally, Joshua did go on to become “the leader of the Israelite tribes after the death of Moses.” (He also went on to write the sixth book of the Bible, after Moses wrote his “First Five.”) But the movie had Moses meeting Joshua way too early, while the Israelites were still slaves in Egypt. (And it was this Joshua who – in the movie – tells Moses “of the Hebrew God.”)

But in the Bible, Joshua isn’t mentioned until Exodus 17:9. That was way after the Israelites had left Egypt, crossed the Red Sea and wandered around the wilderness a good long while.

For more examples of such artistic license – again – check out the Wiki-plot summary yourself. But here are a few more highlights.

For one thing, while Moses is still an Egyptian general and overlord, he saves an old woman from being crushed to death. That woman – in the movie – turns out to be “his natural mother, Yoshebel.” (Or Jochebed.) Then there’s the matter of the beautiful Hebrew virgin “Lilia.”

In the movie – but not mentioned in the Bible – Lilia is engaged to Joshua. But various bad guys lust after her, like the evil Egyptian “master builder Baka” – played to perfection by Vincent Price – and the “ambitious Hebrew chief overseer Dathan.” (Ditto, by Edward G. Robinson.) Then too, in the movie – but not in the Bible – Moses kills Baka, but only to save Joshua. (In the movie, Joshua attacked Baka to keep him from raping Lilia, and he in turn is rescued by Moses.)

Further, when Moses “confesses” to Joshua that he too is a Hebrew, the ever-sneaky Dathan overhears the confession. In turn Dathan tells Pharoah – Yul Brynner – and in turn is rewarded with his freedom, various “riches” – and his own shot at Lilia.

But in a strange turn of events, when Pharaoh tells Moses to take His People and leave Egypt, Dathan gets turned out with them. From that point on – throughout the film – Dathan remains a “thorn in the flesh” to Moses. (As the Apostle Paul might put it. See 2d Corinthians 12:7.)

There are other examples of such whole cloth and/or artistic license episodes drawn from those four short verses in Exodus 2:11-14. They include but aren’t limited to: 1) A Hebrew woman named Memnet telling Nefretiri that Moses is the son of Hebrew slaves, then being murdered – pushed off a high balcony – by Nefretiri. 2) Moses voluntarily becoming a slave himself – after he wangles the truth from Nefertiri – “to learn more of their lives.” And 3) Moses brought in chains to Pharaoh – played by Yul Brynner – and then “banished to the desert.” (All because Nefertiri is still madly in love with him – Moses – and because Yul Brynner doesn’t want Moses as a martyr to his new queen.)

These then are the few comments I wanted to make, “on watching parts of The Ten Commandments on the Saturday night before Easter Sunday. ”

Which brings up the topic of rabbit trails. Some people say running down a rabbit trail is an “exercise in futility. It means wasting time and energy pursuing leads that go nowhere – or everywhere.” (Obviously, if a rabbit trail “leads everywhere,” it doesn’t waste your time.)

Others take a more broad view, like Today’s Idiom Is … Rabbit Trail. That fellow-blogger noted that while going down rabbit trails in “discussions can be fun and interesting,” they can also “interfere with resolving the topic at hand.” But the blogger noted this distinction:

You would never use that phrase to describe a leisurely trip when you explored a side path and had an interesting adventure. That’s more like taking the road less traveled[,] which is a literary reference to a poem by Robert Frost, “The Road Not Taken.” (E.A.)

So “we” may have ended up going down a rabbit trail here. Or we may have “taken the road less traveled.” Either way, it was fun for me, and I hope for the reader as well.

In the meantime, back to the subject of Easter being “not just one day, but an entire season.” (Also called Eastertide.) I’ll be writing more about Eastertide in the near future. But for now we can look forward to Pentecost – as the Birthday of the Church!

* * * *

An artist’s depiction of Pentecost – the “birthday of the Church…”

* * * *

I borrowed the idea of the upper image from On Moses and “illeism,” a post I did on May 20, 2014. But to get a larger version of the image I went to pinterest.com/pin/131237776614965931.

Also, as to the asterisk (*), I cut-and-pasted the caption quote for the upper image from Moses and “illeism.” As in: “Moses doesn’t like this. Moses doesn’t like this one bit…“

The map of Moses’ path to Midian is courtesy of treasureboxmy.blogspot.com/2013/12/exodus-moses-flees-to-midian.

Re: “Yoshebel” or Jochebed. Wikipedia noted that the “story of Jochebed is thought to be described in the Book of Exodus (2:1–10) – although she is not explicitly named here.” The article further noted that according to the Torah, she was “a daughter of Levi and mother of Aaron, Miriam and Moses.” Also, she is “praised for her faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews.”

Re: Joshua’s first mention in the Bible. See When is Joshua first mentioned in the Bible – Answers.com.

Re: Rabbit trails. Today’s Idiom also noted this: “If you’ve ever seen a dog follow a real rabbit trail in a field or someone’s back yard, you’ll see where this idiom comes from. The dog will endlessly sniff around in circles, never getting anywhere. And it certainly never finds the rabbit!”

Other links about the “road less traveled” – or more precisely “the road not taken” – include: The road less travelled – meaning and origin, The Road Less Traveled – New York University, The Road Not Taken – Wikipedia, and How to Take the Road Less Traveled: 14 Steps – wikiHow.

The lower image is courtesy of Pentecost – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, with the caption: “A Western depiction of the Pentecost, painted by Jean II Restout, 1732.”

An Annunciation-Good Friday anomaly

Leave a reply

Johann Schröder‘s interpretation of the Annunciation, which this year falls on Good Friday…

* * * *

Here’s an anomaly, having to do with this year’s Good Friday. (An anomaly is “odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.” Either that or an “incongruity.”)

This year, Good Friday falls on March 25. But by tradition, March 25 is also the day when we celebrate the Annunciation. So this year – on the same day we remember Jesus being hung on a cross – we would normally also celebrate “the announcement by the angel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary that she would conceive and become the mother of Jesus.” However:

The Annunciation would normally fall on Friday, March 25, 2016. That day, however, is Good Friday, and Annunciation is never celebrated during Holy Week. It is transferred, therefore, to Monday, April 4, 2016, the first open day after Easter Sunday.

See catholicism.about.com, as to the question, When Is Annunciation 2016?

And speaking of the Annunciation, last year I posted The Annunciation “gets the ball rolling.” I noted the metaphor of how the original early Church Fathers got that March 25 date by “figuring it backwards:”

It all started with the birth of Jesus. The early Church Fathers decided first that the celebration would be on December 25. (For reasons explained further below.) Then they figured backwards, nine months. Since they said Jesus was born on December 25, He had to have been “conceived” on the previous March 25. That’s where the Annunciation comes in.

I also noted how December 25 got picked as Jesus’ birthday. It had to do with the winter solstice, “the shortest day and the longest night of the year.” Back in the olden days, our primitive ancestors started worrying; “there was never any certainty that the sinking Sun would ever return… So about mid-December those old-time people kept worrying that the days would keep getting shorter and shorter, until there was nothing but eternal night.”

Which makes that the perfect complement to Good Friday, on which the liturgical color is black.

That is, beginning at the end of the evening Maundy Thursday service – in the Western church – the altar is stripped. Also, “the clergy no longer wear the purple or red that is customary throughout Great Lent, but instead don black vestments.”

But as we know, there is a happy ending.

For more on particular-church practices on Good Friday, see Wikipedia. But the general theme is revisiting “the events of the day through public reading of specific Psalms and the Gospels, and singing hymns about Christ’s death.” Other practices include fasting and acts of reparation.

Also, “the Stations of the Cross are often prayed either in the church or outside, and a prayer service may be held from midday to 3.00 pm, known as the Three Hours’ Agony.”

But during all those Good Friday hours of fasting, penance and remembering, don’t forget the real “reason for the season.”

That would be exemplified by the El Greco painting at right.

That painting “shows Jesus – the Risen Messiah – ‘in a blaze of glory … holding the white banner of victory over death.’” (See also On Easter Season – AND BEYOND.)

Note also that the Annunciation is celebrated about the time of the vernal equinox. (Vernal is from the Latin word for “spring.”)

Which brings up the matter of the Incarnation. See Wikipedia:

The Incarnation … is the belief that [Jesus], “became flesh” by being conceived in the womb of Mary… [The idea is that the Son of God] took on a human body and nature and becameboth man and God. In the Bible its clearest teaching is in John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…” The Incarnation is commemorated and celebrated each year at Christmas, and also reference can be made to the Feast of the Annunciation; “different aspects of the mystery of the Incarnation” are celebrated at Christmas and the Annunciation.

(See also Liturgical year – Wikipedia.) In other words, before Jesus could perform His greatest miracle, he had to pay the price of going through Good Friday.

And that could be another way of saying that both the Good Friday Experience and the Joyful Easter Experience that followed were all part of the rich tapestry of life. On the part of Jesus, that is. (And through Him, something we can experience as well…)

Which in turn is another way of saying “When one door closes, another one opens.”

That’s a famous saying, and it’s variously attributed to Alexander Graham Bell, or to Helen Keller, or to “the 21st chapter of Spanish novelist Miguel de Cervantes’s classic, “Don Quixote.” (And incidentally, here’s the rest of the quote: “…but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.”)

So here’s the real reason for the season: To remember the door that Jesus “opened for us.”

* * * *

Mihály Munkácsy‘s depiction of “behold the man” with Jesus and Pontius Pilate…

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Annunciation – Wikipedia. The caption: “The Annunciation – Johann Christian Schröder.” As to Good Friday on the same date at the Annunciation:

Because the sacrifice of Jesus through his crucifixion is commemorated on this day, the Divine Liturgy (the sacrifice of bread and wine) is never celebrated on Great Friday, except when this day coincides with the Great Feast of the Annunciation, which falls on the fixed date of 25 March (for those churches which follow the traditional Julian Calendar…

Re: “rich tapestry.” See also quotes and quotations on the tapestry of life, and/or America A Rich Tapestry Of Life « NaegeleBlog.

The lower image is courtesy of the Ecce Homo link in Annunciation – Wikipedia.

On Holy Week – 2016

Leave a reply

Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn: The Risen Christ Appearing to Mary Magdalen

“The Risen Christ Appearing to Mary Magdalen” – which comes at the end of Holy Week…

Today is the start of Holy Week. (Also known as the last week of Lent.) And just as an aside, last year – 2015 – Easter Sunday came later, on April 4. (As noted in On Holy Week – and hot buns.)

The “hot buns” part of that equation noted that “’hot cross buns are traditionally toasted and eaten on Good Friday,’ in the Anglican countries of the British Commonwealth:”

A hot cross bun is a “spiced sweet bun made with currants or raisins and marked with a cross on the top.” The eating of this hot cross bun was designed to mark the end of Lent, with all its disciplines and “giving ups.” I.e., during Lent, only “plain buns made without dairy products” could be eaten. That prohibition ended at noon on Good Friday.

The post also noted a number of superstitions from English folklore, about such “hot buns.” For example: Sharing a hot cross bun with friend “is supposed to ensure friendship throughout the coming year.” Also, if taken on a sea voyage, “hot cross buns are said to protect against shipwreck.”

But enough about those “hot buns.” (We are still in Lent, after all…)

More to the point, Holy Week includes – but is not limited to, spiritually speaking – the following Feast Days: Palm Sunday, Holy Wednesday (also known as Spy Wednesday), Maundy Thursday (Holy Thursday), Good Friday (Holy Friday), and Holy Saturday.” But here’s a key note:

Holy Week doesn’t “end” with Easter Sunday. By definition, Easter Sunday “is the beginning of another liturgical [season, 50 days long]…” That in turn could be a metaphor or object lesson for a whole new beginning, as in a “whole new way of life.” Which is another way of saying [that] Easter Sunday is the defining moment of the liturgical year…

See On Easter Season – AND BEYOND. That post noted that Easter Sunday – the end of Holy Week – is also known as Resurrection Sunday. For obvious reasons. It also included “a word about Rembrandt‘s interpretation of Easter morning, shown above:”

Mary Magdalen had just found Jesus’ grave empty, and asks a bystander what has happened. In her confusion she thinks the man is a gardener. Only when he replies with “Mary!” does she realize who she’s talking to. To illustrate Mary’s confusion, Jesus is often depicted as a gardener in this scene.

Then there’s the matter of Easter Sunday as celebrated today, “with the ‘Easter Bunny, colorfully decorated Easter eggs, and Easter egg hunts.’” (For a more liturgical view see What is Easter Sunday?) Which leads to the question: “So how did the Easter Bunny get mixed up in all this?”

The Easter Bunny (also called the Easter Rabbit or Easter Hare) is a symbol of Easter, depicted as a rabbit bringing Easter eggs. Originating among German Lutherans, the “Easter Hare” originally played the role of a judge, evaluating whether children were good or disobedient… In legend, the creature carries colored eggs in his basket, candy, and sometimes also toys to the homes of children, and as such shows similarities to Santa Claus or the Christkind, as they both bring gifts to children on the night before their respective holidays.

That’s from the Easter Bunny link, connected with the “bunny” postcard image at the bottom of the main text. There’s also a note that the Easter Bunny custom was first written of – in America – at about the year 1682. (See also social control, connected to similar practices before Christmas.)

Last year’s post – On Easter Season – AND BEYOND – also included a link to Ēostre – Wikipedia.

That noted the “Germanic divinity” who originally served as “namesake of the festival of Easter.” And it noted that the “Ēostre” celebration was mentioned by the Venerable Bede – at left – in his “8th-century work The Reckoning of Time.”

But in closing, here’s a more incongruous note.

I was sitting in church this morning, listening to the priest read from Luke 22:14-23:56. (Part of the full Palm Sunday readings, which can be seen at Sunday of the Passion: Palm Sunday.) And for some reason, on this particular morning I was struck by Luke 22:37. That passage came right after Jesus said that Peter would deny Him three times before the cock crowed. Jesus went on to say – in our translation – “I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me, `And he was counted among the lawless‘; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled.”

Biblehub.com has a number of different translations for the word “lawless:” Words like “transgressors,” or “rebels,” or “evil doers,” “criminals,” or even “outlaws.” And the notes thereto point to the “fifty third chapter of Isaiah, where this passage stands.” That 53d chapter is in turn “a manifest prophecy of the Messiah.” Specifically, see Isaiah 53:12:

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Another note pointed out that Jesus was “crucified between two thieves; and more than this.”

The more than this involved what might be known in the lawyer trade as a legal fiction. (That is, ” a fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to apply a legal rule.”) The legal rule in question demanded a blood sacrifice, under the Old Law, to cover the sins of the people. But to solve that problem for all time, Jesus substituted HIs own “blood” for ours:

[B]eing in the legal place, and stead of his people, and having their sins laid upon him, and imputed to him, he was made and accounted, by imputation, not only a sinner, but sin itself; and as such, was considered in the eye of the law, and by the justice of God… (E.A.)

Which is something to remember next Sunday, while enjoying those Chocolate Bunnies.

* * * *

“An Easter postcard depicting the Easter Bunny...”

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of The Risen Christ Appearing to Mary Magdalen – Art and the Bible.

The lower image is courtesy of Easter – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

St. Joseph and the “Passover Plot”

Leave a reply

Saint Joseph – his feast day is coming up on March 19 – “with the Infant Jesus…”

* * * *

Here’s a spoiler alert: Saint Joseph – earthly “father” of Jesus – has nothing to do with The Passover Plot. It’s just that this post is about both St. Joe and the book by Hugh Schonfield. (The thesis of that 1965 Schonfield book: The Crucifixion was a “conscious attempt by Jesus to fulfill the Messianic expectations rampant in his time,” but His plan “went unexpectedly wrong.”)

Then too, a discussion of The Passover Plot seems especially appropriate because Easter Sunday – March 27 – is now less than two weeks away.

But first, about St. Joseph. Last year at this time I posted On St. Paddy and St. Joe. There I noted the unusual situation in March – of most years – where a minor feast day is celebrated more than a major feast day.

That is – in a liturgical sense – the “earthly father[figure] of Jesus” outranks – by far – Saint Patrick, patron saint of Ireland.

(As noted in St. Joe, when it comes to the list of important Bible figures with feast days, St. Joseph “comes in third only to Christ the King and Mary.”)

St Patrick's Day Nevertheless, St. Patrick’s Day – March 17 – is celebrated far more widely than St. Joseph’s Day. (March 19.) On the other hand, this year’s Lectionary Page does list St. Joseph’s Feast Day, but it doesn’t list St. Patrick’s Day.

That’s because this year Easter comes way earlier than usual.

In other words, for this year – on what would normally be St. Patrick’s Day – the Lectionary Page has March 17 officially listed as Thursday in the Fifth Week of Lent. But of course that won’t change the fact that “St. Paddy’s Day” will be the more widely celebrated…

For more on St. Paddy and St. Joe, see last year’s post. It included a section on How the Irish Saved Civilization, and on how the Irish went from widespread ridicule to acceptance:

Facing nativist detractors who characterized them as drunken, violent, criminalized, and diseased [ – as illustrated at right – ] Irish-Americans were looking for ways to display their civic pride and the strength of their identity… [They] celebrated their Catholicism and patron saint … but they also stressed their patriotic belief in their new home. In essence, St. Patrick’s Day was a public declaration of a hybrid identity [with] a strict adherence to the values and liberties that the U.S. offered them.

And that seems to be an object lesson we could re-learn today…

But back to The Passover Plot. As noted, the thesis of Hugh Schonfield‘s 1965 book was that the Crucifixion was part of a “conscious attempt by Jesus to fulfill the Messianic expectations [but] that the plan went unexpectedly wrong.” On a related note, here’s something I didn’t know before: The book was made into a movie in 1976. That is, it was made into a:

Dramatization of the controversial best-seller that posits an alternate version of the birth of Christianity. In this version, Jesus planned for His crucifixion by taking a drug that would simulate death. After His unconscious body was placed in the tomb, a religious sect known as the Zealots would secretly steal Christ’s body from the tomb, then spread the rumor that He had risen, thus fulfilling Biblical prophecy.

The one thing I do remember is that the book was so fascinating it made me miss a plane to Key West.

This was in the days before cell phones. (In the late 1980s or very early 1990s.) My late wife was working as a traveling sales-lady, for a company that did church directories. So when she got posted down to Key West, I planned to fly down for the weekend. (From Tampa Airport.)

I brought along a copy of Passover Plot. I got checked in and seated in the waiting area, then started reading. When I looked up from the book – finally – I saw that my “flight had flown.”

I ended up getting to Key West on a later flight. I also ended up disagreeing with many or most of Schonfield‘s conclusions. But I found his methodical research enlightening. (In much the same way that I found Last Temptation of Christ enlightening. There too, I didn’t agree with all the premises of the movie, but I did feel it showed the conditions in which Jesus lived, far more accurately than the typical Hollywood “blonde, blue-eyed Jesus.”)

Then too, I’ve always felt that personal faith is not a matter of scientific proof. (Like those “boot camp Christians” who look so assiduously for proof of Noah’s Ark in Turkey, on or near Mount Ararat.) To me, faith is more a matter of that ongoing interactive walk to Jesus.

Hugh J. Schonfield. But we were discussing Passover Plot. I’ve included some excerpts in the notes, but first a couple reviews. For one, Goodreads also called the book fascinating, as well as “lucidly written and carefully documented.” At the same time it acknowledged “probably no other figure in modern Jewish historical research” was more controversial than Schonfield. (At right.)

Tim Chaffey said the book “created quite a stir.” He also questioned the author’s claims of objectivity: “it is easily demonstrated that his bias and philosophy overrule any attempt at objectivity.” And Stefan Zenker got to the crux of the matter:

[T]he discussion of Jesus’ faith and objectives was not what made the book controversial. The part that created an uproar was Schonfield’s claim that Jesus painstakingly built his own legend without actually performing any miracles. In particular, the greatest miracle of all: resurrection after death, had been carefully staged.

But Zenker also acknowledged that this “unusual book … read[s] like a thriller.”

And finally, there’s a review with a title that sounds a bit like a country-western song: “Pass Over ‘The Passover Plot’.'” But this review by the Christian Courier does provide one very valid reason for reading the book: “The Passover Plot illustrates every argument that tries to naturally explain the empty tomb.” (Emphasis in the original.)

And if that is true, then the Courier’s take on the matter almost makes The Passover Plot a bit of “required reading.” After all, Jesus Himself said in Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”

Other translations of Matthew 10:16 tell us to be “cunning as serpents,” or “crafty as snakes,” or “shrewd as serpents.” And since the serpent is a metaphor for the Devil, what Jesus seemed to say in Matthew 10:16 was that we should be “wise as hell” or “wise as the Devil.”

In plain words, Jesus was saying, “Know your enemy.” (A shrewd bit of wisdom officially attributed to Sun Tzu.) So for whatever reason, it might be “wise” to read The Passover Plot.

Unless of course you never made it beyond Bible boot-camp. . .

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Saint Joseph – Wikipedia, which also noted that the “Pauline epistles make no reference to Jesus’ father; nor does the Gospel of Mark.” The caption for the painting: “Saint Joseph with the Infant Jesus, Guido Reni (c. 1635).”

The plot summary of the movie version of Passover Plot was written by Mike Konczewski.

The Schonfield image is courtesy of the zenker review.

The lower image is courtesy of The Passover Plot – Wikipedia: “First edition (publ. Hutchinson).”

* * * *

The following excerpts are from the 1967 “Bantam Books” paperback version of The Passover Plot.

1) At pages 17-19, Schonfield described circumstances “making the Messianic Hope the powerful influence it became in the first century B.C.,” one of which was a “change of attitude towards the Bible.” The Hebrew Bible had three divisions, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings:

The Law, as consisting of the five books of Moses, had binding force by the fifth century B.C., or not much later. The Prophets did not acquire their force until about the third century B.C…. The effects of the recognition of the Law and the Prophets … as a corpus of sacred Scriptures were far-reaching. It opened the way for a new development, the treatment of these books as the Oracles of God. They became subject to all kinds of interpretation to draw out of them hidden meaning hidden meanings and prognostications.

This and other factors – including occupation by foreign armies – led to an increase in both religious devotion and “messianic thinking and prediction.” As a result, from “160 B.C. we are in a new age, an age of extraordinary fervour and religiousity… The whole condition of the Jewish people was psychologically abnormal.” At page 23 he added, “A whole nation was in the grip of delirium.”

2) And speaking of Palm Sunday – coming up next week – at pages 114-15, Schonfield wrote of “the brilliant move on the part of Jesus” to enter Jerusalem openly, and with great fanfare. “There had been no attempt to sneak into the city unobserved.” That brilliant move also kept the members of Sanhedrin from “molesting” Jesus. And speaking of being “wise as a serpent:“

He had finally allowed Himself to be acknowledged as the Messiah; but the clever way in which He had done this secured Him for the present complete freedom from molestation. They had to recognise that they were up against a man of courage, cunning and ingenuity.

And finally, 3) At pages 179-80, Schonfield noted the love and compassion of Jesus, but “united with commitment … the emphasis is on deeds as the proof of faith and love.” He then indicated – in an offhanded way – that we too could fulfill John 14:12 by performing as great or greater miracles than Jesus. (Okay, that last was a bit of artistic license on my part.) He concluded Part I with this:

The Iron Chancellor Bismarck, with reluctant admiration, once said of Disraeli, another famous schemer, “The old Jew, there is the man!” Seen in the Messianic light of the Passover Plot we can with more wholehearted approbation say of jesus, “The young Jew, there was the Man!”

All of which leads to a key observation. It was apparently only from the fifth century B.C. on that the Hebrew Bible achieved “binding force.” It was also at that “original” time that the Scripture “became subject to all kinds of interpretation to draw out of them hidden meaning hidden meanings and prognostications.” In other words, it appears that as originally intended, there were no “boot-camp Hebrews.” Then too, it can be said that in his book Schonfield greatly admired Jesus, even if he didn’t recognize Jesus as “the Messiah.” But as noted above, while I disagreed with much of what Schonfield wrote, I found his research enlightening. That is, giving “spiritual or intellectual insight.”

Did Jesus write the Gospels?

Leave a reply

Luke, Matthew, Mark and John, each of whom did write a Gospel…

As noted in earlier posts, my Lenten discipline is a formal contemplation – some deep profound thinking – about exactly how and when Moses put the first five books of the Bible – the Torah – into writing.

One thing I’ve learned: Moses may have relied heavily on oral tradition.

It wasn’t until Moses’ lifetime that writing as we know it got used at all. (And then only among the “learned classes.”) And as late as 700 years after Jesus, even Charlemagne – lord and ruler of the Holy Roman Empire – couldn’t read or write.

And Moses lived a thousand years before Jesus. (And two millennia before Charlemagne.)

Another thing I learned: Moses may have gotten the “One God” idea from a Pharaoh who ruled 100 years before him. (That would be Akhenaten. Egyptians later called him the “heretic king” for messing with traditional Egyptian polytheism. See Moses, the Burning Bush, “et alia.”)

Of course you may find that a bit hard to swallow. (That Moses got “One God” from an Egyptian.)

But consider this new evidence from the Daily Office Readings for Saturday, February 27.

In Genesis 43:16-34, Moses continued the story of how the Hebrews came to be in Egypt. For starters, Joseph was the son of Jacob, whose name got changed to Israel by God. And basically, Joseph ended up in Egypt after being kidnapped and sold into slavery by his jealous brothers.

So Joseph ended up in Egypt as a slave, but that was a good thing. (As it turned out.)

And aside from being a slave, Joseph also had to become pretty much a convicted felon. That is, he got “convicted” after Potiphar’s wife – seen at right – falsely accused him of rape. But then he ended up so well rehabilitated that Pharaoh made him his right-hand man. (Pharaoh seems to have given Joseph the functional equivalent of a pardon.)

In the meantime, Joseph’s family back in Canaan was going through a devastating famine. So Jacob – alias “Israel” – sent most of his sons down to Egypt to negotiate for some food.

In turn, the reading for Saturday, February 27, had Joseph invite his brothers to dinner. Of course the kicker was that his brothers didn’t recognize the guy who invited them to dinner as their “dead brother.” (Joseph was “dressed as an Egyptian ruler,” and the the last thing the brothers expected was to “find the brother they had sold into slavery.”)

The point of all this: According to Genesis 43:32 the Hebrews were unclean to the Egyptians:

The waiters served Joseph at his own table, and his brothers were served at a separate table. The Egyptians who ate with Joseph sat at their own table, because Egyptians despise Hebrews and refuse to eat with them. (E.A.)

According to the Pulpit Commentary, Egyptians couldn’t “break bread” with Hebrews, basically because they were ritually unclean. (The ritual painting at right is of “taking the bride to the bath house.”)

In turn, the Hebrews – after Moses – went on to develop their own tradition of refusing to eat with, come in contact with, or even visit “Gentiles.” See for example Salvation of the Gentiles, Part 1:

A strict Jew wouldn’t allow himself to be a guest in a Gentile house, neither would he invite one to be a guest in his own home… The Jews viewed Gentiles as unclean, and that had great ramifications. For example, milk that was drawn from a cow by Gentile hands was not allowed to be consumed by Jews… No Jew would ever eat with a Gentile. (E.A.)

So it would seem that the Hebrews “borrowed” this idea of ritually unclean foreigners from the Egyptians. In turn it seems well within the realm of possibility that – in the same way – Moses borrowed the idea of “One God.” (From the “heretic” Egyptian king, Akhenaten.) But note that Moses did a much better job than Akhenaten. He literally changed history, in such a way that it can be said, “His burning bush still lights our world.” (Moses, the Burning Bush, “et alia.”)

But we were talking about about exactly how and when Moses put the first five books of the Bible into writing. And to that end, we were discussing the related topic of whether Jesus Himself personally “wrote” the four Gospels found in the New Testament.

Of course the short answer is No, Jesus didn’t personally write any of the Gospels.

In turn the fact that He left that task to His disciples – and/or followers – seems rarely to have been debated in history. (Of course one “atheist” answer is that Jesus didn’t write His own Gospel because He was, “as a Galilean peasant, most probably illiterate.”)

Then too, it seems to have been common practice back then for really smart people to have their students – and followers – take down what they said. For example, consider what Will Durant wrote about Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 “before Jesus.” (And so well after Moses):

…it is possible that the writings attributed to Aristotle were not his, but were largely the compilations of students and followers who had embalmed the unadorned substance of his lectures in their notes… Even the unity of style that marks Aristotle’s writings, and offers an argument to those who defend his direct authorship, may be, after all, merely a unity given them through common editing… About this question there rages a sort of Homeric Question… We may at all events be sure that Aristotle is the spiritual author of all these books that bear his name: that the hand in some cases [may be] another’s hand, but that the head and heart are his. (E.A.)

In turn it could easily be said that Jesus “spiritually authored” the four Gospels. But might the same thing be said of Moses? Once again, there seems no certain answer.

“Boot camp” Christians say that of course Moses personally hand-wrote all first five books of the Bible. (See Don Stewart :: When Did Moses Write, or Compile, the Book.) Others point out various anachronisms and/or “chronological inconsistencies” that seem to prove otherwise. (See Why Moses Did Not Write the Torah – Mesa Community College.)

But couldn’t Moses too have had his own “students and followers,” just like Aristotle?

Those students and followers might well have “embalmed the unadorned substance” of Moses’ “lectures.” After all, what else was there to do on those long dark nights during 40 years of wandering in the wilderness? And those students and followers might well have numbered in their “hundreds, fifties and tens.” (Just like the other “leaders over groups” noted in Exodus 18:21.) And just what was Moses trying to do during those 40 long years?

Mainly Moses was trying to forge a disciplined army – from a bunch of former slaves – capable of bringing down the walls of Jericho, on the way to re-conquering the Promised Land.

(As alluded to in the Old Testament reading for the Fourth Sunday in Lent, Joshua 5:9-12.)

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. And unfortunately we’ve gone beyond the ideal length of blog posts, meaning this Homeric Question will remain unresolved a while longer…

Aristotle [contemplating] a bust of Homer, by Rembrandt…

* * * *

The upper image is courtesy of Four Evangelists – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For the four listed in order of appearance, see Peter Paul Rubens: The Four Evangelists – Art and the Bible:

Rubens portrayed the four evangelists while working together on their texts. An angel helps them… Each gospel author can be identified by an attribute. The attributes were derived from the opening verses of the gospels. From left to right: Luke (bull), Matthew (man [angel]), Mark (lion), and John (eagle).

Re: “Boot-camp Christians.” There’s more on that concept at the end of these notes. See also 2d Timothy 2:3-4, where Paul wrote, ^“Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.”

Also re: “buck private.” See Buck Privates – Wikipedia, on the “1941 comedy/World War II film that turned Bud Abbott and Lou Costello into bona fide movie stars.” (A poster for which is seen at right.)

The image of Potiphar’s wife and Joseph is courtesy of Potiphar – Wikipedia, captioned: “Joseph and Potiphar’s Wife, by Guido Reni 1630.”

On Joseph becoming “Israel.” See On arguing with God.

Re: brothers not recognizing. See Why didn’t Joseph’s brothers … Answers.

Re: Egyptians refusing to eat with Hebrews. See the full Pulpit Commentary on Genesis 43:32:

Because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews. Herodotus (2:41) affirms that the Egyptians would neither use the knife, spit, or basin of a Grecian, nor taste the flesh of a clean cow if it happened to be cut with a Grecian knife. For that is an abomination unto the Egyptians. The reason for this separation from foreigners being that they dreaded being polluted by such as killed and ate cows, which animals were held in high veneration in Egypt.

The Durant quote on Aristotle is from The Story of Philosophy: The lives and opinions of the world’s greatest philosophers from Plato to John Dewey. Specifically, from the 1953, Washington Square Press “Pocket Books” edition, at page 57, from Chapter II, “Aristotle and Greek Science,” sub-section II, “The Work of Aristotle.”

Note also that – strictly speaking – a Homeric Question “concerns the doubts and consequent debate over the identity of Homer, the authorship of the Iliad and Odyssey, and their historicity…”

The lower image is courtesy of Aristotle – Wikipedia.

Moses, the Burning Bush, “et alia”

Leave a reply

Moses and the Burning Bush – subject of next Sunday’s Old Testament Bible-reading…

The last time I reviewed the next-Sunday Bible readings was November 30, 2015. (On Advent – 2015.) But this next Sunday, February 28, 2016, I’ll be up front, serving as lay reader and chalicist. (A chalice is shown at left.)

Accordingly, it would behoove me to get familiar with those readings.

You can see the full readings at Third Sunday in Lent.

Those readings include: 1) Exodus 3:1-15 (on Moses and the Burning bush); Psalm 63:1-9 (the psalm I call “Patton’s psalm … both humble and defiant”); and 1st Corinthians 10:1-13 (Paul’s “warning against idolatry.”) They’re the ones I’ll be reading up front.

The Gospel – Luke 13:1-9 – will be read by “Father Paul.”

And a BTW: The theme of that Gospel is “repent or perish.” On the other hand, you could also say the Gospel is on a metaphoric “fig tree that bears no fruit.” (And in turn you could say that ties in with the last post, on Conservative Christians content to stay “career buck privates.”)

Also incidentally, et alia is Latin for “and others.” (As in, readings on Moses “and others.”)

You can see the full Old Testament reading at Exodus 3:1-15. For one interpretation, see Burning bush – Wikipedia, which said “the burning bush is the location at which Moses was appointed by Adonai (God) to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and into Canaan.”

The article noted other interpretations, including that Moses “may have been under the influence of a hallucinogenic substance when he witnessed the burning bush.”

(Note also Mount Horeb – where Moses saw the Burning bush – is where he later “struck the rock” and got water, shown at right.)

And finally, the Burning bush article directed the reader to “see also” the article on Theophany.

For another take, see The great religious leaders, a 1958 book by Charles F. Potter (1885-1962). Potter was a “Unitarian minister, theologian and author.” In 1923-1924, he became “nationally known through a series of debates with Dr. John Roach Straton, a fundamentalist Christian.”

And for starters, Potter noted the “pre-Mosaic religion of the Hebrews was a mixture of animism and fetishism.” (43) But that all started to change when Moses had his theophany, his experience with the burning bush. (37) The upshot? Moses got commissioned by God in Exodus 3:10: “I am sending you to Pharaoh. You must lead my people Israel out of Egypt.”

Or as Potter put it, he got the divine call to every prophet: A “great wrong to be righted, a task to be done, and then a sudden blinding realization that the task is one’s own.” (43)

Potter noted several important factors about this theophany of Moses. One was that in all such experiences, “the hearing of the prophet seems much more acute than his vision.” (38) See also Exodus 3:6, “Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.”

But perhaps more important: A “new religion does well to build on the old.” (38) And so, during his lengthy stay with his family – in exile, in Midian – Moses may have recalled some of the things he learned during the first part of his life, when he was a literal Prince of Egypt.

That is, he may have combined the “traditions of the fathers” with some things he learned as a “Prince of Egypt.” In doing so he went on to forge a sense of collective self in the Children of Israel. They became strong enough to go back and re-conquer their ancient Promised Land.

That is, Potter indicated that as such a Prince of Egypt, Moses was likely familiar with Akhenaten. (Seen at left.) He was the “heretic king” who had ruled Egypt a mere century before Moses. (36)

Briefly, Akhenaten introduced the idea of one God to Egypt – monotheism – but Egyptians just weren’t ready for that. (They liked “traditional Egyptian polytheism.” See Wikipedia.)

And so after his death the Egyptians abandoned Akhenaten‘s “new-fangled religion” and went back to their old ways. But in the mind of Moses, Akhenaten‘s One God may have taken new form.

Recalling his suffering fellow Hebrews in Egypt, Moses may have thought this way:

The great gods of Egypt could not be expected, of course, to help the Hebrews… If only they had one great god to help them now! Then Moses remembered the heretic [Akhenaten]… [Perhaps] there was one great god, greater even than Aten. Perhaps this unknown god had caused all things, even the sun, and really cared for suffering human beings, and would deliver the Hebrews from bondage and help them escape to some better land!

(36-37, emphasis in original.) That was of course a nice thing to think about God. (That “He” might redeem a nation of illiterate slaves.) But then Moses realized this “new God” wanted him to do the “legwork.” And so – not surprisingly – Moses protested his new assignment. “Moses said to God, ‘Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh and bring the Israelites out of Egypt?'”

Among other concerns, Moses knew the great God of the Burning bush was not the “God of their fathers” to the Hebrews back in Egypt. (Remember their “animism and fetishism…”)

Moses also knew that this stubborn people – his fellow Hebrews who had not been “princes of Egypt” – would not “accept a totally new God.” (Or a new religion.) So he had to build on the past, as shown in Exodus 6:3. There God told Moses, “I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as El Shaddai – ‘God Almighty’ – but I did not reveal my name, Yahweh, to them.”

In other words, before Moses appeared, “God” had apparently only appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. (And then only as El Shaddai.) It was not until the time after Moses that God appeared to the Children of Israel as Yahweh. And so, after his “Burning bush experience,” Moses went on to forge a new nation from a group of exiled, illiterate slaves:

Moses made the Hebrew tribes into a nation by giving them a God … but that God was not made de novo. With [his] wisdom in dealing with men … Moses conveyed to his people the idea of one great personal God by using concepts already at hand… His was the task of leading a people from animism to monotheism … and he did a piece of work which deserves admiration… [T]o Moses belongs the glory of the pioneer.

(42-43) And it all started with that “burning bush” experience. Which is one big reason Potter said of Moses, “His burning bush still lights our world.” (61)

So as a result of all this, I have been able to both review next Sunday’s Bible readings, and continue work on My Lenten meditation. (See also two birds with one stone.)

Turning to Psalm 63:1-9, I reviewed it in “Patton,” Sunday School teacher:

He cursed like a sailor and believed in reincarnation, but Patton was a devout Episcopalian, as shown in the film [Patton, a poster for which is seen at right] starring George C. Scott. For example, Patton was at a low point in his career during World War II [and] was almost sent home in disgrace, but he found comfort in Psalm 63.

Turning to 1st Corinthians 10:1-13 (ESV), it includes a passage on Moses’ Children of Israel being “under the cloud,” passing through the sea, and “baptized into Moses.” It also includes this passage, that “No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and … with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it.”

And finally, Luke 13:1-9 includes the Parable of the barren fig tree. Not to be confused with the parable of the cursing the fig tree in Matthew 21:18-22. Though both parables have “very similar wording,” the Luke 13:6-9 parable is about a “fig tree which does not produce fruit.”

Which arguably brings us back to Conservative Christian – “Career buck private?”

The upper image is courtesy of Moses and the Burning Bush painting Bourdon Sebastien. See also Moses and the Burning Bush – Hermitage Museum, which said of the 1642-45 painting:

Bourdon’s work bears evident traces of his religious belief and the constant inner opposition of his Protestantism, which he was obliged to conceal, to the Catholic surroundings… The shepherd Moses, who tended his flock on Mount Horeb, saw an angel in the burning bush. When he drew closer to have a better look and understand how the bush was aflame but not consumed, God called to him from the very centre of the flames and revealed His name to Moses, making him His chosen one. The Lord instructed Moses to go to the Pharaoh and lead the oppressed sons of Israel out of Egypt. Moses covered his face with his hands, since he was afraid to look upon God.

Re: “chalicist.” See also Chalice – Wikipedia, which includes the image in the text.

The “Moses striking the rock” image is courtesy of Mount Horeb – Wikipedia. The caption: “Moses Striking the Rock at Horeb, engraving by Gustave Doré from ‘La Sainte Bible,’ 1865.”

References to Potter’s The great religious leaders are from the 493-page Simon and Schuster edition (NY 1958). The book is sub-titled “A revision and updating of ‘The Story of Religion‘ in light of recent discovery and research including the Qumran Scrolls.” Story of Religion was published in 1929.

Pages 36-43. Part of Chapter II, on Moses, “who discovered the personality of God.” The subtitled portions included in the quoted material include: the Meditations of Moses; the Theophany; the significance of the burning bush; sacred localities; sacred trees and shrubs; sacred lights; not consumed; Moses protests; “Changing Gods;” and “Early Hebrew Animism.”

On a related note, in writing about Zoroaster – at page 69 – Potter said:

It is impossible for any mystic to describe his own trance temperately and accurately. There seem to be … two common elements in these calls which come to prophets. They all speak of a great light or flame and they are all commissioned to preach. Paul on the Damascus road or Moses by the burning bush or Zoroaster by the bank of the Daiti – brothers all.

(That “clunk” you heard may have been a Southern Baptist going into apoplexy.)

The lower image is courtesy of Parable of the barren fig tree – Wikipedia. The caption: “Jan Luyken etching of the parable, Bowyer Bible.”

DOR Scribe

Expand your horizons – Read the Bible with an open mind

Author Archives: dorscribe@aol.com

Philip and James – Saints and Apostles

More on “arguing with God” – and St. Mark as Cinderella

Paul restored – from the Damascus Road

Doubting Thomas – and Peter Restored

On Eastertide – and “artistic license”

An Annunciation-Good Friday anomaly

On Holy Week – 2016

St. Joseph and the “Passover Plot”

Unless of course you never made it beyond Bible boot-camp. . .

Did Jesus write the Gospels?

Moses, the Burning Bush, “et alia”