tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48332792681399630242024-03-05T14:14:34.720-08:00Ἔλεον εἰρήνης, Sacrificium laudis: Mercy of Peace, Sacrifice of Praise"Immola Deo sacrificium laudis, et redde Altissimo vota tua." Psalm 49 (50):14Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.comBlogger149125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-77797005612878799532014-08-23T12:14:00.001-07:002014-08-23T12:14:59.250-07:00Just a Little AdvertAbout six years ago (wow - seriously, I'm surprised at how time flies!) <a href="http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.jp/2008/09/our-lord-god-popenot-part-1.html">I wrote this blog post</a> where I pretty much nitpicked some of the quotes which supposedly show how Catholics believe the Pope to be God in the flesh or something along those lines. It ain't really much, but I just added a little something to the post - specifically, to the quote attributed to Cardinal Sarto (Pope St. Pius X) about the pope "being Jesus Christ hidden under the veil of the flesh." Otherwise it's still the same old post, full of sharp nitpicking from a six-years-younger-me. Click on the link to find out.<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(P.S. No, I can't really make any more promises to be active on this blog; the only thing I can say with certainty is, I'm not letting this blog die down. Yet. But who knows what tomorrow will bring?)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">(P.P.S. So I'm advising readers, y'all better keep what you're reading here in whatever way you can - no need to ask me. Save it, print it, copy it, torrent it, whatever. Nothing is totally permanent, not even on the Internet. So if you feel something interests you - go ahead, feel free. This is probably one of the few instances where stealing is allowed - hey, maybe even a good thing. ;))</span>Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-26495181839865770102013-12-31T19:53:00.003-08:002013-12-31T19:53:55.830-08:00Matthew's Infancy Narrative, 03: From Solomon to the Exile(<a href="http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.jp/2013/12/matthews-infancy-narrative-01-jesus.html">Part 01</a>, <a href="http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.jp/2013/12/matthews-infancy-narrative-02-from.html">Part 02</a>)
<br />
<blockquote>
Σολομὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ῥοβοάμ,<br />
Ῥοβοὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀβιά,<br />
Ἀβιὰ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀσάφ,<br />
Ἀσὰφ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσαφάτ,<br />
Ἰωσαφὰτ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωράμ,<br />
Ἰωρὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ὀζίαν,<br />
Ὀζίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωαθάμ,<br />
Ἰωαθὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀχάζ,<br />
Ἀχὰζ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἑζεκίαν,<br />
Ἑζεκίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Μανασσῆ,<br />
Μανασσῆς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμώς,<br />
Ἀμὼς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσίαν,<br />
Ἰωσίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰεχονίαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος.
<br />
<br />
<br />
And Solomōn fathered Roboam,<br />
and Roboam fathered Abia,<br />
and Abia fathered Asaph,<br />
and Asaph fathered Iōsaphat,<br />
and Iōsaphat fathered Iōram,<br />
and Iōram fathered Ozias,<br />
and Ozias fathered Iōatham,<br />
and Iōatham fathered Achas,<br />
and Achas fathered Hezekias,<br />
and Hezekias fathered Manassēs, <br />
and Manassēs fathered Amōs,<br />
and Amōs fathered Iōsias,<br />
and Iōsias fathered Iechonias and his brothers at the deportation to Babylon.</blockquote>
<a name='more'></a><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Genealogy_of_the_kings_of_Israel_and_Judah.svg/700px-Genealogy_of_the_kings_of_Israel_and_Judah.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="275" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Genealogy_of_the_kings_of_Israel_and_Judah.svg/700px-Genealogy_of_the_kings_of_Israel_and_Judah.svg.png" width="320" /></a></div>
The second set of fourteens begins with Solomon. Now Matthew is in more familiar territory here: his list of kings do not show much divergence from the list in 1 Chronicles 3. (As a consequence, we won't take much long here. ;)) The only major difference from that list is, as I've noted in part 02, Matthew's omission of at least four kings (Ahaziah, J(eh)oash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim) from the genealogy in order to arrive at the symbolic number fourteen. Another possibility as to why Matthew could have omitted exactly the first three kings is because of the curse laid upon the northern house of Ahab (1 Kings 21:21), to which they are in some degree related via Athaliah (2 Kings 11:1-3; something which both Chronicles and Matthew skips). In agreement with Matthew's practice of conforming to the OT, the omission of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah may reflect the idea of the Lord's visiting the sin of Ahab on the third and fourth generations of his children - here even through his daughter's line (Exodus 20:5; Numbers 14:18). In any case, these three kings died violent deaths (2 Chronicles 22:1-9; 24:1-25, 28).<br />
<br />
It's actually common for some genealogies to omit some names for some purpose or another - say, the sake of brevity (Genesis 46:21 (cf. 1 Chronicles 8:1-4); Joshua 7:1, 24; 1 Chronicles 4:1 (cf. 2:50); 6:7-9 (cf. Ezra 7:3); Ezra 5:1 (cf. Zechariah 1:1); Josephus,<em> Life</em> 1-5; <em>Apocalypse of Abraham</em>). Nowadays, we might be sticklers for total accuracy and detail, but apparently people from back then were not as scrupulous as we are. The later rabbis had the principle (b. <em>Qiddushin</em>, 4a) that the sons of (someone's) sons are still (that someone's) 'sons'.<br />
<br />
I forgot to mention this at the last post, but the transliteration of the names in the genealogy as they appear in Matthew's Greek text for the most part agree with the Septuagint's. Some of the differences are:<br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ῥαχάβ <em>Rachab</em>, against LXX's Ῥαάβ<em> Raab</em></span></li>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">Σαλμών <em>Salmōn </em>(1 Chronicles LXX's transliteration), against Ruth 4:20 LXX's Σαλμάν<em> Salman</em></span></li>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">Βόες <em>Boes</em>, against LXX's Βόος<em> Boos</em>/Βόοζ <em>Booz</em> (some manuscripts of Matthew 'correct' it to agree with the LXX's spelling)</span></li>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ἰωβὴδ <em>Iōbēd</em> (the spelling found in one version of 1 Chronicles), against ᾿Ωβὴδ <i>Ōbēd</i> (other LXX mss., Ruth 4:17, 21-22 LXX, late mss. of Matthew)</span></li>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">Σολομών <i>Solomōn</i> (the preferred form among NT writers), against Σαλομών <em>Salomōn </em>(1 Chr. 3:5 LXX) / Σαλωμών <em>Salōmōn </em>(</span><a href="http://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDgQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftextualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net%2FAA%2FMetzger-Lucianic.html&ei=wxnBUtyvKIPDkwWsh4GYCQ&usg=AFQjCNF076TFodvcRgRfn2NSY7Es2_KHCQ&sig2=gM8TPxnO0_LumFxks2IKWA"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Lucianic</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">) </span></li>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ἀσάφ <em>Asaph</em>, against LXX's Ἀσά <em>Asa</em></span></li>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ὀζίας Ozias, against 1 Chr. 3:11 LXX's<em> Ochozia</em> (</span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus"><span style="font-size: x-small;">B</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> however has Ὀζεία <em>Ozeia</em> there, while </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Alexandrinus"><span style="font-size: x-small;">A</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">, </span><a href="http://deeperstudy.com/link/lxx_mss_list.html"><span style="font-size: x-small;">V</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">, and Lucian have Ὀζίας <em>Ozias</em> - same as Matthew's spelling; elsewhere LXX has Ὀχοζείας <em>Ochozeias</em>), which transliterates the Hebrew name <em>’Ăḥazyāhû '</em>Ahaziah'; 1 Chr. 3:12, however,
shows confusion over the Greek for <em>’Uzzĭyāh(û)</em> 'Uzziah' (B: Ἀζαρίας<em> Azaria</em>, A: Ἀζαρίας<em> Azarias</em>, Lucian: Ὀζίας <em>Ozias</em>; elsewhere the LXX has Ὀζεία <em>Ozeia</em>)
</span>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ἰωαθάμ <em>Iōatham</em> against LXX's Ἰωαθάν<em> Iōathan</em>,<em> </em>cf. Josephus' Ἰωαθάμος <em>Iōathamos /</em> Ἰωθάμης <em>Iōthamēs</em></span>
<li><span style="font-size: x-small;">
Ἀμώς <em>Amōs </em>(attested in LXX mss.; cf. Josephus' Ἀμώσος <em>Amōsos</em>), compared with B's Ἀμνών <em>Amnon</em> or Lucian's Ἀμών<em> Amōn</em> for 1 Chr. 3:14, whch is a better transliteration of Hebrew <em>’Āmōn</em></span></li>
</li>
</li>
</ol>
Numbers 6 (<em>Asaph</em>), 7 (<em>Ozias</em>) and 9 (<em>Amōs</em>) are quite interesting. Some assume that Matthew had erred by confusing king Asa with the psalmist Asaph (cf. Psalms 50; 73-83; 1 Chronicles 16:5-37; 2 Chronicles 29:30) and king Am(m)on with Amos (the prophet?), or that Matthew's source had contained the spelling error, or that this is a scribal error which crept into the text quite early on. (Later manuscripts of Matthew correct the names back to 'Asa' and 'Am(m)on'.) Note, however, that as mentioned above, some Septuagint manuscripts do spell Amon's name as <em>Amōs</em> (cf. Josephus' <em>Amōsos </em>- a Grecized form of the name), which may at least account for the textual variant in 1:10.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://eucharistsf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Prophet-Amos.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="299" src="http://eucharistsf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Prophet-Amos.jpg" width="320" /></a>It has been argued that if these were spelling 'errors' (one should, however, keep in mind that<em> ancient spelling conventions were generally not as strict as modern standards</em> - so there's almost no 'right' or 'wrong' way of spelling a word or a name; in any case, it's not as if Matthew could not have known the difference between Asaph the psalmist and Asa the king) made by Matthew, then it could have been intentional ones: Matthew deliberately spelled Asa's name as 'Asaph' and Amon's name as 'Amos' for subtle theological reasons, as allusions to the psalmist and the prophet who bore those names and to connect Jesus to priestly and prophetic threads in Israelite history - in a midrashic sort of way. (There's a little bonus in that Asaph and the "sons of Asaph" were closely associated with David; 1 Chronicles 6:31-32, 39; <a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/15-1esdras-nets.pdf">1 Esdras</a> 1:15; 5:59-60; <em><a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ascension.html">Ascension of Isaiah</a></em> 4.19. There's also a possibility that Asaph was held to be a prophet as well.) That being said, there are no overt quotations from Amos or the psalms of Asaph in Matthew's gospel (although there are possible allusions from both; Matthew 5:8 to Psalm 73:1; 10:29 to Amos 3:5; 13:35 to Psalm 78:2; 27:45 to Amos 8:9), which in the view of some commentators weakens this theory.<br />
<br />
As for <em>Ozias</em>, it is generally thought that the name refers to king Uzziah - since he generally fits the description (Jehoram's (great-great-grand)son and father of Jotham). But the thing is, the transliteration problem among the different manuscripts of the Septuagint - the short form of Ahaziah in some versions of 1 Chronicles 3:11, <em>Oz(e)ias</em>, elsewhere stands for Uzziah - makes it unclear as to whether Uzziah (aka Azariah) or the earlier Ahaziah is being intended here. Consequently, some have thought that Matthew omitted Joash, Amaziah and Azariah/Uzziah rather than Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah from his genealogy. One explanation is that someone's eye - either Matthew, Matthew's source, or the version of the Septuagint Matthew was using - slipped from 'Ahaziah' to 'Uzziah', that is from <em>Ochozia</em>/<em>Ozeia</em>/<em>Ozias</em> to <em>Ozias</em> or to some other spelling of Uzziah (a type of scribal error known as a <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeoteleuton#Scribal_error">homoioteleuton</a></em>). But the fact that Matthew is keen to achieve the number fourteen favors design over such a fortunate accident: the omission of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah has more significance than that of Joash, Amaziah, and Uzziah/Azariah. In any case, in 1 Chronicles 3:12 LXX Uzziah appears under his other, less easily confused name 'Azariah' (<em>Azaria(s)</em>). It's probable that Matthew deliberately took <em>Oz(e)ias</em> from 1 Chronicles, intended there for Ahaziah (whose name is usually rendered as <em>Ochoz(e)ias</em>), but made it apply to Uzziah/Azariah according to its usual reference in the LXX.<br />
<br />
(<strong>If you're getting fatigued, why not take a break?</strong>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nFcgaN7D5kU" width="459"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<br />
(<strong>Feeling better?</strong>)<br />
<br />
Yet another difficulty in the genealogy concerns "Iechonias and his brothers." In 1 Chronicles, Josiah's second son is Jehoiakim, who in turn has two sons - Jeconiah (aka Jehoiachin, 2 Kings 24:8-16; 2 Chronicles 36:9-10; Coniah, Jeremiah 28:4; 37:1) and Zedekiah. As one can notice, the names Jehoiachin (יהויכין<em>, Yəhōyāḵîn</em>) and Jehoiakim (יהויקים, <em>Yəhōyāqîm</em>) are quite similar to each other - the only real difference being between a couple of letters in Hebrew. In fact, the Greek Ιωακιμ <em>Iōakim</em> was sometimes used for both men (e.g. 2 Kings 23:36; 24:8-16), and the similarity led to confusion between the two names in 1 Esdras 1:41. Another source of confusion is that both Jehoiakim and Jeconiah had brothers named Zedekiah - which probably explains why in 2 Chronicles 36:10 king Zedekiah (Jehoiakim's brother and Jehoiachin's uncle, though scarcely older than the latter; 2 Kings 24:17; Jeremiah 37:1) is mistakenly referred to as being the brother of Jehoiachin.<br />
<br />
These, coupled with the fact that "brothers" in the plural are mentioned (1 Chronicles 3:16 does not indicate that Jeconiah had more than one brother, although Jehoiakim's brothers appear in the preceding verse), has led some scholars to suggest (again) a scribal error: Matthew would have originally written 'Jehoiakim', but along the way some scribe had mistakenly confused Jehoiakim with Jehoiachin/Jeconiah. This would account for the mention of "brothers" and allow us to count Jeconiah in the third set of fourteen generations so as to get the number fourteen there more easily (more on that later). Now where this theory is weak is that it fails to notice Matthew's linking Jeconiah with the deportation to Babylon, an apparent reference to the Chronicler's description of Jeconiah - not Jehoiakim - as "(the) captive." (<em>'assir;</em> interestingly, the Septuagint and the Vulgate treat the word as a proper name - either a part of Jeconiah's name (<em>Iechonia-asir</em>; LXX) or (so Vulgate and Douai-Rheims) a supposed son of Jeconiah. Did Matthew have a Greek OT which understood the word differently, or did he have a correct understanding of the Hebrew?) Plus, 1 Chronicles 3:16-17 did not offer Matthew the name 'Jehoiachin', but 'Jeconiah'/<em>Iechonias</em>, which is not easily confused with 'Jehoiakim'/<em>Iōakim</em>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://divdl.library.yale.edu/dl//images/eikon3/ek0065.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="183" src="http://divdl.library.yale.edu/dl//images/eikon3/ek0065.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Detail from the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachish_relief">Lachish relief</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
That only leaves the matter of "brothers." As mentioned, 1 Chronicles only mention a single brother of Jehoiachin/Jeconiah - Zedekiah. Perhaps "brothers" here should not be understood in the sense of 'blood siblings' but 'kinsmen' (in keeping with the broad meaning the word has in Hebrew; Genesis 13:8; 24:48; 29:12) - he certainly had cousins in the form of Zedekiah's sons (2 Kings 25:7) - or perhaps, 'fellow countrymen'; in other words, all the Jews who were exiled with him. One might argue that the parallel in 1:2 ("Judah and his brothers") and the "begat" in 1:11 demand that brothers mean "blood brothers," but at the same time we also encounter 'brotherhood' in the gospel in a wide theological sense: just as Judah and his brothers made up the people of God during their time, so does Jeconiah and his 'brothers' made up the people of God who went into exile.<br />
<br />
The word for 'exile' here, μετοικεσία <em>metoikesia</em> (literally 'migration' or 'deportation'; used to translate the Hebrew <em>gōlâ/gôlâ</em> in 2 Kings 24:16; 1 Chronicles 5:22; Ezekiel 12:11 LXX) only occurs here throughout the New Testament - in other words, it's a <em>hapax legomenon</em>. Although the idea is not yet developed in depth in 1st century Judaism, the exile was not regarded as an accident of history but an act of God - He was punishing Israel for their sins or scattering Israel in order to make more proselytes or accomplishing some other wise purpose (cf. 2 Chronicles 36:15-21; <a href="http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/2Baruch.html">2 Baruch</a> 1.5; b. <em>Pesachim</em> 87b; b. <em>Sanhedrin</em> 37b). So the mention of "deportation" - which is more suited to connote divine activity than the militaristic αἰχμαλωσία <em>aichmalōsia </em>'captivity' - should perhaps call to mind the hand of divine providence.<br />
<br />
And that's where we drop off for today.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-71917153347880329632013-12-28T19:18:00.002-08:002013-12-29T22:32:55.482-08:00Matthew's Infancy Narrative, 02: From Abraham to David(<a href="http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.jp/2013/12/matthews-infancy-narrative-01-jesus.html">Part 01 here</a>)
<br />
<blockquote>
Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ.<br />
<br />
Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ,<br />
Ἰσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ,<br />
Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰούδαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ,<br />
Ἰούδας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Φάρες καὶ τὸν Ζάρα ἐκ τῆς Θαμάρ,<br />
Φάρες δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἑσρώμ,<br />
Ἑσρὼμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀράμ,<br />
Ἀρὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμιναδάβ,<br />
Ἀμιναδὰβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ναασσών,<br />
Ναασσὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σαλμών,<br />
Σαλμὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Βόες ἐκ τῆς Ῥαχάβ,<br />
Βόες δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωβὴδ ἐκ τῆς Ῥούθ,<br />
Ἰωβὴδ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰεσσαί,<br />
Ἰεσσαὶ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Δαυὶδ τὸν βασιλέα.<br />
Δαυὶδ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σολομῶνα ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου,<br />
<br />
<br />
The scroll of the genesis of Iēsous Anointed son of Dauid son of Abraam.<br />
<br />
Abraam fathered Isaak,<br />
and Isaak fathered Iakōb,<br />
and Iakōb fathered Ioudas and his brothers,<br />
and Ioudas fathered Phares and Zara by Thamar,<br />
and Phares fathered Hesrōm,<br />
and Hesrōm fathered Aram,<br />
and Aram fathered Aminadab,<br />
and Aminadab fathered Naasōn,<br />
and Naasōn fathered Salmōn,<br />
and Salmōn fathered Boes by Rachab,<br />
and Boes fathered Iōbēd by Routh,<br />
and Iōbēd fathered Iessai,<br />
and Iessai fathered Dauid the king,<br />
and Dauid the king fathered Solomōn by the wife of Ourias:
</blockquote>
<a name='more'></a><br />
Before we go on, there's the matter of how Matthew composed his genealogical list. The (in)famous Fr. Raymond Brown once proposed that Matthew had at his disposal two Jewish genealogies in Greek: one covered the pre-monarchical period and closely resembled the lists in 1 Chronicles 2 and Ruth 4, while the other was a popular genealogy of the royal Davidic line, which contained (with omssions) the names of the Judahite kings and the descendants of Zerubbabel. According to him, Matthew must have noticed that the pre-monarchical list contained fourteen names between Abraham and David, and again that there were fourteen names in the monarchical section. Furthermore, he noticed that if he added Joseph's and Jesus' names in the post-exilic list he would arrive at the same number, so Matthew, with his predilection for numbers, and informed by the numerical value of David's name (<em>d </em>(4) + <em>w </em>(6) +<em> d </em>(4) = 14), adopted the scheme.
<br />
<br />
W.C. Davies and Dale Allison (in their commentary on Matthew), however, disagree with Brown's scenario. They argue that there's really no need to postulate a pre-monarchical genealogical list and that an editorial use of 1 Chronicles 1-2 suffices to explain Matthew's list. They also argue that the numerical scheme is of Matthew's own devising instead of something that he had merely cribbed from his sources. Their theory was that, in agreement with Brown, Matthew had an originally Jewish list of monarchical and post-monarchical Davidids. <em>Contra</em> Brown, however, they also think that at the same time, Matthew consciously drew upon the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-3 and the tradition of counting fourteen generations between Abraham and David. Partly out of a fondness of symmetry and again due to gematria, and in the conviction that salvation history could be neatly divided into epochs of equal account, Matthew imposed the number fourteen upon the list behind 1:6b-16. In doing so, however, Matthew had to excise some names: for instance, at least five people from the 1 Chronicles list were omitted by Matthew (Ahaziah, J(eh)oash, Amaziah, Jehoiakim, Pedaiah) and two seem to have been added to the post-exilic period (Joseph, Jesus).
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong> <span style="color: #cc0000;">Abraham</span></strong> fathered <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Isaac</span></strong>. The sons of Isaac: Esau and <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Israel</span></strong>.
[...]<br />
<br />
These are the sons of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Judah</span></strong>, Issachar, Zebulun, Dan, Joseph, Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.<br />
The sons of Judah: Er, Onan and Shelah; these three Bath-shua the Canaanite bore to him. [...] His daughter-in-law Tamar also bore him <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Perez</span></strong> and Zerah. Judah had five sons in all.<br /> The sons of Perez: <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Hezron</span></strong> and Hamul. [...]<br /> The sons of Hezron that were born to him: Jerahmeel, Ram, and Chelubai.<br />
Ram fathered <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Amminadab</span></strong>, and Amminadab fathered <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Nahshon</span></strong>, prince of the sons of Judah. Nahshon fathered <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Salmon</span></strong>, Salmon fathered <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Boaz</span></strong>, Boaz fathered <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Obed</span></strong>, Obed fathered <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Jesse</span></strong>.<br />
Jesse fathered Eliab his firstborn, Abinadab the second, Shimea the third, Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">David</span></strong> the seventh. And their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail. [...]</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> These were born to [David] in Jerusalem: Shimea, Shobab, Nathan and <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Solomon</span></strong>, four by Bath-shua, the daughter of Ammiel; then Ibhar, Elishama, Eliphelet, Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine. All these were David's sons, besides the sons of the concubines, and Tamar was their sister.<br /> The son of Solomon was <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Rehoboam</span></strong>, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Abijah</span></strong> his son, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Asa</span></strong> his son, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Jehoshaphat</span></strong> his son, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Joram</span></strong> his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, Amaziah his son, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Azariah</span></strong> [= Uzziah] his son, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Jotham</span></strong> his son, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Ahaz</span></strong> his son, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Hezekiah</span></strong> his son, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Manasseh</span></strong> his son, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Amon</span></strong> his son, <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Josiah</span></strong> his son.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> The sons of Josiah: Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> The descendants of Jehoiakim: <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Jeconiah</span></strong> his son, Zedekiah his son;</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> and the sons of Jeconiah, the captive: <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Shealtiel</span></strong> his son, Malchiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama and Nedabiah;</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> and the sons of Pedaiah: <strong><span style="color: #cc0000;">Zerubbabel</span></strong> and Shimei;</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> and the sons of Zerubbabel: Meshullam and Hananiah, and Shelomith was their sister; and Hashubah, Ohel, Berechiah, Hasadiah, and Jushab-hesed, five.<br /><br />(1 Chronicles 1:34; 2:1-5, 9-16a; 3:5-20 ESV)</span></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Beit_alfa02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="205" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Beit_alfa02.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Now to go to the list proper. Why is Abraham on the head of Matthew's genealogy?<br />
<br />
For one, Abraham stands at the beginning of, or at a decisive point in, several schematic accounts of Jewish history. (1 Maccabees 2:51-60; <a href="http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/ethiopian/enoch/index.html">1 Enoch</a> 89:10; 93:5; <a href="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3652195">4 Ezra</a> 6:7-8; <a href="http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/2Baruch.html">2 Baruch</a> 53:5; 57:1-3; <a href="http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/avot.html#chap5">Mishnah, <em>Avot</em></a> 5.2, 3; Exodus Rabbah on 12:2) Starting with Abraham also provides a neat transition from "son of Abraham," and also makes David - significantly enough - the fourteenth name on the list. The fact that Abraham is also regarded in some traditions as a king (<em><a href="http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_108.html">b. Sanhedrin</a></em> 108b; <a href="http://archive.org/stream/RabbaGenesis/midrashrabbahgen027557mbp#page/n529/mode/2up">Genesis Rabbah</a> on 22:1; Justin's <em><a href="http://www.forumromanum.org/literature/justin/english/trans36.html">Epitome</a></em> 36.2 reports a tradition that Abraham was at one time king of Damascus; cf. Josephus, <em><a href="http://pace.mcmaster.ca/york/york/showText?book=1&chapter=0&textChunk=nieseSection&chunkId=159&text=anti&version=&direction=&tab=&layout=split&go.x=0&go.y=0">Antiquities</a></em> 1.159-160) lends weight to the interpretation that Matthew's genealogy is designed to show Jesus' royal pedigree: if Matthew knew this tradition, it may have partly influenced his decision to begin with Abraham. (Cf. also David's genealogical tree in Numbers Rabbah on 13:14, which has Abraham as its root.) Matthew may have been of the same mind as the author of 2 Baruch (57:1-3), in that Abraham marked a beginning no less than that marked by Adam:<br />
<blockquote>
And after these (waters) you did see bright waters: this is the
fount of Abraham, also his generations and advent of his son, and of his son's
son, and of those like them. Because at that time the unwritten law was named
amongst them,<br />
<br />
And the works of the commandments were then
fulfilled,<br />
And belief in the coming judgment was then generated,<br />
And hope
of the world that was to be renewed was then built up,<br />
And the promise of the
life that should come hereafter was implanted.<br />
These are the bright waters,
which you have seen.</blockquote>
Now, the very first "begetting" on the list
(Abraham of Isaac) is significant in that it was miraculous in nature
(Genesis 17:15-21; 18:9-15; 21:1-7); in other words, the first begetting in 1:2
has something in common with the last in 1:16 - it was out of the ordinary.<br />
<br />
(<strong>Another break!</strong>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://img.youtube.com/vi/srr_uPB0esI/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/srr_uPB0esI&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/srr_uPB0esI&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
(<strong>Ready to move on?</strong>)<br />
<br />
Naming Judah as an
ancestor of Jesus (cf. Hebrews 7:14; Luke 3:33) is also significant in a way.
The prophecy in Jacob's Blessing (Genesis 49) concerning Judah and his
descendants came to be interpreted of the Messiah. (Cf. the targums on Genesis
49:8-12; <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Q252" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466;">4Q252</span></a>;
Revelation 5:5; Justin Martyr, <i>Dialogue with Trypho</i> 52; Irenaeus, <i>Adv.
haer.</i> 4.10.2; b. Sanhedrin 98b; Genesis Rabbah on 49.10) Also, the <i><a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe277.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466;">Testament of
Judah</span></a></i> 1.6 explicitly has Judah prophesied to be a king.<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">“Judah, your brothers shall praise you;<br />your hand shall be on the
neck of your enemies;<br />your father's sons shall bow down before you.<br />Judah
is a lion's cub;<br />from the prey, my son, you have gone up.<br />He stooped down;
he crouched as a lion<br />and as a lioness; who dares rouse him?<br />The scepter
shall not depart from Judah,<br />nor the ruler's staff from between his
feet,<br />until tribute comes to him;<br />and to him shall be the obedience of the
peoples.<br />Binding his foal to the vine<br />and his donkey's colt to the choice
vine,<br />he has washed his garments in wine<br />and his vesture in the blood of
grapes.<br />His eyes are darker than wine,<br />and his teeth whiter than
milk.”<br /><br />(Genesis 49:8-12 ESV)<br /><br />[8. JEHUDA, thee shall all thy brethren praise,
and from thy name shall all be called Jehudaee; thy hand shall avenge thee of
thy adversaries; all the sons of thy father shall come before thee with
salutation. I will liken thee, my son Jehuda, to a whelp the son of a lion: from
the slaying of Joseph thou wast free, from the judgment of Tamar thou, my son,
wast acquitted. He remaineth tranquil in the midst of war, as the lion and as
the lioness; nor is there people or kingdom that can stand against thee. Kings
shall not cease from the house of Jehuda, nor sapherim teaching the law from his
children's children, until the time that the King Meshiha shall come, whose is
the kingdom, and to whom all the kingdoms of the earth shall be obedient. How
beauteous is the King Meshiha, who is to arise from the house of
Jehuda!<br /><br />[Binding his loins, and going forth to war against them that hate
him, he will slay kings with princes, and make the rivers red with the blood of
their slain, and his hills white with the fat of their mighty ones; his garments
will be dipped in blood, and he himself be like the juice of the winepress. More
beautiful are the eyes of the king Meshiha to behold than pure wine; they will
not look upon that which is unclean, or the shedding of the blood of the
innocent. His teeth are employed according to the precept rather than in eating
the things of violence and rapine; his mountains shall be red with vines, and
his presses with his wine, and his hills be white with much corn and with flocks
of sheep.]<br /><br />- Targum Pseudo-Jonathan<br /><br />Jehuda, thou art praise and
not shame; thy brethren shall praise thee; thy hand shall prevail against thine
adversaries, thine enemies shall be dispersed; they will be turned backward
before thee, and the sons of thy father will come before thee with salutations.
The dominion shall be (thine) in the beginning, and in the end the kingdom shall
be increased from the house of Jehuda, because from the judgment of death, my
son, hast thou withdrawn. He shall repose, and abide in strength as a lion, and
as a lioness, there shall be no king that may cut him off. He who exerciseth
dominion shall not pass away from the house of Jehuda, nor the saphra from his
children's children for ever, until the Meshiha come, whose is the kingdom, and
unto whom shall be the obedience of the nations (or, whom the peoples shall
obey). Israel shall pass round about in his cities; the people shall build his
temple, they will be righteous round about him, and be doers of the law through
his doctrine. Of goodly purple will be his raiment, and his vesture of crimson
wool with colours. His mountains shall be red with his vineyards, and his hills
be dropping with wine; his valleys shall be white with corn, and with flocks of
sheep.<br /><br />- Targum Onkelos</span></blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.reviewofreligions.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mosaic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.reviewofreligions.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mosaic.jpg" /></a></div>
Matthew names Judah "and his brothers." Why did Matthew bother to note them - even if only briefly? (Also note Perez and Zerah and Jechoniah "and his brothers.") A common idea is that Matthew wishes to highlight divine selectivity: of the several possible candidates, Judah alone - like Perez and Jechoniah - was chosen to propagate the royal line. There's another alternative explanation in light of Matthew's view of God's people as a brotherhood (cf. 23:8 "But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are <sup class="crossreference" value="(<a href="#cen-ESV-23924Q" title="See cross-reference Q">Q</a>)"></sup>all brothers;" in fact, the word for "brother" occurs 39 times within the gospel - second only to the Acts of the Apostles' 57). In other words, Judah and his brothers are seen as prefiguring the Church. A third possibility is that there is a conscious allusion to the twelve tribes of Israel who will be reunited at the eschatological culmination already inaugurated by Jesus (cf. 19:38).<br />
<br />
BTW, here's something that's 'lost in translation.' In Matthew, Esrom is supposed to be the father of an "Aram," who is in turn Amminadab's father. One might be tempted to connect it with the 'Ram' who fits the same description in the Hebrew text of 1 Chronicles and Ruth 4:19 - and there are some translations which 'fix' <em>Aram</em> into <em>Ram.</em> To complicate matters however, the Greek version of 1 Chronicles 2 has <em>four</em> sons of Esrom instead of the Hebrew text's three (Jerahmeel, Ram, Chelubai) - the extra son is named Αραμ "Aram" (as in Matthew's text), who is clearly not the same person as Ram. (For the record, the Greek version of <a href="http://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=LXX&book=Ru&ch=4">Ruth 4:19</a> has Αρραν "Arran" instead of Ram.)<br />
<blockquote>
<strong>Hebrew (ESV):</strong> The sons of Hezron that were born to him: Jerahmeel, <strong>Ram</strong>, and Chelubai. <strong>Ram</strong> fathered Amminadab, and Amminadab fathered Nahshon, prince of the sons of Judah.<br />
<br />
<strong>Greek (<a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/13-1suppl-nets.pdf">NETS</a>):</strong> And Heseron's sons, who were born to him: Irameel and <strong>Ram</strong> and Chaleb <strong>and Aram</strong>. (ὁ Ιραμεηλ καὶ <strong>ὁ Ραμ</strong> καὶ ὁ Χαλεβ <strong>καὶ Αραμ</strong>) And <strong>Aram</strong> became the father of Aminadab, and Aminadab became the father of Naason, ruler of the house of Ioudas.</blockquote>
(<strong>Yet another break here.</strong>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/dwXa5TmCMrw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
(<strong>Are we rested?</strong>)<br />
<br />
You might have noticed that in this section of the genealogy, Matthew names four women: Tamar, Rahab (perhaps the harlot who hid the spies in Joshua 2, 6 is intended here, although there is no source in the OT for the claim that the Rahab of Joshua became Boaz's mother; indeed Rahab and Salmon are separated by almost a century or two - more on this issue later), Ruth and Bathsheba (referred to indirectly as the "wife of Uriah"). The thing is, Jewish genealogies normally did not name women, and although Tamar and Bathsheba (as <em>Bathshua</em>) are referred to in 1 Chronicles, the other two are not. So what was Matthew's purpose for referring to them? Again, there's a number of available possibilities.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/David_and_Bathsheba_by_Artemisia_Gentileschi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/David_and_Bathsheba_by_Artemisia_Gentileschi.jpg" width="252" /></a>The first idea draws attention to the fact that all of the above women were probably in some way 'sinful': Tamar disguised herself as a prostitute and seduced Judah (Genesis 38:12-23). Rahab was a prostitute. Bathsheba committed adultery with David. As for Ruth, perhaps she was also guilty of transgression - Ruth 3:1-18 may imply that she enticed Boaz (Josephus was already concerned with the problem in <a href="http://lexundria.com/j_aj/5.318-5.337/wst"><em>Antiquities</em> 5.328-331</a>). This explanation proposes that Matthew is trying to highlight God's power: God's purpose for the line of David was achieved despite sin and human failure (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:27-31; Josephus, <em>Antiquities</em> 5.337). This interpretation would certainly tie up with 1:21. The problem with this interpretation however is that it somehow fails to take into account that in both Jewish and Christian tradition, Rahab (despite being a harlot) generally had a positive image, being upheld as a model of faith and good works. Not to mention that Genesis 38:26 itself proclaims the righteousness of Tamar (cf. Philo, <em><a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book10.html">On the Unchangeableness of God</a> </em>136-137; <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book31.html"><em>On the Virtues</em></a> 220-222). One might also cite rabbinic texts which downplay the sin of Bathsheba, and Ruth 4:11 expresses Ruth's renown. Plus, the genealogy itself contains names of males whose sins are well-known like David or Manasseh. So one could argue that the introduction of women would hardly seem to be a fruitful way of expressing that theme.<br />
<br />
A minority view (expressed by M.D. Johnson, <em><a href="http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=vQ89AAAAIAAJ">The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies</a></em>) suggests that at the time of Jesus, there was a debate of sorts over the ancestry of the messiah. In Johnson's view, those who argued for a priestly, Levitical messiah pointed out all the nasty stuff in David's family tree (foreign blood, illicit liaisons, sinful women) which in their view tainted the ancient kingly line, thus making it unfit, but those who favored a royal, Davidic messiah over and against (or in conjunction with) a priestly messiah such as the Pharisees defended and elevated these irregularities. Johnson proposed that Matthew favored the latter view and used the genealogy as an opportunity to sell Jesus as a 'Pharisaic', Davidic messiah, especially considering the rise of the Pharisees post-AD 70. The women were included by Matthew, Johnson says, because of disputes among Hasmonaeans and opponents, perhaps spilling over into Matthew's day via Sadducees or purists among the Pharisees, over the legitimacy of the David line due to the presence of figures like Ruth (a Moabitess, and therefore a gentile). In other words, Matthew is trying to convince his readers that the Pharisaic - now the dominant expression of Judaism - expectation had been fulfilled in Jesus, the "son of David." The problem with Johnson's reading, however, is that it seems to be based on late sources (<em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Rabbah">Ruth Rabbah</a></em> 8.1 is often cited as evidence for this supposed dispute, but that's the problem - it's quite late). In addition, the association of Rahab with the line of Judah does not explain her presence in the genealogy. Another argument against the theory is that: would not a genealogy <em>without</em> the women adequately illustrate the Davidic descent of Jesus?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/13948247/2/stock-illustration-13948247-ruth-and-boaz.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/13948247/2/stock-illustration-13948247-ruth-and-boaz.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The third possibility - which has more stronger weight - emphasizes the non-Jewish nature of these four women and thus proposes that the women in 1:2-16 reflect an interest in the salvation of gentiles. Tamar, whether Canaanite or an Aramaean (as Jubilees 41.1-2 and <em>Testament of Judah</em> 10.1-2 make her out to be; both texts deny that she was a Canaanite), was certainly not an Israelite (cf. Philo, <em>On the Virtues</em> 220-222), Rahab was a Canaanite from Jericho, Ruth a Moabite, and Bathsheba the wife of a Hittite. We might add Matthew's note of Jesus being the "son of Abraham" (also a gentile by birth) and the story of the magi - a recurring theme which would reach a climax in 28:19's "Go and make disciples <strong>of all nations</strong>" - as lending credence to this idea. This thesis' weakness lies mainly in the fact that only three out of the four women were gentile (Bathsheba was an Israelite by birth - it has been argued that her marriage to Uriah does not cancel her ethnicity), and these three women were in some sources regarded as proselytes. One might add that this interpretation does not seem to take Mary into account, and can also be considered quite androcentric, almost disdainful (summarily labelling the women as 'foreigners' and 'outsiders').<br />
<br />
The fourth idea on the fact that all four women had 'irregular' marital unions: the union of Judah and Tamar was an "abomination in Israel" (<em>Testament of Judah</em> 12.8). Bathsheba committed adultery with David. Ruth was a foreigner (and if you believe the threshing floor incident in Ruth 3-4 is euphemistically describing something more risque, there's also that). And Rahab, even though the Bible says nothing about her marriage to Salmon, is both a prostitute and a Canaanite. All these 'irregularities' and 'embarrassments', so goes the idea, are open to slander and calumny by outsiders, but the point is that any slanderer would have been attacking what God had chosen to bless. What this idea proposes is, that Matthew is trying to prefigure the irregular circumstances surrounding Mary's pregnancy, something which was also ridiculed by those outside the Church, and perhaps even by some inside it. (Remember the ancient claim - since Porphyry in the 2nd century - about Jesus being the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier?) There's a weak spot in this argument as well though: the embarassment over the four women's sexual activities is a modern phenomenon. As noted earlier, Rahab, Ruth and Tamar were traditionally unanimously regarded as heroines in Judaism, and in the case of Bathsheba, it is usually David who is held responsible for the sin, not her.<br />
<br />
Jason B. Hood goes into more comprehensive detail about the respective ideas (and arguments to the contrary) much more than I could in <a href="http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=ZwgCU9ZGeC8C&pg=PA113&dq=Johnson+genealogy+pharisees+matthew&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8fm-UuryK8vNlAXG5IDYAQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Johnson%20genealogy%20pharisees%20matthew&f=false"><em>The Messiah, His Brothers, and the Nations: (Matthew 1.1-17)</em></a>.<br />
<br />
(<strong>Break time. Feel free to take a breather.</strong>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/7C-bPsOxStM" width="480"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
(<strong>Done?</strong>)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Tissot_The_Harlot_of_Jericho_and_the_Two_Spies.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Tissot_The_Harlot_of_Jericho_and_the_Two_Spies.jpg" width="236" /></a>About Rahab: I mentioned earlier that there is no source in the OT for the claim that the Rahab of Joshua became Salmon/Salma's wife and Boaz's mother. (In the Talmud, Rahab is said to have become the wife of Joshua; b. <em>Megillot</em> 14b-15a.) That, and the fact that there seems to be a gap of a century or two between Rahab and Salmon have led some to suggest that perhaps Matthew's Rahab is a different figure. Some might even point out that in Greek the names are slightly different: Joshua's Rahab is Ῥαάβ (<em>Raab</em>; cf. LXX Joshua, Hebrews 11:31; James 2:25; 1 Clement 12:1-3), but the form found in Matthew's text is Ῥαχάβ (<em>Rachab</em>,<em> </em>the <em>ch</em> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_(letter)">chi</a>) accurately representing the <em>ḥ</em> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heth">ḥeth</a>) of Hebrew <em>Rāḥāḇ</em>). One might argue, however, that this interpretation is quite contrived. Regarding the names, the argument based on differences in transliteration is rather arbitrary: some versions of Josephus' <em>Antiquities</em> (5.8-15) for instance refer to the Rahab of Joshua as Ῥαχάβη<em> Rachab</em><span class="Unicode"><em>ē </em>(although <span class="st">Ῥαάβη <em>Raab<span class="Unicode">ē</span></em> is also noted</span>). In addition, one might note the fact that Matthew introduces his Ra(c)hab without any further identification, suggesting that he expected her to be already familiar to his readers; it is argued that Matthew would not have included a biblically-unknown person. So despite the chronological difficulty, it is still assumed by many commentators that Joshua's Rahab is what Matthew had in mind here.</span><br />
<br />
It had also been suggested by Richard Bauckham (cf. <em><a href="http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=PgBGlHep9KsC&pg=PA34">Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels</a></em>, pp. 34-41) that the inclusion of Rahab was based (using Jewish-style exegesis or <em>midrash</em>) on 1 Chronicles 2:5-51, 54-55, which mentions a "Salma" (Hebrew: שַׂלְמָ֗א<em> Śalmā’</em>, the same spelling used for Salmon's name in v. 11; Greek: Σαλωμων <em>Salōmōn</em>,<em> </em>with an extra omega distinguishing it from Σαλμων <em>Salmōn</em> of v. 11) - who is the father of a "Bethlehem"! - and a "house of Rechab" (Hebrew: רֵכָֽב <em>Rēḵāḇ</em>; Greek: Ρηχαβ<em> Rēchab</em> - just one letter away from<em> Rachab</em>). It helps that immediately after the mention of Rechab the book immediately lists David's offspring (3:1-9). In other words, Matthew 'discovered' Rahab and her putative connection to Salmon/Salma and David in 1 Chronicles 2-3 via <em>midrash</em>.<br />
<blockquote>
The sons of Hur the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal the father of Kiriath-jearim, <strong>Salma, the father of Bethlehem</strong>, and Hareph the father of Beth-gader. [...] The sons of <strong>Salma</strong>: <strong>Bethlehem</strong>, the Netophathites, Atroth-beth-joab and half of the Manahathites, the Zorites. The clans also of the scribes who lived at Jabez: the Tirathites, the Shimeathites and the Sucathites. These are the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the house of <strong>Rechab</strong>. (3:1) These are the sons of <strong>David</strong> who were born to him in Hebron...</blockquote>
Some late sources associate both Rahab and Tamar with God's Spirit (<em>Ruth Rabbah</em> on 1.1; b. <em>Makkot</em> 23b; <em>Genesis Rabbah</em> on 38.15), hence one might be tempted to associate that with Mary's conception "of the Holy Ghost." But the sources are that, late. Moreover, other women like Sarah and Rebekah are also associated with the Holy Spirit (Jubilees 25.14; b. Megillot 14a; Genesis Rabbah on 16.2) - why were they not named in the genealogy as well?<br />
<br />
After going through Boaz and Jesse, we finally arrive at "David the king" - the fourteenth name on the genealogical list composed of three sets of fourteens, with the name <em>David</em> itself comprised (in Hebrew) of three letters, the numerical value of which adds up to fourteen. Very symbolic, huh? David's name is the turning point between the first and second sections of the genealogical list. And that's where we'll drop off for today.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-43588774713106442462013-12-27T08:21:00.004-08:002013-12-28T07:20:26.913-08:00Matthew's Infancy Narrative, 01: "Jesus Christ, Son of David"Since it's Christmas, why don't we have something a bit more timely? This time I'm gonna look at Matthew's infancy narrative.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(NOTE: This is a rehash of </span><a href="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=737870"><span style="font-size: x-small;">something I once did over at Catholic Answers Forums.</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> I never got to finish the - admittedly one-man - discussion there as in many of my other threads, but at least I'd like to see this one get a proper closure.)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a>To be honest, when a lot of us think of the story of Jesus' birth, we often think of Luke's version - the one with the annunciation to Mary, the census, the manger, and the shepherds - first than we think of Matthew's. Sure, Matthew gave us the star and the <em>magoi</em> (the 'wise men'), but come to think of it, even then, we usually take Luke's narrative as the base and then add Matthew's details on top of it. As someone who espouses the idea that each gospel should be looked at separately, in their own terms (harmonization isn't bad, but it's an approach that's been done to death throughout 2,000 years of Christian history) - in other words, seeing Matthew as Matthew or Luke as Luke without combining the two - I'd really like to devote a bit of time looking at the story of Jesus' birth <em>as Matthew wrote it</em>, without adding in details from Luke (though he will probably get mentioned from time to time) or something like that.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/12th-century_painters_-_Tree_of_Jesse_-_WGA15829.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/12th-century_painters_-_Tree_of_Jesse_-_WGA15829.jpg" width="222" /></a>
Of all the possible ways Matthew could have begun his gospel, he had to choose the one many modern folks would find quite off-putting: beginning with a genealogy. But the genealogy has a lot of interesting details that one might overlook if you simply skipped it.<br />
<br />
Matthew begins by announcing: "The scroll (traditionally "the book;" i.e. the record) of the <em>geneseōs</em>" (βίβλος γενέσεως,<strong> </strong><em>biblos geneseōs</em>) of Jesus Christ, son of David, son of Abraham." There are actually many ways of understanding the word <em>geneseōs</em>. In many translations, <em>geneseōs</em> is usually translated as 'genealogy', understanding the phrase to be the heading of the genealogy in 1:2-17. It could also be understood as 'birth' (as in 1:18) or the 'origin' or 'beginning' and be taken as the introduction to 1:2-25 or 1:2-2:23 or or even 1:2-4:16 - Jesus' 'birth', His 'origins', and the 'beginning' of His earthly and public life.<br />
<br />
Another possibility is that <i>geneseōs</i> is a conscious allusion to the
book of Genesis. In other words, Matthew begins his work - rather properly, one
could say - at the 'beginning': he apparently considers the story of Jesus as
the story of a new Genesis, a new creation. In fact the phrase <i>biblos
geneseōs</i>, appears two times in the Greek Septuagint
version of Genesis (2:4; 5:1-2 NETS):<br />
<blockquote>
<strong>This is the book of the origin (<em>biblos geneseōs</em>) of heaven and earth, when it originated,</strong>
on the day that God made the heaven and the earth and all verdure of the field
before it came to be upon the earth and all herbage of the field before it
sprang up, for God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was not a human
to till the earth, yet a spring would rise from the earth and water the whole
face of the earth.<br />
<br />
<strong>This is the book of the origin (<em>biblos geneseōs</em>) of human beings.</strong> On the day that God made
Adam, he made him according to divine image; male and female he made them, and
he blessed them. And he named their name “Adam” on the day that he made them.</blockquote>
<a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/leithart/2007/04/21/book-of-genesis/">Peter Leithart</a> makes the following observation:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Dale Allison argues that Matthew’s opening words, BIBLOS GENESEOS, should be translated as “Book of the Genesis,” a translation ambiguous enough to capture all that Matthew intended – an allusion to the first book of the Bible, a new creation theme, an introduction to the genealogy or birth story, etc. GENESIS was, he argues, established as the title of the first book of the Bible by Matthew’s time. He suggests that Matthew 1:1 is a title: “Book of the New Genesis of Jesus Christ….”</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">He and WD Davies also note (</span><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=VQzZc7KYUKgC" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466; font-size: x-small;">in their jointly authored ICC volume</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">) how the phrase is used in the LXX of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1. There, the phrase does not, as in Matthew 1:1, introduce a genealogy; rather, BIBLOS GENESEOS in Genesis 5:1 introduces a list of descendants and in 2:4 does not (on their reading) introduce any sort of ancestry or genealogy at all.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Let’s assume, though, that Matthew meant to draw a very direct link between his use of the phrase and that of Genesis 2:4 and 5:1. What would that mean?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<a href="http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/god_univ.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/god_univ.gif" width="223" /></a><span style="font-size: x-small;">First, I think it likely that the phrase in Genesis 2:4 does in fact introduce a series of “generations.” This is the use of the similar phrases throughout Genesis. 10:1, for instance, introduces the “generations of Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” and then goes on to list those who are born from them, and the events generated by those generations. In 2:4, the “heavens and earth” are the “parents” who generate (though God’s work) plants, mist, a garden, a man, etc. Adam’s mother is the earth, as his father is the God of heaven; he is taken from the dust, and his Father breathes life into Him from heaven. Genesis 5:1 definitely introduces a list of those “generated” by Adam. Thus, in both places where Genesis uses the same phrase as Matthew, the text goes on to describe those things that come from the one named.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">If this is correct, and if Matthew is using the phrase in the same sense, then Jesus is being presented not only as the descendant of those named (though he is that, 1:16) but also as the progenitor of those listed. Israel’s history is initiated by Jesus, even as it also climaxes in Jesus. He is the Alpha and the Omega of this genealogy, the first Man and the Last Man, the beginning Israelite and the final Israelite. This is neatly captured by the chiastic structure of Matthew’s genealogy – moving from Jesus-David-Abraham [v. 1] and then through Abraham [v. 2]-David [v. 6]-Jesus [v. 16].</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Jesus is the heavens-and-earth that generates a new world, a new Adamic race, a new Bride; Jesus is the Adam who gives birth to a race of true Sethites.</span></blockquote>
You might note that the very first names which appear in 1:1 (Jesus, David, Abraham) also appear in 1:2-16, but in reverse order. So the very first verse offers a triad and the front half of what is known as a <em><a href="http://www.drmardy.com/chiasmus/definition.shtml">chiasmus</a></em>, as Leithart has explained:<br />
<blockquote>
a.) "Jesus Christ" (1:1b)
<br />
<blockquote>
b.) "David" (1:1c)
<br />
<blockquote>
c.) "Abraham" (1:1d)
<br />
c.) "Abraham" (1:2)
</blockquote>
b.) "David the king" (1:6)</blockquote>
a.) "Jesus who is called Christ" (1:16)</blockquote>
(<strong>Let's take a little breather here, shall we? I suggest we should rest a bit here. I've still a lot to talk about, and reading through walls of text is just tiring - I should know. ;) While we're having a break, here's a video of Matthew's genealogy. <em>Literally.</em>)</strong><br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/OvZW58LQg_k" width="459"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
(<strong>Enjoyed your break? We'll continue.</strong>)<br />
<br />
Perhaps the most notable feature of the Matthean genealogy, however, is its carefully-ordered structure. Fourteen generations fall (inclusively) between Abraham and David, between David and the Babylonian captivity, and (at least according to 1:17) between the Babylonian captivity and Jesus. How are we to account for this triadic scheme? There are a number of possibilities:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">1.) One possibility is to tie the (supposedly) fourteen generations between the captivity and Jesus with Daniel 9:24-27, which prophesies that seven weeks of years will pass between the 'going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem' and the coming of an anointed one, a king. This explanation however necessitates that the length of a generation be set at thirty-five years in order to work (35 x 14 = 490), which some see as gratituous.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">2.) Another connects it with the lunar cycle, which consists of fourteen days of the moon waxing and another fourteen of the moon waning. The idea then is that the period between Abraham and David is that of waxing, with David's era being the high point; next, the period after David is that of waning, with the Babylonian captivity being the low point; the final period is again that of waning, with its zenith coming with the birth of Jesus. This scheme is attested in <i>Exodus Rabbah</i> on 12:2. There, however, the cycles of the moon, given as 15 + 15 = 30, are explicitly cited.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">3.) Because seven but not fourteen is a prominent number in the Bible, a third possibility regards the three fourteens as the equivalent of six sevens, in which case Jesus would stand at the head of the seventh seven, the seventh day of history - in other words, the eternal sabbath. This has a parallel in the Apocalypse of Weeks in 1 Enoch (93:1-10;
91:12-17). In this salvation history is divided into ten weeks: three before Abraham, seven after Abraham, the seventh being the messianic age (cf. <i>Paralipomena of Jeremiah</i> 3.10). However, the counter-argument is that Matthew expressly speaks of three fourteens and not six sevens.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">4.) An idea connects the scheme with the pattern found in 2 Baruch 53-74 (the 'Messiah Apocalypse'), which partitions history into twelve plus two or fourteen epochs of alternating bright and black waters. The problem here is that it is difficult to see how Matthew's forty-two generations can be linked to a division of history into fourteen epochs.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">5.) Pointing out how the reckoning of fourteen generations from Abraham to David is traditional (cf. 1 Chronicles 1-2; Exodus Rabbah on 12:2; and possibly Luke 3), an idea has it that Matthew simply imitated this scheme for the others, given his penchant for the number three and for order in general. This is less objectionable than the other possibilities, but there is still a difficulty in that because Matthew repeatedly lays emphasis on the number fourteen throughout 1:2-17, it may have had some sort of intrinsic, symbolic significance for him.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">6.) A tradition found in the Talmud (b. Sanh. 105b; b. Hor. 10b), a tradition interprets the total number of sacrifices which Balak and Balaam offered in Numbers 23 as forty-two, this being the product of 3 x 14 (= 7 bulls + 7 lambs). But there is no other connection between this and Matthew's genealogy aside from the numbers.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://news.eteacherhebrew.com/sites/default/files/images/table.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://news.eteacherhebrew.com/sites/default/files/images/table.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Hebrew is/was one of those languages<br />
<a href="http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005282.html">where letters doubled as numbers.</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">7.) The final possibility which is the most popular today holds gematria as a key. David's name is composed of <i>three</i> consonants in Hebrew (דוד<em>, d-w-d</em>),
the numerical value of which amounts to <i>fourteen</i>: <i>d(aleth)</i> + <i>w(aw)</i> + <i>d(aleth)</i> = 4 + 6 + 4 = 14. This explanation has an advantage over the others due to the fact that gematria (or in case of Greek, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopsephy">isopsephy</a>) was practiced in both Jewish and Christian circles close to Matthew's time (cf. Revelation 13:18), and the numerical interpretation of David's name can account for both the numbers three and fourteen. The interesting thing we should note here is that the one name with three consonants and the value of fourteen is the fourteenth name on the list. In addition, this name is mentioned immediately before the genealogy (1:1), and twice at its conclusion (1:17), and that it is honored by the title "king." In the eyes of many scholars, this effectively rules out coincidence.</span></blockquote>
Jesus is called by Matthew the "son of David." For Matthew, David is such an important figure that his name is a crucial element in the genealogy (as we've seen above), and with good reason: many (but by no means all) messianic ideas in Second Temple Judaism have the messiah being related to David in some fashion, either by being a literal member of the Davidic line or by being reminiscent of the old king in some way (but not necessarily a descendant). In keeping with this Matthew names David immediately after proclaiming Jesus as "Christ" (i.e. Messiah, the 'anointed').<br />
<br />
The term "son of David" was a standard messianic title for the later Rabbis (cf. b. Sanhedrin 97a-98a), and a titular use may already be attested in the 1st century BC (cf. <a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/31-pssal-nets.pdf" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466;">Psalms of Solomon</span></a> 17). Developing out of older expressions such as "sprout of Jesse" (Isaiah 11:10) and "shoot (of David)" (Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12; also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4Q252">4QPatrBless 3</a>; 4QFlor 1,11-12; 4QpIsa<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 80%; vertical-align: super;">a</span></span> frags. 7-10, 11-17 for the use of the title in Qumran literature), the title became the focus of a rich tradition. By the time of Jesus, the dominant, although not exclusive, expectation was that the messianic king would be in a way a 'son of David'. A deliverer was expected who would fulfill the promises in 2 Samuel 7, which accounts for the early Christian emphasis of Jesus' claimed Davidic lineage. (cf. Acts 2:29-36; 13:22-23; Romans 1:3-4; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 22:16; Ignatius of Antioch, <em>Letter to the Ephesians</em> 18.2; 20:2.)<br />
<blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Vitrail_Chartres_210209_18_brighter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Vitrail_Chartres_210209_18_brighter.jpg" width="223" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">See, O Lord, and raise for them their king, the son of Dauid,<br />
at the time which you chose, O God, to rule over Israel your servant.<br />
And gird him with strength to shatter in pieces unrighteous rulers,<br />
to purify Ierousalem from nations that trample her down in destruction,<br />
in wisdom of righteousness, to drive out sinners from the inheritance,<br />
to smash the arrogance of the sinner like a potter’s vessel,<br />
to shatter all their substance with an iron rod,<br />
to destroy the lawless nations by the word of his mouth,<br />
that, by his threat, nations flee from his presence,<br />
and to reprove sinners with the thought of their hearts.<br />
<br />
And he shall gather a holy people whom he shall lead in righteousness,<br />
and he shall judge the tribes of the people<br />
that has been sanctified by the Lord, his God.<br />
And he shall not allow injustice to lodge in their midst any longer,<br />
nor shall there dwell with them any person who knows evil;<br />
for he shall know them, that all are their God’s sons.<br />
And he shall distribute them according to their tribes upon the land,<br />
and no resident alien and alien shall sojourn among them any longer.<br />
He shall judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness.<br />
<br />- Psalm of Solomon 17.21-29<br />
<br />
<em>The sceptre [shall not] depart from the tribe of Judah ...</em> (Gen. 49.10) Whenever Israel rules, <em>there shall [not] fail to be a descendant of David upon the throne</em> (Jer. 33.17). For the ruler's staff (49.10) is the Covenant of kingship, [and the clans] of Israel are the divisions ((reading <i>dgylw</i> 'standards' with the Samaritan Pentateuch <i>contra</i> the traditional <i>rglyw</i> 'feet')), until the Messiah of Righteousness comes, the Branch of David. For to him and his seed is granted the Covenant of kingship over his people for everlasting generations which he is to keep ... the Law with the men of the Community, for ... it is the assembly of the men of ...<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">- 4Q252 (Genesis Commentary / Blessings of the Patriarchs; 4QPatrBless), 5
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">[<em>And there shall come forth a rod from the stem of Jesse and a Branch shall grow out of its roots. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. And his delight shall be in the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or pass sentence by what his ears hear; he shall judge the poor righteously, and shall pass sentence justly on the humble of the earth</em>] (Isa. 9.1-3)</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> [Interpreted, this concerns the Branch] of David who shall arise at the end [of days] ... God will uphold him with [the spirit of might, and will give him] a throne of glory and a crown of [holiness] and many-coloured garments ... [He will put a sceptre] in his hand and he shall rule over the [nations]. And Magog ... and his sword shall judge [all] the peoples.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> And for that which he said, <em>He shall not [judge by what his eyes see] or pass sentence by what his ears hear</em>: interpreted, this means that ... [the Priests] ... As they teach him, so will he judge; and as they order, [so will he pass sentence]. One of the Priests of renown shall go out, and garments of ... shall be in his hands ...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">- 4Q161 (4QIsaiah Pesher a; 4QpIsaa), frs. 8-10</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>The Lord declares to you that He will build you a House</em> (2 Sam. 7.11c). <em>I will raise up your seed after you</em> (2 Sam. 7.12). <em>I will establish the throne of his kingdom [for ever]</em> (2 Sam. 7.13). <em>[I will be] his father and he shall be my son</em> (2 Sam. 7.14). He is the Branch of David who shall arise with the Interpreter of the Law [to rule] in Zion [at the end] of time. As it is written, <em>I will raise up the tent of David that is fallen</em> (Amos 9.11). That is to say, the fallen <em>tent of David</em> is he who shall arise to save Israel.</span></blockquote>
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">- 4Q174 (Florilegium / Midrash on the Last Days)</span> </blockquote>
(<strong>Ladies and gents, another break! Can't let you get tired. Here's something from a film known as <em><a href="http://www.google.co.jp/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEAQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Ftitle%2Ftt0301359%2F&ei=xai9UrCyAYmnkQW9r4HoCQ&usg=AFQjCNFrt0f3zXfQpDyELIPnpZ43lj9peA&sig2=6gztEk8uj7H0kKz3_gASPg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.dGI">Visual Bible: Matthew</a></em>, which - as the label says - is a word-for-word adaptation of Matthew using the NIV translation. This is basically how they handled the genealogy. Relevant part starts at 01:58. ;)</strong>)<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/doqPnRCNSsI" width="459"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
(<strong>If you're ready to move on...</strong>)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/David-icon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/David-icon.jpg" width="288" /></a>Out of all the evangelists, Matthew lays the most stress on Jesus' being a "son of David," a term which appears nine times within his gospel (1:1, 20; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30, 21; 21:9, 15). The title and its associations are particularly prominent in chapters 1-2: David is repeatedly mentioned (1:6, 17) and huge importance is laid upon Bethlehem, the city of David (2:1-8, 16). In later chapters of Matthew, however, the term also seems to touch on a tradition not directly connected with eschatology: in the OT, the term "son of David" is usually applied to Solomon (with one exception; 2 Samuel 13:1 = Absalom). The fact that Solomon is touted in later Jewish folklore as an exorcist and healer would not have escaped Matthew, since in later parts of the gospel, he often connects the term in context of exorcisms (cf. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31).<br />
<br />
In addition, Matthew also appends the title "son of Abraham." It's a bit unclear as to whether "son of Abraham" refers to Jesus or David, but the overall intent would still be the same. "Son of Abraham" is an identity marker equivalent to 'Jew'. (cf. Matthew 3:9; John 8:33-41. See also the following for uses of "son of Abraham" to refer to Jewish blood: Luke 19:9; Acts 13:26; Mishnah, <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bava_Kamma">Baba Qamma</a></em> 8.6.) The phrase is also used to refer to someone who is worthy of Abraham (cf. <a href="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4496061">4 Maccabees</a> 6:17, 22; 18:23; Galatians 3:7; Talmud, <em>Betzah</em> 32b). As the Savior of Israel, Jesus must be a true Israelite, and so Matthew traces His origin to Abraham.<br />
<br />
Because the Matthaean genealogy covers the period from Abraham to the Messiah it is natural to think of Jesus as the culmination of the history which began to Abraham. But there is probably more to Jesus' being a "son of Abraham." Abraham was a gentile by birth, and it is promised that "all the nations" will be blessed in him (Genesis 12:3; 18:18; etc.) In Jewish literature he was sometimes portrayed either as "the father of many nations" (Genesis 17:5; 44:19; 1 Maccabees 12:19-21) or as the first proselyte (e.g. Talmud, <em>Hagigah</em> 3a); and the promise to Abraham was employed to further the purposes of Jewish mission. St. Paul also represents him as the true father of all believers, Jew and gentile alike (Romans 4:1-25; Galatians 3:6-29). Therefore the reference may also for Matthew serve to indicate that Jesus is also the Messiah for the gentiles.<br />
<br />
Outside of Matthew, the promises made to the "seed" of Abraham and the "seed" of David are brought and conflated together (so in Luke 1:30-33, 55, 69-73; Acts 3:25; 13:23; also cf. Galatians 3:16; Jeremiah 33:21-22; <a href="http://targum.info/pss/ps3.htm">Targum on Psalm 89:4</a>). This perhaps also explains Matthew's juxtaposition of the two terms: the "seed" of Abraham and the "seed" of David to whom the promises apply = the Messiah.<br />
<br />
W.D. Davies and Dale Allison, <a href="https://www.google.co.jp/search?pg=PA565">in their commentary on Matthew</a> (which I've made shameless use of here), make three final points:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">First, given Matthew’s emphasis on righteousness and upholding the Torah (5.17-20), the mention of Abraham is particularly apt, for the patriarch was revered as one who had been perfectly obedient to the commands of the Law. He indeed kept the whole Torah even before it was written. </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[Footnote 38: Ecclus 44.19-21; </span><a href="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=4216956" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466; font-size: xx-small;">Prayer of Manasseh</span></a><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> 8; </span><a href="http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/jubilees/index.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466; font-size: xx-small;">Jub.</span></a><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> 6.19; 16.28; 21.2; 23.10; </span><a href="http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/2Baruch.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466; font-size: xx-small;">2 Bar.</span></a><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> 57.2; </span><a href="http://reluctant-messenger.com/testament_of_abraham.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466; font-size: xx-small;">T. Abr. (A)</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> 1; 4; <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashim" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466;">m. Qidd.</span></a></i> 4.14; <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baba_Batra" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466;">b. B. Bat.</span></a></i> 17a.]</span> Secondly, there was a tradition that Abraham ‘discovered both astrology and Chaldean science’ (Ps. Eupolemus in Eusebius, <i><a href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_09_book9.htm" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466;">Praep. ev.</span></a></i> 9.17; cf. Artapanus in Eusebius, <i>Praep. ev.</i> 9.18; the Jewish mystical hymn in Eusebius, <i>Praep. ev.</i> 13.12; Josephus, <i>Ant.</i> 1.158, 167-8; LAB 18.5; <i>b. B. Bat.</i> 16b). </span><span style="font-size: xx-small;">[Footnote 39: For rejection of this seemingly wide-spread tradition see Jub. 12.15-17; Philo, </span><a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book22.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466; font-size: xx-small;">Sib. Or.</span></a><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> 3.218-30; <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedarim_(tractate)#Nedarim" target="_blank"><span style="color: #444466;">b. Ned.</span></a></i> 32a. On the whole matter consult Hengel, <i>Judaism and Hellenism</i> 2, p. 62, n. 264, and C.R. Holladay, <i>Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Vol. 1: Historians</i>, Chico, 1983, pp. 180-1.]</span> It is fitting then, that the ‘son of Abraham’ should be honoured by magi from the east (2.1-12). Finally, since the ‘son of Abraham’ in 1.1 is immediately followed in 1.2 by mention of Isaac, and since, as already suggested, ‘son of David’ may have had a double meaning for Matthew, referring to Jesus as both the Davidic Messiah and one like Solomon, it is just possible, one might urge, that ‘son of Abraham’ could also have a double meaning, designating Jesus not only as a descendant of Abraham but as one like Isaac, who carried wood on his back and was willing to give up his life in obedience to God (cf. Rom 8.32?). <span style="font-size: xx-small;">[Footnote 40: If, as has sometimes been urged, there was a tradition about the virgin birth of Isaac (see on 1.23), this would certainly buttress such a conjecture.]</span> Yet nowhere else in the First Gospel is Jesus clearly associated with Isaac (although see on 3.17).</span></blockquote>
Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-1557159195645565662013-12-16T09:37:00.002-08:002013-12-16T09:37:31.199-08:00Just how many versions of Tobit are there? Part 02(<a href="http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.jp/2013/12/just-how-many-versions-of-tobit-are.html">Part 01 here</a>)<br />
<br />
To recap: the book of Tobit (one of the Deuterocanonicals/'Apocrypha') exists in different versions in different languages. Which really accounts for the differences in the text between, say, the Douai-Rheims, the RSV and the NAB translations of the book. ;)<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>For example, as mentioned in Part 01, you have three versions of Greek Tobit: <strong>Greek I</strong> or G1 found in most manuscripts, <strong>Greek II</strong> or G2 found in Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and a couple other manuscripts, and <strong>Greek III</strong> or G3 (a sort of intermediate version between G1 and G2, although basically related to the latter), surviving only in a partial form in three manuscripts. As for Latin Tobit, you have Jerome's translation (of a translation of an Aramaic version, quite different from the Greek version), plus a family of Latin translations made before his (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina"><em>Vetus Latina</em></a> =<em> </em>VL), which is quite similar to the text of GII. That's not counting medieval Hebrew and Aramaic versions (which are all derived from the Greek or the Vulgate text anyway) and ancient versions in other languages like Syriac, Ethiopian, Armenian or Arabic (many of them simply translations of G1). For the purposes of our discussion, I'm gonna focus specifically on G1, G2, and the VL versions.<br />
<br />
I mentioned in the last post that until the mid-20th century, the preferred version of choice for translators was either G1 or Jerome's Latin version, because those are pretty much the only ones available. After manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus were discovered, scholars became aware of longer versions of Tobit quite different from the ones they had, but a number of them originally dismissed these versions as secondary. After all, it's a cliche in textual criticism that <em>lectio brevior est potior</em>, "shorter reading is better." Many scholars at the time assumed that G1, the 'standard' version found in most surviving copies, represented the original version of Tobit, while the 'minority' G2 text in Sinaiticus and the <em>Vetus Latina </em>versions were expanded versions of it. Then, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, which required some changes in established opinion.<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/bibel/PB01_TOB.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="197" src="http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/bibel/PB01_TOB.gif" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">4Q196 (pap4QTob ar<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: 80%; vertical-align: super;">a</span></span>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
When Cave 4 in Qumran was discovered in 1952, among the things found inside there were fragments from five manuscripts of Tobit (4Q196-200), dating from the period between 100 BC to AD 25. However, it was not until 1956 that the first report on the finds was published. The late <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B3zef_Milik">J.T. Milik</a> reported about the discovery of what was then fragments three manuscripts of Tobit in the report. More fragments were eventually found (which was also announced by Milik) until five texts were found in total. However, while Milik worked on piecing the fragments from a period spanning from 1953 to 1960, he never got around to actually publishing them. (One of the main criticisms levelled against Milik by critics, in fact, is how he contributed to the long delay of getting the Dead Sea Scrolls into public view by not completing all the work on his portion - and quite an amount of the discovered fragments were under his lot.) It was Fr. Joseph Fitzmyer who would complete the work and publish them in 1995 (<em><a href="http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/resources/djd/XIX.html">Discoveries in the Judaean Desert</a></em>, volume 19).<br />
<br />
All in all, these manuscripts (four in Aramaic, one - the latest - in Hebrew) generally agree with G2, but sometimes also with G1. In some instances, the text provided could be shorter or longer, or at times agree more with the text of VL over against G2. All in all there are sixty-nine fragments or groups of fragments in these five texts (anyone who wants to see them in detail should check out Fr. Fitzmyer's books like <em><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=9d6gq_bR1AIC&pg=PA166">The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins</a></em> or <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=fxea1X6HpZ8C&pg=PA92">his commentary on Tobit</a>): out of these sixty-nine, thirty-four tiny fragments are unidentified, giving us thirty-five identified fragments in total.<br />
<blockquote>
<strong>4QTob<span style="vertical-align: super;">a</span> ar (4Q196, Aramaic, ca. 50-25 BC):</strong> Fragments 1 (Tobit 1:17), 2 (1:19-2:2), 3 (2:3), 4 (2:10-11), 5 (3:5), 6 (3:9-15), 7 (3:17), 8 (4:2), 9 (4:5), 10 (4:7), 11 (4:21-5:1), 12 (5:9), 13 (6:6-8), 14 i (6:13-18), 14 ii (6:18-7:6), 15 (7:13), 16 (12:1), 17 i (12:18-13:6), 17 ii (13:6-12), 18 (13:12-14:3), 19 (14:7), 20-49 (??)<br />
<div>
</div>
<div>
<b>4QTob<span style="vertical-align: super;">b</span> ar (4Q197, Aramaic, ca. 25 BC-AD 25): </b>Fragments 1 (Tobit 3:6-8), 2 (4:21-5:1), 3 (5:12-14), 4 i (5:19-6:12), 4 ii (6:12-18), 4 iii (6:18-7:10), 5 (8:17-9:4), 6-7 (??)</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<b>4QTob<span style="vertical-align: super;">c</span> ar (4Q198, Aramaic, ca. 50 BC): </b>Fragments 1 (Tobit 14:2-6), 2 (14:10)</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<b>4QTob<span style="vertical-align: super;">d</span> ar (4Q199, Aramaic, ca. 100 BC): </b>Fragments 1 (Tobit 7:11), 2 (14:10)</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<b>4QTob<span style="vertical-align: super;">e</span> (4Q200, Hebrew, ca. 30 BC-AD 20): </b>Fragments 1 i (Tobit 3:6), 1 ii (3:10-11), 2 (4:3-9), 3 (5:2), 4 (10:7-9), 5 (11:10-14), 6 (12:20-13:4), 7 i (13:13-14), 7 ii (13:18-14:2), 8 (?), 9 (3:3-4?)</div>
</blockquote>
These fragments also exhibit some degree of minor variances with each other, which shows us that there was not really a 'fixed' text of Tobit during the 1st century BC or the 1st century AD. Disagreement still exists among scholars as to whether Tobit was composed in Aramaic (the common opinion today) or in Hebrew, but either way, it seems that versions in both languages circulated at the same time. In any case, knowledge of any Hebrew version was already lost during the 3rd century, since Origen notes: "Concerning it [Tobit], we must recognize that Jews do not use Tobit; nor do they use Judith. They do not have them even among the Apocrypha in Hebrew, as we know, having learned (this) from them. But because the churches use Tobit, one must recognize that some of the captives in their captivity became rich and well to do." (<em>Epistola ad Africanum</em> 13 [19]) By contrast, Jerome's use of an Aramaic version shows us that versions in that language still continued to circulate in his time.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Saint_Michael_Tianguishahuatl_Church,_San_Pedro_Cholula,_Puebla_state,_Mexico11.jpg/410px-Saint_Michael_Tianguishahuatl_Church,_San_Pedro_Cholula,_Puebla_state,_Mexico11.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Saint_Michael_Tianguishahuatl_Church,_San_Pedro_Cholula,_Puebla_state,_Mexico11.jpg/410px-Saint_Michael_Tianguishahuatl_Church,_San_Pedro_Cholula,_Puebla_state,_Mexico11.jpg" width="273" /></a></div>
Since the text of G2 and VL is found to align closer with the Aramaic and Hebrew fragments from Qumran,
it is presently deemed by most scholars to be the more original of the
two Greek texts. Now, G2 is though to be the more 'original' version, while G1 is a more streamlined, condensed epitome. (G1 is more smooth and more natural compared to G2, which is very Semitic to the point of being cumbersome.) Hence, most modern translations
since 1966 tend to use the text of G2 nowadays as their base text for Tobit, although a few still choose to follow G1.<br />
<div>
</div>
Now here's the fun part. How do you know whether your translation of Tobit uses G1 or G2? (The Vulgate version is pretty easy to spot by comparison: just pick a Douai-Rheims or any translation which uses the Vulgate as source text.) There's actually quite a number of ways to do so, but one I found to be quite fun involves looking at some key passages. I'm gonna list three of them:<br />
<ol>
<li>At the very beginning of the book (1:1-2), Tobit in G2 is introduced as: "son of Tobiel son of Hananiel son of Aduel son of Gabael son of Raphael son of Raguel of the descendants of Asiel, of the tribe of Nephthali." Compare that to G1's shorter "of Tobiel son of Hananiel son of Aduel son of Gabael of the descendants of Asiel, of the tribe of Nephthali."</li>
<li>There's a difference in G1 and G2 as to the number of days which elapsed between Tobit being hunted down by Sennacherib and the latter's death (1:16-22). In G2, it is forty; in G1 it is fifty.</li>
<li>Perhaps the most radical difference between G1 and G2 is in 5:10 (verse 9 in some translations). G1 has the quite brief: "So Tobias invited him in; he entered and they greeted each other." (RSV) That's only eight words in Greek. By comparison, G2 has this (NAB-RE):<blockquote>
Tobiah went out to summon him, saying, “Young man, my father is calling for you.” When Raphael entered the house, Tobit greeted him first. He replied, “Joyful greetings to you!” Tobit answered, “What joy is left for me? Here I am, a blind man who cannot see the light of heaven, but must remain in darkness, like the dead who no longer see the light! Though alive, I am among the dead. I can hear people’s voices, but I do not see them.” The young man said, “Take courage! God’s healing is near; so take courage!” Tobit then said: “My son Tobiah wants to go to Media. Can you go with him to show him the way? I will pay you your wages, brother.” He answered: “Yes, I will go with him, and I know all the routes. I have often traveled to Media and crossed all its plains so I know well the mountains and all its roads.”</blockquote>
</li>
</ol>
Out of Bible translations in English which translate Tobit, those which use G2 are mainly modern ones like the New American Bible (NAB), the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), the Common English Bible (CEB), the Good News Translation (GNT). Older translations, like the RSV, the Revised Version (RV), the King James Version or even <a href="http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/">Lancelot Brenton's translation</a> of the Septuagint use G1. Modern Bibles which still use G1 include the <a href="http://www.ebible.org/">World English Bible</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Study_Bible">Orthodox Study Bible</a>. The so-called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Community_Bible">Christian Community Bible</a> is a bit confusing: its translation seems to be a fusion between G1 and G2. The Douai-Rheims - both the original and the version by bishop Challoner being passed around as 'Douay-Rheims' these days - obviously use <a href="http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Tob.html">the Vulgate version</a>. (Note: <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_vt_thobis_lt.html">the translation of Tobit</a> in the <em>Nova Vulgata</em> isn't Jerome's, but a fresh translation of G2 with some influences from Vetus Latina texts.)<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Historically speaking, most early English translations from Wycliff up to the Douai Old Testament used the Vulgate text. The only ones which used G1 were the Geneva Bible and the KJV.</span>Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-48023074320193426962013-12-16T05:27:00.004-08:002013-12-16T08:25:22.096-08:00Just how many versions of Tobit are there? Part 01Here's a topic I've found very fascinating ever since I first encountered it.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><a href="http://catholiclane.com/wp-content/uploads/tobit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="268" src="http://catholiclane.com/wp-content/uploads/tobit.jpg" width="320" /></a>The book of Tobit is one of those books Catholics would call the <em>Deuterocanonicals</em> and non-Catholics would label the <em>Apocrypha</em>. Basically, it's about a pious old man from the tribe of Nephthali named Tobit exiled along with the other Israelites in Nineveh who goes blind after bird droppings fell on his eyes (!). One day Tobit decides to collect money he had once deposited to an acquaintance named Gabael in the land of Media and sends his son Tobias (aka Tobiah) to do so. Along the way, Tobias is accompanied by a guy who passes himself off as a kinsman of his named Azariah, and a dog who doesn't do anything in the story except to be mentioned briefly at the very beginning and the very end of the journey. Arriving in Media, Tobias gets the money from Gabael, and marries the latter's daughter Sarah, who was tormented by a demon named Asmodeus, who had killed every man she married. Tobias succeeds in driving Asmodeus out by burning, under Azariah's advice, the liver and heart of a rabid fish he had encountered during the journey. Tobias, Sarah, and Azariah return to Nineveh, where Tobit was cured of his blindness by the gall of the same fish. 'Azariah' eventually reveals himself to be the angel Raphael, sent by God to cure Tobit and Sarah of the afflictions they had, and goes back to heaven. Years pass, and Tobit finally dies, but not before warning his son to leave Nineveh before God destroys it according to prophecy. After burying his father, Tobias and his family then go away and settle at Media, where the tale ends.<br />
<br />
That's the main gist of the story. But here's the thing. Those of you who like to read from different translations of the Bible might have already noticed this, but if you compare the book of Tobit as it is in three different translations - the <a href="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/17001.htm">Douai-Rheims</a>, <a href="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/r/rsv/rsv-idx?type=DIV1&byte=3785365">the Revised Standard Version</a>, and <a href="http://www.usccb.org/bible/tobit">the New American Bible</a> - you'd notice that the text of each is radically different from one another. I encountered some people from time to time who tried to follow the daily readings, only to find that the version they found in their Bible is totally unlike what's read out in church. This is much more evident if you read from the Douai-Rheims. The book begins like this in the NAB version:<br />
<blockquote>
This book tells the story of Tobit, son of Tobiel, son of Hananiel, son of Aduel, son of Gabael, son of Raphael, son of Raguel, of the family of Asiel and the tribe of Naphtali. During the days of Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians, he was taken captive from Thisbe, which is south of Kedesh Naphtali in upper Galilee, above and to the west of Asher, north of Phogor.</blockquote>
The RSV version is pretty close, if shorter (for instance, it omits "son of Raphael, son of Raguel" and simply mentions Thisbe as being "to the south of Kedesh Naphtali in Galilee above Asher.") But if you pick up the DR, this is what you'll find:<br />
<blockquote>
Tobias of the tribe and city of Nephtali, (which is in the upper parts of Galilee above Naasson, beyond the way that leadeth to the west, having on the right hand the city of Sephet,) when he was made captive in the days of Salmanasar king of the Assyrians, even in his captivity, forsook not the way of truth, but every day gave all he could get to his brethren his fellow captives, that were of his kindred. And when he was younger than any of the tribe of Nephtali, yet did he no childish thing in his work.</blockquote>
Totally different, isn't it? What's going on here? The answer's simple: all three translations use three different source texts.<br />
<br />
The first thing to understand is that there's no single, standard version of the book of Tobit. Instead what you really have is different versions of the same work circulating in different languages like Greek or Latin or Hebrew or Aramaic or even Ethiopian.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Codex_Sinaiticus_Matthew_4,19-5,22.JPG/533px-Codex_Sinaiticus_Matthew_4,19-5,22.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Codex_Sinaiticus_Matthew_4,19-5,22.JPG/533px-Codex_Sinaiticus_Matthew_4,19-5,22.JPG" width="284" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Codex Sinaiticus. That's <em>not</em> Tobit right there.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
There are at least two or three versions of Tobit in Greek. The shorter one, found in virtually most surviving Greek manuscripts, is called <strong>Greek I</strong> (G1). The longer (containing 1,700 more words than G1) version found only almost fully in the 4th-century <a href="http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/">Codex Sinaiticus</a>, and partially in a couple other manuscripts, is <strong>Greek II</strong> (G2). Sinaiticus uniquely preserves most of G2 - albeit riddled with scribal errors - except for two
lacunae (4:7-19b and 13:7-10b). Fortunately, an 11th century manuscript (Mount Athos, MS 319, aka Vatopedi 913) gives the G2 text from 3:6 to 6:16 (while giving the G1 text for the rest of the book), thereby filling one of the two lacunae. The third version, <strong>Greek III</strong> (G3) is fundamentally related to G2, but is not dependent on the version contained in Sinaiticus. G3 exists only partially (covering only 6:9-13:8) in three <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_minuscule">cursive</a> manuscripts, which all reproduce G1 for the rest of the book.<br />
<br />
As for Latin, there are two main versions of the book. To be more precise, one of the two is more like a family of different versions.<br />
<br />
The various versions of Tobit made before St. Jerome translated biblical books into Latin are mainly related to
G2, to the point that it can be used to understand and correct its text
via comparison, although from time to time they do exhibit some differences from the text in Sinaiticus (more on these later). These so-called <strong>Vetus Latina</strong> (VL) versions are not all of one type, though.<br />
<br />
As of now, there is still no critical edition of the VL version (or rather, versions). The next best thing is an 18th century text assembled by French Benedictine monk Pierre Sabatier in the <em><a href="http://archive.org/details/bibliorumsacroru01saba">Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae, seu Vetus Italica</a></em> (pp. 706-743), mainly based on two 9th century Latin manuscripts: Q (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, fonds lat. 93, aka MS Regius 3564) and P (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, fonds lat. 11505, aka MS Sangermanensis 4) along with readings from G (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, fonds lat. 11503, aka Sangermanensis 15 or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sangermanensis_I">Sangermanensis 1</a>), which contains the text up to 13:2, and W (Rome, Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, Regin. lat. 7, aka Codex Reginensis), which contains the text only as far as 6:12, the rest being a copy of the Vulgate version (see below). Since then, two other manuscripts have been found and studied, which illustrate the lack of 'one type' of the text: the 10th century R (Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, fonds lat. 6, aka the <a href="http://www.omifacsimiles.com/brochures/ripoll.html">Ripoll Bible</a>), and the 9th-century X (Madrid, Biblioteca Univers. Cent. 31, aka <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Complutensis_I">Codex Complutensis I</a>). Both of these have been published by the Italian scholar Francesco Vattioni in the 1970s, who also published the readings of the Tobit text found in a work attributed to St. Augustine known as the <em>Speculum de sacra scriptura</em> (<em>Mirror of Holy Scripture</em>). The text of Complutensis I is very paraphrastic, representing a much expanded form of the text found in Sabatier. Besides these, other important sources for the VL Tobit are quotations from early Church Fathers.<br />
<br />
The text translated by Jerome and included in the Latin Vulgate, meanwhile, is interesting in itself, because it is a free translation of a translation. This is how he explains the translation process in <a href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_tobit.htm">his preface to the book:</a><br />
<blockquote>
I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words.</blockquote>
Apparently, Jerome did not know 'Chaldean' (Aramaic) - although he does note that the language is similar to Hebrew (answer being that both are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages">Semitic languages</a>), which he is thought to have known - that he needed someone to translate the Aramaic version of Tobit he had acquired. The translation work was apparently very quick - according to Jerome's words it only took him, his scribe, and his Aramaic-speaking translator "the work of one day."<br />
<br />
The Vulgate version (which is apparently of the same general family as Greek I, though not similar to it) was once the
dominant version of the book in the West before more use was made of Greek manuscripts in biblical translations starting from the Renaissance onwards. We don't know for sure whether the
Aramaic text used by Jerome is descended from a Semitic forebear or was based on
the Greek. The Vulgate text's relation to the Greek versions and even to the VL recensions
is really problematic, since it exhibits some considerable differences from them
(although some scholars suspect that Jerome was apparently at the same time dependent on the VL versions). These differences might stem in part from the version Jerome and his bilingual
acquaintance were translating from, but perhaps also in part due to Jerome's
possibly rather free translation method (he admitted that his translation of
Judith, which was like Tobit also from an Aramaic version, was <i>magis sensum e sensus quam ex verbo verbum</i> "more sense for sense than word for word;" it
could very well be the same case here).<br />
<br />
The general impression one could get from Vulgate Tobit is that it is more moralistic and didactic compared to the more straightforward other versions - I'd even say quite preachy. Compare Raphael-as-Azariah's advice to Tobias on their way to Media in the Vulgate to, say, the G2 version (NAB):<br />
<blockquote>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm4VIHzIfXkVB4KrNfULaCj9LahFhfr1OCffftpJfrG_FC8_e8PbveMCp7RVmBuFWlGsPIj3clRgXoHb34FO_iLnE07Wu3TRby1nFbuPAMA3zT4IUYayoLpLX4Wnum3mI9VgzapaDHQx4/s400/raphael+and+tobias+and+the+fish.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm4VIHzIfXkVB4KrNfULaCj9LahFhfr1OCffftpJfrG_FC8_e8PbveMCp7RVmBuFWlGsPIj3clRgXoHb34FO_iLnE07Wu3TRby1nFbuPAMA3zT4IUYayoLpLX4Wnum3mI9VgzapaDHQx4/s320/raphael+and+tobias+and+the+fish.jpg" width="204" /></a>Then the angel Raphael said to him: Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power. But thou when thou shalt take her, go into the chamber, and for three days keep thyself continent from her, and give thyself to nothing else but to prayers with her. And on that night lay the liver of the fish on the fire, and the devil shall be driven away. But the second night thou shalt be admitted into the society of the holy Patriarchs. <br />
And the third night thou shalt obtain a blessing that sound children may be born of you. And when the third night is past, thou shalt take the virgin with the fear of the Lord, moved rather for love of children than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayst obtain a blessing in children.<br />
<br />
(Douai-Rheims, Tobit 6:16-22)<br />
<br />
Raphael said to him: “Do you not remember your father’s commands? He ordered you to marry a woman from your own ancestral family. Now listen to me, brother; do not worry about that demon. Take Sarah. I know that tonight she will be given to you as your wife! When you go into the bridal chamber, take some of the fish’s liver and the heart, and place them on the embers intended for incense, and an odor will be given off. As soon as the demon smells the odor, it will flee and never again show itself near her. Then when you are about to have intercourse with her, both of you must first get up to pray. Beg the Lord of heaven that mercy and protection be granted you. Do not be afraid, for she was set apart for you before the world existed. You will save her, and she will go with you. And I assume that you will have children by her, and they will be like brothers for you. So do not worry.”
<br />
<br />
(NAB-RE, Tobit 6:16-18)</blockquote>
For a long time, only G1 and the Vulgate text were the only ones readily available to translators: Sinaiticus was only found in the early 19th century and Oxyrhynchus (where a 6th century fragment containing the G2 version of Tobit 2:2-5, 8 was found - one of the three manuscripts containing G2) wasn't excavated until 1896. And even after Sinaiticus was discovered to have a different text of the book, scholars at the time still considered the its text to be secondary to G1's. Reason being the adage (well-known in textual criticism) of <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_brevior">lectio brevior lectio potior</a></em>, "shorter reading is the better reading." That, and the fact that G1 enjoys more attestation than G2, which was - back then - only represented in a single manuscript. They assumed that G1 was the original version, while G2 was an expansion of it.<br />
<br />
Aside from G1, Sinaiticus, and the Vulgate, people before the mid-20th century were aware of a number of other versions of the book in Hebrew (and one in Aramaic), although all of these were late, medieval texts that are deritative of the Greek or the Vulgate versions.<br />
<ol>
<li>The Münster text (<strong>HM</strong>), first published in 1516 in Constantinople, then reprinted in Basel by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_M%C3%BCnster">Sebastian Münster</a> in 1542. Said to be a 5th century version, this text is generally based on G2. This version was reproduced in the London Polyglot.</li>
<li>The Fagius text (<strong>HF</strong>), said to date from the 12th century and first published in 1519 (reprinted by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Fagius">Paul Fagius</a> in 1542). This version is also found in the 1657 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Polyglot#London_Polyglot">London Polyglot</a>. This text is usually judged to be a paraphrastic translation or a free recasting of a Greek text like G1 made by a medieval Jew from Western Europe. This version is noted for its introduction of OT phraseology into the text. The Haydock Commentary often alludes to this version along with the other ones named here.</li>
<li>Gaster's text (<strong>HG</strong>), another translation derived from from a 15th century Midrash on the Pentateuch that condenses and greatly abbreviates the narrative found in the medieval Aramaic text, with which it otherwise largely agrees. The narrative in 1:1-3:6 is again in the third person; much of the dialogue and the prayers are eliminated. The text lays a huge emphasis on tithing, a reason why it was introduced into the pentateuchal midrash.</li>
<li>Cairo Genizah T-S A 45.25, 45.26 and 45.29 (Cambridge University Library): Fragmentary texts dating from the 13th-14th century. The earliest of these, 45.26 is of the same recension as the 1516 Constantinople text, while the latter two agree with Fagius' version.</li>
</ol>
<div>
In the 19th century, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Neubauer">Adolf Neubauer</a> also discovered a 15th-century Aramaic text of Tobit in the Bodleian library at Oxford (Hebrew MS 2339). The text, written in late Aramaic, seems to have been derived from G1. Some peculiar quirks of this version include: (1) agreement with the Vulgate in telling the story of Tobit in the third person in chapters 1-3; (2) omission of the dog, which is mentioned in most other versions; (3) abbreviation of chapter 12, omission of chapter 13 and most of 14 (the remaining part of which is highly condensed); and (4) a short epilogue in Hebrew. At that time, Neubauer expressed his opinion that this text "Chaldee text in a more complete form was the original from which the translation of the Vulgate was made," an opinion which was eventually critiqued as being unsubstantiated.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s, however, would change long-held assumptions. But that's for the next post. ;)</div>
Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-85316834370643242662013-12-12T19:07:00.004-08:002013-12-12T19:10:32.035-08:00A History of Veronica, 02: Abgar and the Image of Jesus, Part 01(<a href="http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.jp/2013/12/a-history-of-veronica-part-01-woman.html">Part 01 here</a>)<br />
<br />
Picking up where I left off:<br />
<br />
It is in the 8th century that in the West we begin to see Berenice/Veronica connected with an image of Jesus on a piece of cloth. But, before we get to that, let's first talk about the earlier story of King Abgar and the image of Jesus he received known as the <em>Mandylion</em>.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Abgarwithimageofedessa10thcentury.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Abgarwithimageofedessa10thcentury.jpg" width="249" /></a>Once again Eusebius comes into play here. He records a tradition concerning a correspondence exchanged between Abgar, king of Edessa (modern <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanliurfa">Şanlıurfa</a>, aka Urfa, in southeast Turkey) and Jesus. Abgar, according to the story, was afflicted with some sort of incurable sickness. He had heard of Jesus' ability to heal the sick and wrote to Him asking Him to come to Edessa and heal him. At the same time Abgar's letter acknowledges Jesus' divinity, and offers Him asylum in the city. The story then goes on that Jesus wrote a letter turning down Abgar's invitation, but promising that after His ascension, he would send one of His followers imbued with His power before Abgar - which would turn out to be Thaddaeus (<em>Addai</em> in Syriac), one of the seventy disciples. This is what Eusebius says (<em>Ecclesiastical History</em> I.13.1-20):<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Because of his miraculous powers the divinity of Christ was noised abroad everywhere, and myriads even in foreign lands remote from Judea came to him in the hope of healing from diseases of every king. Thus, when King Abgar [V], the celebrated ruler of peoples beyond the Euphrates, was suffering terribly from an incurable illness and often heard the name of Jesus and his miracles, he sent him a request, via letter carrier, pleading for relief from his disease. Jesus did not consent to his request at the time but favored him with a personal letter, promising to send one of his disciples to cure the disease and bring salvation to him and his relatives.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The promise was soon fulfilled. After his [Jesus'] resurrection and ascension, Thomas, one of the Twelve, was divinely inspired to send Thaddeus, one of the Seventy, to Edessa as preacher and evangelist, who fulfilled all the terms of our Savior's promise. There is written evidence of this taken from the archives at Edessa, the then royal capital, which include ancient history as well as the events of Abgar's time. Here are the letters themselves, which I have extracted from the archives and translated word for word from the Syriac:
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Copy of a letter written by the Abgar the toparch to Jesus, sent to him at Jerusalem by the courier Ananias</span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Abgar Uchama, the Toparch, to Jesus the excellent Savior who has appeared in the region of Jerusalem, greeting.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">I have heard about you and the cures which you accomplish without drugs or herbs. Word has it that you make the blind see and the lame walk, that you heal lepers and cast out unclean spirits and demons, and that you heal those tortured by chronic disease and raise the dead. When I heard all these things about you, I decided that one of two things is true: either you are God and came down from heaven to do these things or you are God's Son for doing them. For this reason I am writing to beg you to take the trouble to come to me and heal my suffering. I have also heard that the Jews are murmuring against you and plot to harm you. Now, my city-state is very small but highly-regarded and adequate for both of us.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(He wrote this letter when the divine light had only begun to shine on him. It is appropriate to hear also the letter that Jesus sent him by the same letter carrier. It is only a few lines long but very powerful: )</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">The reply of Jesus to the toparch Abgar by the courier Ananias</span></i></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Blessed are you who believed in me without seeing me! For it is written that those who have seen me will not believe in me and that those who have not seen me will believe and live. Now regarding your request that I come to you, I must first complete everything all that I was sent to do here, and, once that is completed, must be taken up to the One who sent me. When I have been taken up, I will send one of my disciples to heal your suffering and bring life to you and yours.</span></blockquote>
Eusebius then continues to provide an account of Thaddaeus' audience before Abgar, which he claimed was "appended to these letters in Syriac." He then concludes by dating these events "to the year 340" (of the Seleucid era, which began around 311-310 BC), which would correspond with around AD 29-30. (Later versions of the story would put it as occurring just days before Jesus is arrested and crucified.)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/%C5%9Eanl%C4%B1urfa_Kale.jpg/640px-%C5%9Eanl%C4%B1urfa_Kale.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/%C5%9Eanl%C4%B1urfa_Kale.jpg/640px-%C5%9Eanl%C4%B1urfa_Kale.jpg" width="320" /></a>By the late 4th century, the story has apparently become popular enough that <a href="http://www.ccel.org/m/mcclure/etheria/etheria.htm">the pilgrim Egeria</a> was familiar with it. She had a brief stopover at Edessa while returning from her pilgrimage to the Holy Land. There was given a personal tour by the bishop of Edessa, who introduced her to various sites in the city (including a supposed statue of Abgar) and gave her many accounts of miracles that had saved Edessa from the Persians (usually involving the letter of Jesus) and put into her hands transcripts of the correspondence between Abgar and Jesus, which she thought was more 'complete' than the version she is familar with: "although I have copies at home, yet it seemed to me more pleasant to receive them from him, lest perhaps something less might have reached us at home, and indeed that which I received here is fuller."<br />
<br />
When we come to the so-called <em><a href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/addai_2_text.htm">Doctrine of Addai</a></em>, a Syriac Christian text written perhaps about AD 400, the tale and the letters are given in a more elaborate form than the one given in Eusebius. In fact, there is a new element in the story:
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">When Jesus received the letter [of Abgar] at the house of the chief priest of the Jews [Gamaliel], He said to Hannan, the keeper of the archives: "Go and say to thy lord, who hath sent thee to Me, 'Blessed art thou, who, although thou hast not seen Me, believest in Me, for it is written of Me, Those who see Me will not believe in Me, and those who see Me not, will believe in me. But as to that which thou hast written to Me, that I should come to thee, that for which I was sent here is now finished, and I am going up to my Father, who sent me, and when I have gone up to Him, I will send to thee one of my disciples, who will cure the disease which thou hast, and restore thee to health; and all who are with thee he will convert to everlasting life. Thy city shall be blessed, and no enemy shall again become master of it for ever.'"
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong>When Hannan, the keeper of the archives, saw that Jesus spake thus to him, by virtue of being the king's painter, he took and painted a likeness of Jesus with choice paints, and brought with him to Abgar the king, his master.</strong> And when Abgar the king saw the likeness, he received it with great joy, and placed it with great honour in one of his palatial houses. Hannan, the keeper of the archives, related to him everything which he had heard from Jesus, as His words were put by him in writing.</span> </blockquote>
About a century later, the Syrian author <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evagrius_Scholasticus">Evagrius Scholasticus</a> in his <em>Ecclesiastical History</em> (AD 593) speaks of this image of Jesus in the context of the siege of Edessa by the Sassanid Persian emperor Khosrau I (aka Chosroes, reigned 531-579). But his description of the image is different:
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">THE same Procopius narrates what the ancients had recorded concerning Edessa and Abgarus, and how Christ wrote a letter to him. He then relates how Chosroes made a fresh movement to lay siege to the city, thinking to falsify the assertion prevalent among the faithful, that Edessa would never fall into the power of an enemy: which assertion, however, is not contained in what was written to Abgarus by Christ our God; as the studious may gather from the history of Eusebius Pamphili, who cites the epistle verbatim. Such, however, is the averment and belief of the faithful; which was then realised, faith bringing about the accomplishment of the prediction. For after Chosroes had made many assaults on the city, had raised a mound of sufficient size to overtop the walls of the town, and had devised innumerable expedients beside, he raised the siege and retreated. I will, however, detail the particulars. Chosroes ordered his troops to collect a great quantity of wood for the siege from whatever timber fell in their way; and when this had been done before the order could well be issued, arranging it in a circular form, he threw a mound inside with its face advancing against the city. In this way elevating it gradually with the timber and earth, and pushing it forward towards the town, he raised it to a height sufficient to overtop the wall, so that the besiegers could hurl their missiles from vantage ground against the defenders. When the besiegers saw the mound approaching the walls like a moving mountain, and the enemy in expectation of stepping into the town at day-break, they devised to run a mine under the mound--which the Latins term "aggestus"--and by that means apply fire, so that the combustion of the timber might cause the downfall of the mound. The mine was completed; but they failed in attempting to fire the wood, because the fire, having no exit whence it could obtain a supply of air, was unable to take hold of it.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong>In this state of utter perplexity, they bring the divinely wrought image, which the hands of men did not form, but Christ our God sent to Abgarus on his desiring to see Him.</strong> Accordingly, having introduced this holy image into the mine, and washed it over with water, they sprinkled some upon the timber; and the divine power forthwith being present to the faith of those who had so done, the result was accomplished which had previously been impossible: for the timber immediately caught the flame, and being in an instant reduced to cinders, communicated with that above, and the fire spread in all directions. When the besieged saw the smoke rising, they adopted the following contrivance. Having filled small jars with sulphur, tow, and other combustibles, they threw them upon the aggestus ; and these, sending forth srnoke as the fire was increased by the force of their flight, prevented that which was rising from the mound from being observed; so that all who were not in the secret, supposed that the smoke proceeded solely from the jars.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">On the third day the flames were seen issuing from the earth, and then the Persians on the mound became aware of their unfortunate situation. But Chosroes, as if in opposition to the power of heaven, endeavoured to extinguish the pile, by turning all the water-courses which were outside the city upon it. The fire, however, receiving the water as if it had been oil or sulphur, or some other combustible, continually increased, until it had completely levelled the entire mound and reduced the aggestus to ashes. Then Chosroes, in utter despair, impressed by the circumstances with a sense of his disgraceful folly in having entertained an idea of prevailing over the God whom we worship, retreated ingloriously into his own territories.</span></blockquote>
Unlike in the <em>Doctrine of Addai</em>, the image is here no longer a mere portrait painted by Hannan, but a "divinely wrought image, which the hands of men did not form." Whereas before, it is the correspondence between Abgar and Jesus which was the focus of attention, as time went on the story focused more on this divinely-wrought image of Jesus - dubbed the Image of Edessa or the Holy Mandylion.
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfbDLXjPD6zP01KqZWI20M7ikqQdH5aYgt3PuABU1QdXReys0Xpt_dfT7-NS5koSEy3aDX4XcIJEm4mrJvHUgQvw8qZdAQy-Qe1HwHBcmL2q5-2wIzvXlXKCv8HRBSwT6l5FXbcnsMIIQ/s400/Esposizione+S.+Mandylion.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfbDLXjPD6zP01KqZWI20M7ikqQdH5aYgt3PuABU1QdXReys0Xpt_dfT7-NS5koSEy3aDX4XcIJEm4mrJvHUgQvw8qZdAQy-Qe1HwHBcmL2q5-2wIzvXlXKCv8HRBSwT6l5FXbcnsMIIQ/s320/Esposizione+S.+Mandylion.jpg" width="287" /></a>For Christians in that era, Edessa was considered to be a blessed city by virtue of the letter of Jesus and, later, the Mandylion. The letter and the image were considered to be palladia, protecting the city from invaders. (Note the version of the letter in the <i>Doctrine of Addai</i> and in later accounts, which specifically promises that "Your city will be blessed and no enemy shall be the master of it.") In fact the story and the letter was so popular that copies (with variations in the text) circulated virtually everywhere; in some places it was even incorporated into the Liturgy. Some even used the letter as an amulet, considering that the protection promised by Jesus will be extended to them as well. That being said, there were also some skeptics, mainly from the West: the <em><a href="http://%20http//www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm">Decretum Gelasianum</a></em> attributed to Pope Gelasius I (pontificate 492-496) considered the letter to be apocryphal. The author of the <i>Libri Carolini</i> (a treatise written under Charlemagne attacking the Byzantine 'worship' of images which was purportedly condoned by the anti-Iconoclastic Second Council of Nicaea of 798) also attacked the story. His reason? It's not in the Bible.
<br />
<br />
In any case, Evagrius is our first witness to the Mandylion's actual existence. Funny thing is, the Mandylion's existence (rediscovery?) seemed to have sparked a chain reaction: soon different places began reporting images of Jesus 'not made by hands' miraculously appearing on church walls or apses. Interestingly, it is also around this time (the 6th century?) that artists begin to be more and more consistent as to the way Jesus is depicted: it is at this time that the familiar image of Jesus (long hair and a long-ish forked beard) begin to have the upper hand over against rival portrayals (such as those showing Him as a young man or as having a 'Semitic' look: short, frizzy hair and a close-cropped beard), although it was considered by some to look a bit too much like the Greek god Zeus. There was even a story about how a painter's hands withered up when he portrayed Jesus in this way, first recounted by an early 6th-century Byzantine historian named Theodorus Lector, who dates it to the time when St. Gennadius was patriarch of Constantinople (458-471).
<br />
<blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/6929/enthroned.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/6929/enthroned.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Jesus with short, frizzy hair and a close-cropped beard, from the 6th-century <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbula_Gospels">Rabbula Gospels</a>.
Before the standard iconographical depiction of Jesus as a long-haired, long-bearded man became firmly established (around the 9th century),
this 'Semitic'-looking depiction was one of its main competitors, alongside the one which showed Him <a href="http://dhformation.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/2880373399_358f2c582e.jpg">as a clean-shaven young man.</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
At the time of Gennadius was withered the hand of a painter who dared to paint the Saviour in the likeness of Zeus. Gennadius healed him by means of a prayer. The author [Theodorus Lector] says that the other form of Christ, viz. the one with short, frizzy hair, is the more authentic.<br />
<br />
- Theodorus Lector, <em>Ecclesiastical History</em> 1.15 (ca 540s), from Theophanes the Confessor (ca. 810-15)
<br />
<br />
Theodore the historian of Constantinople, from his History of the Church, about Gennadius, archbishop of Constantinople:
<br />
<br />
I shall set down other things about him full of amazement. A certain painter, while painting an icon of Christ our Master, found that his hand shriveled up. And it was said that, as the work of the icon had been ordered by a certain pagan, in the adornment of the name of the Savior he had depicted his hair divided on his forehead, so that his eyes were not covered—for in such a way the children of the pagans depict Zeus—so that those who saw it would think that they were assigning veneration to the Savior.
<br />
<br />
- Theodorus Lector as quoted by St. John of Damascus, <em>Three Treatises on the Divine Images</em> (720s-30s), Treatise 3, 130</blockquote>
(To be continued)Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-56868551999114815122013-12-12T02:49:00.001-08:002013-12-12T04:00:08.626-08:00Ordo Romanus I (Cod. Sang. 614)Just a minor announcement.<br />
<br />
I've put up <a href="http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.jp/p/ordo-romanus-i-cod-sang-614_7727.html">a transcription</a> of the earliest manuscript of the first <em>Ordo Romanus</em> on the pages section (<a href="http://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/list/one/csg/0614">Cod. Sang. 614</a>, ca. AD 850). Folks who can read Latin will notice that the text is in some ways different from the 'longer' version E.G. Atchley used in his 1905 <a href="https://archive.org/details/ordoromanusprimu00atchuoft"><em>Ordo Romanus Primus</em></a>, which is a combined version of the texts of Jean Mabillon (<em><a href="http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=6sjGxeoliu8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mabillon+Museum+Italicum&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JpOpUtvILMrllAWrooDICQ&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Mabillon%20Museum%20Italicum&f=false">Museum italicum</a></em>, vol. 2, 1689) and George Cassander (<em><a href="http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=Z-wqaJdAj2wC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Cassander+Ordo+Romanus&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X5KpUoKoFc3jkgWQmYGwBw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Cassander%20Ordo%20Romanus&f=false">Ordo Romanus de officio missae</a></em>, 1561). I've written out the abbreviated words in full and added Atchley's paragraph numbering for easier reference. Enjoy.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-88037366020140032392013-12-12T02:20:00.001-08:002013-12-12T05:06:32.727-08:00A History of Veronica, 01: The WomanBeen a long time since I posted here, ain't it? :p<br />
<br />
If you're Catholic, chances are you've probably heard of Veronica and her veil by which she wiped Jesus' face as He carried His cross to Golgotha. Despite her not being found in the New Testament, she is commemorated in the sixth Station of the Cross, and in addition, some Jesus films choose to include her in some form or another - examples of this would include <em>Jesus of Nazareth</em> or <em>The Passion of the Christ</em> (the clip below). The story is popular, methinks, because it epitomizes compassion: a woman helping the Lord in the smallest way she could in His hour of need and being rewarded for it in the form of an image on her veil.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/POYVIyRg4NE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
But here's the thing. What do we <em>really</em> know about the woman we call 'Veronica'? And how did her story develop over time? And what does the so-called 'veil' of Veronica have to do with it?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Healing_of_a_bleeding_women_Marcellinus-Peter-Catacomb.jpg/450px-Healing_of_a_bleeding_women_Marcellinus-Peter-Catacomb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Healing_of_a_bleeding_women_Marcellinus-Peter-Catacomb.jpg/450px-Healing_of_a_bleeding_women_Marcellinus-Peter-Catacomb.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
Let's start at the very beginning, shall we? In the apocryphal work known as the <em>Acts of Pilate</em> (ca. 4th-5th century), various witnesses appear at Jesus' trial to testify about Him. One of the witnesses was the woman (formerly) with the issue of blood who touched the hem of Jesus' garment (Matthew 9:20-22; Mark 5:25-34; Luke 8:43-48). While in the earliest recensions of the work the woman is not named, in some versions she is given the proper name <em>Berenice</em> (Greek: Βερενίκη <em>Berenikē</em>) or some variant thereof - one of which is <em>Veronica</em>.<br />
<blockquote>
VI. 1. Then one of the Jews hastened forward and asked the governor that he might speak a word. The governor said: "If you wish to say anything, say it." And the Jew said: "For thirty-eight years I lay on a bed in anguish and pain, and when Jesus came many demoniacs and those lying sick of various diseases were healed by him. And certain young men took pity on me and carried me with my bed and brought me to him. And when Jesus saw me he had compassion, and spoke a word to me: Take up your bed and walk. And I took up my bed and walked." The Jews said to Pilate: "Ask him what day it was on which he was healed." He that was healed said: "On a sabbath." The Jews said: "Did we not inform you so, that on the sabbath he heals and casts out demons?"
<br />
2. And another Jew hastened forward and said: "I was born blind; I heard any man's voice, but did not see his face. And as Jesus passed by I cried with a loud voice: Have mercy on me, Son of David. And he took pity on me and put his hands on my eyes and I saw immediately." And another Jew hastened forward and said: "I was bowed, and he made me straight with a word." And another said: "I was a leper, and he healed me with a word."
<br />
<strong>VII. And a woman called Bernice [Latin: Veronica] crying out from a distance said: "I had an issue of blood and I touched the hem of his garment, and the issue of blood, which had lasted twelve years, ceased." The Jews said: "We have a law not to permit a woman to give testimony."</strong>
<br />
VIII. And others, a multitude of men and women, cried out: "This man is a prophet, and the demons are subject to him." Pilate said to those who said the demons were subject to him: "Why are your teachers also not subject to him?" They said to him: "We do not know." Others said: "Lazarus who was dead he raised up out of the tomb after four days." Then the governor began to tremble and said to all the multitude of the Jews: "Why do you wish to shed innocent blood?"</blockquote>
The <em>Acts</em> does not yet connect the woman with any image, although there was already a popular belief among some contemporary Christians connecting her with a certain bronze statue in Paneas (ancient Caesarea Philippi) which they purport to be be that of Jesus, believing it to be erected by the woman in gratitude for her cure. Origen, in the mid-3rd century, is already aware of such a tradition (<em>Contra Celsum</em> VI.34). Eusebius also mentions it thus (<em>Church History</em> VII.18):<br />
<blockquote>
Since I have mentioned this city I do not think it proper to omit an account which is worthy of record for posterity. For they say that the woman with an issue of blood, who, as we learn from the sacred Gospel, received from our Saviour deliverance from her affliction, came from this place, and that her house is shown in the city, and that remarkable memorials of the kindness of the Saviour to her remain there. For there stands upon an elevated stone, by the gates of her house, a brazen image of a woman kneeling, with her hands stretched out, as if she were praying. Opposite this is another upright image of a man, made of the same material, clothed decently in a double cloak, and extending his hand toward the woman. At his feet, beside the statue itself, is a certain strange plant, which climbs up to the hem of the brazen cloak, and is a remedy for all kinds of diseases. They say that this statue is an image of Jesus. It has remained to our day, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were staying in the city. Nor is it strange that those of the Gentiles who, of old, were benefited by our Saviour, should have done such things, since we have learned also that the likenesses of his apostles Paul and Peter, and of Christ himself, are preserved in paintings, the ancients being accustomed, as it is likely, according to a habit of the Gentiles, to pay this kind of honor indiscriminately to those regarded by them as deliverers.</blockquote>
Eusebius seems to assume that the woman was a gentile, which for him would account for the statue. The statue itself was eventually destroyed during the reign of Julian (361-363), according to the 5th century historians Philostorgius (<a href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/philostorgius.htm"><em>Ecclesiastical History</em> VII.3</a>, quoted below) and Sozomen (<a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nicene_and_Post-Nicene_Fathers:_Series_II/Volume_II/Sozomen/Book_V/Chapter_21"><em>Ecclesiastical History</em> V.21</a>). Interestingly both accounts differ in the details:<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Concerning an image of our Saviour erected by the faith of a pious woman in grateful remembrance of her cure from a bloody flux, Philostorgius writes, that it was placed near the fountain in the city among other statues, and presented a pleasant and agreeable sight to the passers-by. And when a certain herb, which grew up at the foot of this statue, was found to be a most effectual remedy against all diseases, and especially against consumption, men naturally began to inquire into the cause of this matter ; for by lapse of time all memory of the fact had been lost, and it was even forgotten whose statue it was, and on what account it had been erected. Inasmuch as the figure of our Saviour had long stood exposed in the open air, and a great part of it was covered over by the earth which was perpetually carried down against the pediment, especially during seasons of heavy rain, the notice contained in the inscription upon it was well nigh obliterated. A diligent inquiry was consequently made, and the part of the statue which had been covered up being brought to light, the inscription was discovered which explained the entire circumstances of the fact; and the plant thenceforth was never again seen either there or in any other place. The statue itself they placed in the part of the church which was allotted to the deacons, paying to it due honour and respect, yet by no means adoring or worshipping it; and they showed their love for its great archetype by erecting it in that place with circumstances of honour, and by flocking thither in eager crowds to behold it. During the reign of Julian, however, the heathen who inhabited Paneas were excited by an impious frenzy to pull down this statue from its pediment, and to drag it through the midst of the streets with ropes fastened round its feet; afterwards they broke in pieces the rest of the body, while some persons, indignant at the whole proceeding, secretly obtained possession of the head, which had become, detached from the neck as it was dragged along, and they preserved it as far as was possible. This transaction Philostorgius declared that he witnessed with his own eyes. But the district of Paneas was formerly called Dan, from Dan the son of Jacob, who was the head of one of the twelve tribes, which was situated in those parts. But in the course of time it came to be called Caesarea Philippi, and later still, when the heathen erected in it a statue of the god Pan, its name was changed to Paneas.</span></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/Dictionary_Of_Roman_Coins/webimages/P688S0/M1_5.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/Dictionary_Of_Roman_Coins/webimages/P688S0/M1_5.gif" /></a>In any case, modern historians generally doubt Eusebius' attribution. Instead they think that the statue was either really that of the god of healing Aesculapius (due to the 'strange plant' being part of the ensemble), or a symbolic depiction of the submission of Judaea, represented by the woman, to the 2nd-century emperor Hadrian, which the locals have simply given a Christian meaning. (<a href="http://www.coinarchives.com/a/results.php?results=100&search=hadrian+and+sestertius+and+standing">In his coins</a> Hadrian sometimes used the imagery of a female personification of a given area paying homage to him, who is proclaimed as the <em>restitutor</em> 'restorer' of provinces like Spain, Gaul, Bithynia, Italy, Achaea, Judaea, or so on. He also minted coins commemorating his visit to Judaea - <a href="http://www.fredericweber.com/articl_dieux/hadrien_advent_ivdaea.jpg"><em>Adventui Aug[usti] Iudaeae</em>.</a>) Even if we suppose that the statue was originally pagan but was given a Christian meaning, however, this example shows Christian attitudes toward images at that time. Eusebius himself somewhat disliked images, but even then he did not have a problem with an image supposedly that of Christ being erected as a memorial and a token of gratitude, nor does he find it impossible or inconceivable that someone would make one.<br />
<br />
Aside from her brief cameo in the <em>Acts of Pilate</em>, we don't hear much about the haemorrhaging woman (or, to use a nice term, the <em>Haemorrhissa</em>) in other early Christian apocrypha, although the woman and her story had a tendency to be named from time to time whenever Christian writers touched on the issue of whether to allow menstruating women into church or not, both sides - those who think that menstruating women going to church are okay and those who think otherwise - using her in support of their respective opinions.<br />
<br />
Historically, in the East, Veronica (or should I say Berenice) tended to be associated more with the role she is given in the <em>Acts of Pilate</em>: as the hemorrhaging woman who was healed by touching Jesus' garment. In this capacity Berenice is usually named in early Byzantine (and Germanic) folk charms and incantations for stopping blood flow along with Zechariah (the father of John the Baptist, conflated with "Zechariah son of Barachiah" of Matthew 23:35). Here's one example:<br />
<blockquote>
By the great name of the almighty God. The prophet Zacharias was slaughtered in the temple to the Lord and his blood solidified in the middle of the sanctuary like a Stone. So thou too stop the blood of the servant of God, congeal disease, as that one and as a Stone, may it be annulled. I exorcise thee by the Faith of Berenice (<em>Beraioonikii</em>), blood, that you may not drip further; let us stay good, let us stay in fear; amen. Jesus Christ conquers.</blockquote>
Notice how "the faith of Berenice/Veronica" is invoked in the context of hemorrhaging. A medieval Latin charm also runs pretty much the same:<br />
<blockquote>
<em>For stopping blood from the nose.</em> In the name of Christ write on the forehead with the own blood of the same the name of Veronica. The same is it who said: If I touch the fringe of the garment of my Lord I shall be healed.</blockquote>
Starting from the 8th century onwards, however, we begin to see Veronica connected with an image of Jesus on a piece of cloth in the West.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-4175909309846083292012-07-09T03:18:00.000-07:002012-07-09T03:20:13.516-07:00The Minor, Trivial Biblical Stuff, Part 12: BreadBread, the so-called "staff of life," has a long history - it is one of the oldest foods mankind has prepared, dating back to the Neolithic era. The first bread produced was probably cooked versions of a grain-paste, made from roasted and ground cereal grains and water, and may have been developed by accidental cooking or deliberate experimentation with water and grain flour. Descendants of this early bread are still commonly made from various grains in many parts of the world today.<br />
<a name='more'></a>Flatbread also formed a staple in the diet of many early civilizations with the Sumerians eating a type of barley flat cake, and the 12th century BC Egyptians being able to purchase a flat bread called <em>ta</em> from stalls in the village streets. The ritual bread in ancient Greek offerings to the chthonic gods known as <em>psadista</em>, was made of fine flour, oil and wine (the three basic foodstuffs for the Greeks).<br />
<a href="http://www.scientificpsychic.com/mind/bread-making.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="203" ox="true" src="http://www.scientificpsychic.com/mind/bread-making.jpg" width="320" /></a><br />
The development of leavened bread can probably also be traced to prehistoric times. Yeast spores occur everywhere, including the surface of cereal grains, so any dough left to rest will become naturally leavened. Airborne yeasts could be harnessed by leaving uncooked dough exposed to air for some time before cooking. Although leavening is likely of prehistoric origin, the earliest archaeological evidence is from ancient Egypt. Scanning electron microscopy has detected yeast cells in some ancient Egyptian loaves. However, ancient Egyptian bread was made from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmer">emmer</a> and had a dense crumb. In cases where yeast cells are not visible, it is difficult, by visual examination, to determine whether the bread was leavened. As a result, the extent to which bread was leavened in ancient Egypt remains uncertain. <br />
<br />
In the Near East bread is the staple and is one of the mainstays of the diet (along with wine and oil), other articles of food merely accessory; while in the West meat and other things chiefly constitute the meal, and bread is merely secondary. Accordingly "<em>bread</em>" in the Bible, from Genesis 3:19 onward, usually stands for 'food' in general.<br />
<br />
For the ancient Israelites, bread and other wheat products provided over half of their caloric intake (estimated to be between around 53 to 75 percent). There were two main cereal crops: wheat and barley. The importance of these were apparent in the annual Israelite festivals, for the completion of the wheat harvest was celebrated at the Feast of Weeks, aka<em> Shavuot</em> or <em>Pentecost</em> (Deuteronomy 16:1-12).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Triticum_durum.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="298" ox="true" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Triticum_durum.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="border: currentColor;">
The main form of wheat cultivated in Israel was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durum">durum</a> or 'hard' wheat. Durum was developed by artificial selection of the domesticated emmer wheat strains formerly grown in Central Europe and Near East around 7000 B.C., which developed a naked, free-threshing (i.e. the grains do not need to be freed from hulls by pounding) form; it was especially suited to the warm and dry climate of Palestine. It flourishes in regions where annual rainfall is between 500 and 700 millimeters, but can be cultivated when rainfall is above 225 millimeters. In ancient Israel it was sown in November and December and harvested in May. The timely appearance of the winter rain and the continuation of the rainy season until April were necessary to ensure the highest yields. In Hebrew thought, these rains were known respectively as the 'early' and the 'later' rain and were viewed as a gift of God (cf. Deuteronomy 11:14). In addition to this free-threshing wheat, a hulled wheat was also known; this was probably emmer, known as <em>kussemet</em>. Evidence from the ancient world suggests that hulled cereals were steadily replaced by free-threshing varieties, although the hulled varieties continued to persist with a minority status. Emmer continued to be the principal type of wheat in Egypt well into the Hellenistic period, but in Iron Age Israel durum had achieved dominance.</div>
<div style="border: currentColor;">
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barley">Barley</a> was the first domesticated grain in the Near East, near the same time as einkorn and emmer. It is able to tolerate a far less hospitable environment than wheat. it matures early and its shorter growing season allows it to flourish in areas with low rainfall; conesequently it could be grown in areas at the limits of agricultural cultivation. It is also less sensitive to salinity and alkalinity than wheat. This tolerance allows barley to be cultivated in the chalk and limestone-derived soils that characterize the hill country of Palestine.</div>
<br />
Historically, barley was considered to be an inferior, 'common' wheat due to its lower extraction rate compared to wheat and does not rise as well. In Greece, barley bread was more common than wheaten ones, which were (as per the Athenian lawmaker <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solon">Solon</a>'s declaration) only baked during feast days. The assessment of barley was no different in Israel: the prescribed grain offerings to God are <em>solet</em>, fine wheat flour - the best there is. The only exception prescribed is the offering for the woman suspected of unfaithfulness in Numbers 5, and the negative context of this offering might explain its atypicality. There are also various instances where barley is shown in an inferior status (1 Kings 4:28; 2 Kings 7:16). Josephus also reports that in Roman times, the rich usually ate wheat bread while the poor consumed loaves of barley.<br />
Wheat and barley could be consumed in a variety of ways. By far the simplest way was to pluck the fresh ears and eat them (2 Kings 4:42; Matthew 12:1; Mark 2:23; Luke 6:1) or to roast the grain in a fire (Joshua 5:11). If threshed, winnowed, and milled, the flour could be used to make bread. Processing grains for bread was a time-consuming job usually performed by women and servants (Jeremiah 7:18). It has been calculated that three hour's labor with a hand mill per day was needed to produce sufficient flour for a family of five or six.<br />
<br />
The quality of the flour was determined by how much it is sifted. Ancient technology could achieve only a high extraction (low sieving) rate, and it was not unusual for some impurities, such as stones from the mill, to get mixed up with the flour.<br />
<br />
Bread could be baked in a variety of ways. The oldest method of course was heating the bread directly on the coals of a fire. Later, the effectiveness of a large, flat stone heated in the ashes (1 Kings 19:6) or on a metal griddle (Ezekiel 4:3) was discovered. Fire was built on top of the stone; after the fire was removed, the ashes were removed, the dough was placed on the heated stone and then covered again with the ashes. Afterwards the ashes were removed, and the bread was ready to eat. This is thought to be the method usually employed when bread needed to be baked in haste. When a griddle was used, it was set on stones over a pit in which a fire is kindled; then the dough was baked directly on the griddle.<br />
Ovens (<em>tannur</em>) were also known in ancient Israel, which usually were beehive- or cone-shaped and constructed of a mixture of clay, straw and gypsum. A large opening at the top allowed the cook to stick dough molded into circular pancakes onto the interior walls. After placing the dough, the opening was then sealed with a lid and grass and reeds were placed in another, smaller opening near the bottom as fuel for the fire. A related type of oven still exists today in parts of the Middle East as <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabun_oven">tabun</a></em>s (aka <em>taboon</em>s). <br />
<br />
Even in antiquity there were a wide variety of breads. By the 5th century BC bread could be purchased in Athens from a baker's shop, and in Rome, Greek bakers appeared in the 2nd century BC, as Hellenized Asia Minor was added to Roman dominion as the province of Asia; foreign bakers were permitted to form a <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collegium">collegium</a></em>. In the <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deipnosophistae">Deipnosophistae</a></em>, the 3rd-century BC author <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenaeus">Athenaeus of Naucratis</a> describes some of the bread, cakes, cookies, and pastries available in the Classical world in his time. Among the breads mentioned are griddle cakes, honey-and-oil bread, mushroom-shaped loaves covered in poppy seeds, and the military specialty of rolls baked on a spit. The type and quality of flours used to produce bread could also vary, as noted by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphilus">Diphilus of Sinope</a> when he declared "<em>bread made of wheat, as compared with that made of barley, is more nourishing, more digestible, and in every way superior.</em>" In order of merit, bread made from refined [thoroughly sieved] flour comes first, after that bread from ordinary wheat, and then the unbolted, made of flour that has not been sifted. The essentiality of bread in the diet is reflected in the name for the rest of the meal (which is but mere accessories for bread), whatever it might be: <em><a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0063%3Aalphabetic+letter%3DO%3Aentry+group%3D1%3Aentry%3Dopson-cn">opson</a></em> ('that which is cooked/boiled', 'condiment', 'delicacy', 'relish', 'seasoning', 'sauce' - basically anything which can be eaten with bread and made it more palatable; later also used to mean 'fish', the other main diet of Athenians). <br />
As a foodstuff of great historical and contemporary importance, in many cultures in the West and Near and Middle East bread has a significance beyond mere nutrition. The word <em>companion</em> comes from Latin <em>com-</em> "with" + <em>panis</em> "bread". The Roman poet Juvenal satirised superficial politicians and the public, which has given up its birthright of political involvement, as caring only for <em>panem et circenses</em> (bread and circuses). He makes reference to the Roman practice of providing free wheat to Roman citizens as well as costly circus games and other forms of entertainment as a means of gaining political power through populism. The <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_supply_to_the_city_of_Rome">annona</a></em> (grain dole) was begun under the instigation of the politician <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Gracchus">Gaius Sempronius Gracchus</a> in 123 BC; it remained an object of political contention until it was taken under the control of the Roman emperors.<br />
In both Egypt and Mesopotamia cereals were also used to make beer, one of the main beverages in these cultures. By contrast, Israelite consumption of beer was probably rare because of the widespread cultivation of vines on the hillsides.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-88662712800590466762012-07-09T03:13:00.001-07:002012-07-09T03:14:06.545-07:00Treatise on the Mass (from the Stowe Missal), Part 02<blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0Y3_xqjYm-Zx27BZGFm1ZASZukp08Tz4F9kKC7VZkbnAJ3h-ItPGu-o3mq-0RziaAgPhViF-m4Q3u8-Rt-wkP2a3Xlsq5PyO9_iyweE6dOhopAd9NzATFcdhlM-Mtk4xe_y4IHq5_46FK/s400/Bronze_Plaque_from_Athlone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0Y3_xqjYm-Zx27BZGFm1ZASZukp08Tz4F9kKC7VZkbnAJ3h-ItPGu-o3mq-0RziaAgPhViF-m4Q3u8-Rt-wkP2a3Xlsq5PyO9_iyweE6dOhopAd9NzATFcdhlM-Mtk4xe_y4IHq5_46FK/s320/Bronze_Plaque_from_Athlone.jpg" t8="true" width="220" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Tocbál incailich iarnalándiurug quando canitur oblata isforaithmet gene Crist insin tre airde aindocbale [cor.: <em>insin áindocbale tre airde</em>] et [=ocus] firto · <em>Quando canitur <strong>accipit Iesus panem</strong></em> · Tanaurnat insacart fathri duaithrigi dia pecthaib atnopuir deo [not in MS: <em>ocus canaid in salmso Miserere mei deus</em>] & slechthith inpopul & nitaet guth isson arnatarmasca insacardd ar issed athechte arnarascra amenme contra deum céne canas inliachtso isde ispericulosa oratio á nomen · Na · iii · chemmen ciṅges infergraith foracúlu & tociṅg afrithisi ised atrede inimruimdethar cachduine id est himbrethir hicocell hiṅgnim & ised ·iii· tresanaith nuigther iterum & trisatoscigther dochorp Crist :~</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Tocbal in cailich iarn a landiurug, <em>quando canitur <strong>Oblata</strong></em>, is foraithmet gene Crist insin [ocus] tre airde a indocbale (/ a indocbale tre airde) ocus firto.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>Quando canitur: <strong>Accepit Iesus panem</strong></em>, tanaurnat in sacart fat(h)ri du aithrigi dia pecthaib; atnopuir <em>Deo</em>; ocus slecthith in popul: ocus ni taet guth isson, ar na tar masca in sacardd; ar issed a thechta ar na rascra a menme <em>contra Deum</em>, cene canas in liachtso. Is de is <em><strong>Periculosa Oratio</strong></em> a <em>nomen</em>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Na tri chemmen cinges in fergraith for a culu, ocus tocing afrithisi, ised a trede in imruimdethar cach duine, idon, himbrethir, hi cocell, hingnim; ocus ised trede tressanaithnuigther <em>iterum</em>, ocus trisatoseigther do Chorp Crist.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The elevation of the chalice, after the full uncovering thereof, <em>quando canitur Oblata</em> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(when <em>Oblata</em> is chanted)</span>, that is a memorial of the birth of Christ and of His exaltation through signs and miracles.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><em>Quando canitur:</em> <strong><em>Accepit Iesus panem</em></strong> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(When is chanted: '<em><strong>Jesus took bread</strong></em>')</span>, the priest bows himself down thrice to repent of his sins. He offers them <span style="font-size: x-small;">[i.e. the bread and chalice]</span> to God, and the people prostrates: and there comes not a sound then, that it disturb not the priest, for it is his duty that his mind separate not <em>contra Deum</em> <span style="font-size: x-small;">('against', i.e. from, God)</span> whist he chants this Lection. It is from this that <em><strong>Periculosa Oratio</strong></em> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(the <strong>Most Dangerous Prayer</strong>)<span style="font-size: small;"> is its</span> <span style="font-size: small;"><em>nomen</em> </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">(name)</span></span>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The three steps which the ordained man stepps backwards and which he steps in return, that is the triad wherein sins any person, to wit, in word, in thought, in deed; and that is the triad through which he is renewed <em>iterum</em> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(again)</span> and by which he is moved to the Body of Christ.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: #dddddd;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">In mesad mesas insacart incailech & inobli & intammus ad midethar acombach figor nanaithisse & nanesorcon & innaaurgabale insen. Indoblae forsinmeis colind Crist hi crann cruche. Acombag forsinméis corp Crist do chombug cocloaib forsinchroich. Incomrac conrecatar indalleth. iarsinchombug figor ógé chuirp Crist iarnesérgo. In fobdod fombaiter indalled figor fobdotha cuirp Crist innafuil inarnaithchumbu hícroich.<br />
Inpars benar ahichtur indlithe bis forlaim cli figor indaith chummi cosindlagin inoxil intuib deiss arissiar robui aiged Crist <em>in Cruce id est contra ciuitatem</em> & isair robui aigeth Longini arrobothuaisre dosuidiu issed ropodesse do Crist:~</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In mesad mesas in sacart in cailech ocus in obli, ocus int ammus admidethar a combach, figor nan aithisse ocus nan esorcon ocus inna (aur) gabale insen.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ind Oblae forsin meis, coland Crist hi crann Cruche.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A Combag forsin meis, Corp Crist do chombug co cloaib forsin C(h)roich.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In comrac conrecatar in da(l)leth iarsin Chombug, figor oge Chuirp Crist iarn esergo.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In fobdod fombaiter indalled, figor fobdotha Cuirp Crist inna Fhuil, inarn aithchumbu hi Croich.<br />
In pars benar a hichtur ind lithe bis for laim cli, figor ind aithchummi cosind lagin in oxil in tuib deiss; ar is siar robui aiged <em>Crist in Cruce, id est, contra civitatem</em>: ocus i[s] sair robui aigeth Longini; arrobo thuaisre do shuidiu, issed ropo desse do Crist.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The examination wherewith the priest examines the chalice and the Host, and the assault which the fraction implies, a figure of the insults and of the stripes and of the capture [of Christ] (is) that.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The Host upon the paten, the Body of Christ upon the tree of the Cross.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The Breaking <span style="font-size: x-small;">(i.e. Fraction)</span> on the paten, the Body of Christ being broken with nails upon the Cross.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The meeting whereby the two halves come together after the Breaking, a figure of the wholeness of Christ's Body after His resurrection.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The submersion with which the other half is submerged, a figure of the submersion of the Body of Christ in His Blood, after the wounding on the Cross.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The part that is taken from the bottom of the half which is wont to be on the left hand, a figure of the wounding with the spear in the armpit of the right side; for westwards the face of Christ was <em>in Cruce, id est, contra civitatem</em> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(on the Cross; that is, towards the city)</span>, and it is eastward the face of Longinus was; what was left for this person was right for Christ.</span></blockquote>Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-6404398844875621302012-06-27T05:06:00.001-07:002012-06-27T05:08:02.155-07:00Remember when I actually posted something?...Neither do I. ;)<br />
<br />
For all those wondering, no, I'm not dead. It's just that real life is a very harsh taskmaster and has been giving me quite a load to do. To be honest, I can't promise to be able to write another blog post these days - that does not mean however that I've quit this blog. Who knows? I might be able to churn out something quick if I have adequate time and motivation.<br />
<br />
For the record, E.G. Atchley's <a href="http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.jp/p/ordo-romanus-i-english.html">translation of the liturgy of Ordo Romanus I is now up.</a> Well, it's the very least I could do to nominally keep this blog up and running.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-71382784604696512772011-05-26T03:58:00.000-07:002011-05-26T04:00:10.438-07:00Treatise on the Mass (from the Stowe Missal), Part 01According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stowe_Missal">Wikipedia</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The <strong>Stowe Missal</strong> is a missal written in Latin and Gaelic which was transcribed at Lorrha Monastery in the ninth century. Also known as the <strong>Lorrha Missal</strong>, it is known as the 'Stowe' Missal due to its acquisition by one of the Dukes of Buckingham for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stowe_manuscripts">Stowe manuscripts</a> collection. Stowe House was sold in 1849 to the Earl of Ashburnham. In 1883 the missal was purchased by the British Government and deposited in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Irish_Academy">Royal Irish Academy</a>.<br />
<br />
The form of the liturgy and the services of baptism and unction reflect a Celtic usage dating from before 650 AD. Whether this is the usage brought by St. Patrick in the early fifth century, or a later revision is not certain. Used during an era in which Christianity was neither universal nor fully understood, it asserts in detail the redemptive nature of Jesus Christ's birth, death and resurrection. The writer(s) assumes that those participating in the Eucharist must have every detail repeated clearly.</blockquote>Here we are going to look upon a tract on the Mass (folios 65-67) written in Old Irish. I would first provide the original Gaelic and Latin text (as it appears in the Missal), a more 'tidied up' version (with proper spacings and punctuations), and an English translation.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.slieveardagh.com/info/infoimage/derrynaflan-hoard.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="cssfloat: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="222" j8="true" src="http://www.slieveardagh.com/info/infoimage/derrynaflan-hoard.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<blockquote><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><strong>A TREATISE ON THE MASS<br />
from the Stowe Missal</strong></span></div><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">INdaltoir fiugor dīgrīme īma<span style="text-decoration: overline;">b </span>· in cailech isfi<span style="text-decoration: overline;">g</span> īnaecl <span style="text-decoration: overline;">f</span>uirmed & rofothiged forīgrimī & fōmartri īnafathe & aliorū · huisq: p: ī calicem & is<span style="text-decoration: overline;">s</span> canar occo· peto te pa<span style="text-decoration: overline;">t</span> de<span style="text-decoration: overline;">p</span>cor té filii· obsecro te <span style="text-decoration: overline;">sps</span> <span style="text-decoration: overline;">scae</span>·i·f<span style="text-decoration: overline;">ig</span> īph<span style="text-decoration: overline;">op</span> toresset in aecla · Oblae iar– suƥ altare·i·īƭƭ is<span style="text-decoration: overline;">s</span> canar occo·i·<span style="text-decoration: overline;">ihs</span> <span style="text-decoration: overline;">xps</span> Α & ω ḣ÷ ṕncipiu & finis · f<span style="text-decoration: overline;">ig</span> cuirp <span style="text-decoration: overline;">cr</span> rosuidiged hi linannart brond maire · Fin iar– aṙhuisq2 hicaelecḥ·i·deacht <span style="text-decoration: overline;">cr</span> aradonacht & arīpōp īaīsir thuisten is<span style="text-decoration: overline;">s</span> canar ocsuidiu · Remit& <span style="text-decoration: overline;">pr</span> īdulget <span style="text-decoration: overline;">fl2</span>· missere<span style="text-decoration: overline;">t</span> <span style="text-decoration: overline;">sps</span> <span style="text-decoration: overline;">scs</span> :·</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ind altoir, fiugor ind ingrimme immabred.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In cailech, is figor inna eclaise foruirmed ocus rofothaiged for ingrimmim ocus for martri inna fathe <em>et aliorum</em>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Huisque (/ Huisce) <em>prius in calicem</em>, ocus issed canar occo: <em><strong>Peto te Pater; deprecor te, Filii (/ Filii); obsecro te, Spiritus Sanctae (/ Sancte)</strong></em>; idon, figor in phopuil toresset <em>in aeclesia (/ ecclesia)</em>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Oblae iarum <em>super altare</em>,<em> id est,</em> <em>intrat</em>. Issed canar occo, idon, <strong><em>Iesus Christus,</em> <em>a et ω, hoc est, principium et finis</em>.</strong> Figor cuirp Crist, rosuidiged hi linannart brond Maire.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Fin iarum ar huisce hi caelech, idon, deacht Crist ar a donacht (/ doenacht), ocus ar in popul, in aimsir thuisten. Issed canar oc suidiu: <strong><em>Remitet (/ Remittat) Pater, indulget (/ indulgeat) Filius, miseretur (/ misereatur) Spiritus Sanctus.</em></strong></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The altar, a figure of the persecution which is inflicted.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The chalice, it is a figure of the Church which was set and founded upon the persecution and upon the martyrdom of the prophets <em>et aliorum</em> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(and of others)</span>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Water, first, <em>in calicem</em>, <span style="font-size: x-small;">(into the chalice</span>) and what is chanted by them is: <strong><em>Peto te Pater; deprecor te Fili; obsecro te, Spiritus Sancte</em></strong> <span style="font-size: x-small;">("I pray to you, O Father; I ask intercession of you, O Son; I appeal to you, O Holy Spirit")</span>, that is, a figure of the people that was poured <em>in Ecclesia</em> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(into the Church)</span>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The Host, then, <em>super altare, id est, intrat</em> <span style="font-size: x-small;">(over the altar, that is, it enters)</span>. What is chanted by them is:<em> <strong>Iesus Christus, Αlpha et Omega, hoc est, principium et finis</strong></em> <span style="font-size: x-small;">("Jesus Christ, Alpha and Omega, this is the beginning and the end")</span>. A figure of the body of Christ which was placed in the linen-sheet of the womb of Mary.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">Wine afterwards upon water in the chalice, that is, the divinity of Christ upon His humanity and upon the people, at the time of Incarnation. It is what is chanted thereat: <em><strong>Remittat Pater, indulgeat Filius, miseretur Spiritus Sanctus</strong></em> <span style="font-size: x-small;">("May the Father remit, may the Son pardon, may the Holy Spirit have mercy")</span>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;">Acanar dind o<span style="text-decoration: overline;">ff</span> <span style="text-decoration: overline;">f</span>sen i<span style="text-decoration: overline;">t</span> ītroit & orthana & tormach corrigi liacht n<span style="text-decoration: overline;">aps</span> & ψalm ṅ dig isfigor recto aicnith īsin inroaithnuiged [aithgne] <span style="text-decoration: overline;">cr</span> triahuili baullo & gnímo · Liacht <span style="text-decoration: overline;">aps</span> <span style="text-decoration: overline;">im</span> & salṁ digd & hoṡuidiu codinochtad is foraithmet· rechta litre īrofiu<span style="text-decoration: overline;">g</span>d <span style="text-decoration: overline;">cr</span> [acht] nadfess cadacht cidrofiugd and · Indinochtad corricileth īna oblae & īcailich & acanar occo i<span style="text-decoration: overline;">t</span> <span style="text-decoration: overline;">sos</span> & aillóir corrici oblata is<span style="text-decoration: overline;">for</span>et rechta fáthe hitarc[h]et <span style="text-decoration: overline;">cr</span> cofoll: acht nath naiccess corogenir :~</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">A canar dind offriund forsen, iter <em><strong>Introit</strong></em> ocus <strong>Orthana</strong> ocus <strong>Tormach</strong>, corrigi <strong>Liacht nApstal</strong> ocus <strong>ψalm</strong> (/ Salm) ṅ<strong>digrad</strong>, is figor recto aicnith insin, in roaithnuiged [aithgne] Crist tria huili baullo ocus gnimo.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Liacht nApstol, immorro, ocus Salm digrad ocus ho shuidiu co <strong>Dinochtad</strong>, is foraithmet rechta litre, in rofiugrad Crist, [acht] nadfess cadacht, cid rofiugrad and.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In dinochtad corrici leth inna oblae ocus in cailich ocus a canar occo, itir <strong>Soscel</strong> ocus <strong>Ailloir</strong>, corrici <i><strong>Oblata</strong></i>, is foraithmet rechta fathe, hi tarc(h)et Crist co follus, acht nathnaiccess co rogenir.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">What is chanted of the Mass thereafter - both Introit and Prayers and Addition - up to the Lesson of Apostles (the Epistle) and the bigradual Psalm, it is a figure of the law of nature, wherein was renewed [the knowledge of] Christ through all His members and deeds.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The Lesson of Apostles, moreover, and the bigradual Psalm and from that to the Uncovering (of the chalice), it is a memorial of the law of the Letter wherein was figured Christ, who was not known as yet, though He was figured therein.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The elevation of the chalice, after the full uncovering thereof, quando canitur oblata (when the Oblata is chanted), that is a commemoration of Christ's birth and of His glory through signs and miracles.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;">The Uncovering, as far as half, of the oblation and of the chalice, and what is chanted by them - both Gospel and Benediction, as far as <i>Oblata</i>, it is a memorial of the law of the Prophets, wherein Christ was foretold clearly, but was not seen until He was born.</span></blockquote>Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-18558124456234833952011-05-24T03:19:00.000-07:002014-01-01T00:18:48.110-08:00From Youtube: Beneventan Chant<a href="http://www.liturgica.com/html/Beneventan_Chant.jsp">Beneventan chant</a> is a liturgical plainchant repertory of the Catholic Church, used primarily in the orbit of the southern Italian ecclesiastical centers of Benevento and Montecassino, distinct from Gregorian chant and related to Ambrosian chant. It was officially supplanted by Gregorian chant in the 11th century, although a few chants of local interest remained in use.<br />
<br />
Here is a sample of Beneventan Chant from Youtube: <em>Otin to Stauron - O Quando in Cruce</em>, sung by Ensemble Organum in Greek and Latin, from their album, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Chants-Cathedrale-Benevento-Ensemble-Organum/dp/B000000795">Chants de la Cathédrale de Benevento: Semaine Sainte & Pâque</a></em>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/ji8klhW4Pdo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
What is interesting is that three bilingual (Greek and Latin) antiphons, of this is but one, were sung in Benevento and some other Italian centres as part of the Adoration of the Cross service in Holy Week. Some of these chants seem to have Eastern origins: this particular sample for instance, found in sources from places such as Benevento and Ravenna, is actually a version of a Byzantine <em>troparion</em> which can be followed back to the rite of Jerusalem in the 7th century. Its presence in Ravenna should mean that it was already used in the liturgy there before the fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna to the Lombards in 752.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><blockquote>
<strong>Received Greek Text</strong><br />
(Sung during the <a href="http://www.christopherklitou.com/holy_and_great_friday_royal_hours_greek.htm">Ninth Royal Hour</a> <a href="http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/prayers/triodion/hwk_fri">of Holy Friday</a> in the Byzantine liturgy)<br />
<br />
Ὅτε σὲ Σταυρῶ προσήλωσαν παράνομοι, τὸν Κύριον τῆς δόξης, ἐβόας πρὸς αὐτούς. <br />
Τὶ ὑμᾶς ἐλύπησα; ἢ ἐν τίνι παρώργισα;<br />
πρὸ ἐμοῦ, τὶς ὑμᾶς ἐρρύσατο ἐκ θλίψεως;<br />
καὶ νύν, τίμοι ἀνταποδίδοτε; πονηρὰ ἀντὶ ἀγαθῶν,<br />
ἀντὶ στύλου πυρὸς, Σταυρῶ μὲ προσηλώσατε,<br />
ἀντὶ νεφέλης, τάφον μοὶ ὠρύξατε,<br />
ἀντὶ τοῦ μάννα, χολὴν μοὶ προσηνέγκατε,<br />
ἀντὶ τοῦ ὕδατος, ὄξος μὲ ἐποτίσατε.<br />
Λοιπὸν καλῶ τὰ ἔθνη, κακείνά με δοξάσουσι,<br />
σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ ἁγίω Πνεύματι.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong>Transliteration (Letter-by-letter)</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>Ote se Staurō prosēlōsan paranomoi, ton Kurion tēs doxēs, eboas pros autous.</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>Ti humas elupēsa; ē en tini parōrgisa;</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>pro emou, tis humas errusato ek thlipseōs;</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>kai nun, timoi antapodidote; ponēra anti agathon,
</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>anti stulou puros, Staurō me prosēlōsate,</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>anti nemelēs, taphon moi oruxate,</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>anti tou manna, cholēn moi prosēnegkate,</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>anti tou hudatos, oxos me epotisate.</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>Loipon kalō ta ethnē, kakeina me doxasousi,
</em></span><br />
<em><span style="font-size: x-small;">sun Patri kai hagiō Pneumati.</span></em><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong>Transliteration (Byzantine Greek)</strong>
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>Ote se Stavro prosilosan paranomi, ton Kyrion tis doxis, evoas pros avtus.</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>Ti ymas elypisa; i en tini parorgisa;</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>pro emu, tis ymas errysato ek thlipseos;</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>ke nyn, timi antapodidote; ponira anti agathon,
</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>anti stylu pyros, Stavro me prosilosate,</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>anti nemelis, tafon mi oryxate,</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>anti tu manna, holin mi prosinengate,</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>anti tu ydatos, oxos me epotisate.
</em></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><em>Lipon kalo ta ethni, kakina me doxasusi,
</em></span><br />
<em><span style="font-size: x-small;">syn Patri ke agio Pnevmati.</span>
</em><br />
<br />
<b>Transliterated Greek text</b><br />
(text based on MS. 1343 (Sessorianus 62), Rome, Biblioteca Nazionale, folio 80v)<br />
<br />
[O]te to stauron proschiloson paranomi kyriontis dosis evoa pros autus<br />
timas elipsas gem tini parorgersas pro emutis ymas elisato e gliesos<br />
che non ti mi antappoditote pomiram anti agaton<br />
anti stilu piros stauro me proschilosate<br />
anti tu manna olimin pro sinegate <br />
ante tu idatos oxos meos potisate<br />
lipon chalo ta etni chachinna me doxa susi si<br />
sin patri che agyon peunemati.<br />
<br />
<b>Latin</b><br />
<br />
O quando in Cruce confixerant iniqui Dominum glorie ait ad eos: <br />
Quid vobis molestus sum, aut in quo iratus sum?<br />
Ante [/ Absque] me, quis vos liberavit ex angustiis? <br />
Et nunc quid michi redditis mala pro bonis?<br />
Pro columna ignis in cruce me configitis:<br />
Pro nube sepulchrum michi foditis:<br />
Pro manna fel me potasti:<br />
Propter aquas aceto michi in poculum porrigitis:<br />
Ego vocabo gentes, ut ipse me glorificent,<br />
una cum Patre et cum Sancto Spiritu, Amen.<br />
<br />
<strong>English</strong><br />
<br />
When transgressors nailed (Him) to the Cross, the Lord of Glory said to them:<br />
"<em>How have I troubled you? Or in what have I angered you?</em><br />
<em>Before [/ Besides] me, who has delivered you from distress?</em><br />
<em>And have you not given me back evil for good?</em><br />
<em>For the pillar of fire you nail me to a cross,</em><br />
<em>For the cloud you dig me a tomb, </em><br />
<em>For the manna you made me drink gall,</em><br />
<em>For the water you offer me vinegar to drink.</em><br />
<em>I shall call the nations, that they may glorify me, </em><br />
<em>together with the Father and with the Holy Spirit,</em>" Amen.</blockquote>
Another version:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://1.gvt0.com/vi/tEy_2Px4CNU/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tEy_2Px4CNU&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tEy_2Px4CNU&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div>
Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-42131816159014138212011-05-07T17:00:00.000-07:002011-05-07T17:00:32.174-07:00The Pre-Conciliar Ambrosian Rite Mass now up!The Latin text of the pre-Conciliar Mass according to the Ambrosian Rite <a href="http://sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.com/p/ambrosian-rite-mass-latin.html">now has its own page</a>.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-23074570661545035252011-05-05T03:17:00.000-07:002011-05-05T03:17:14.904-07:00From Youtube: Ambrosian Rite Mass at Rome's Santa Maria Sopra MinervaA little something I just wanted to introduce.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/8d7lz822vHA?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
The video shows the chanting of the Gospel. Note the Ambrosian form of the thurible (no top cover), the manner of censing (clockwise), and the <i><a href="http://orbiscatholicus.blogspot.com/2007/03/monsignor-in-ambrosian-rite-vestments.html">cappino</a></i> worn by the priest around the neck (derived from the apparelled amice).Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-32649122998734271782011-05-04T11:46:00.000-07:002011-05-04T11:46:56.843-07:00The Minor, Trivial Biblical Stuff, Part 11: Ancient Writers on the Cross<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/AlexGraffito2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/AlexGraffito2.png" width="240" /></a></div><br />
<blockquote>A Roman citizen of no obscure station, having ordered one of his slaves to be put to death, delivered him to his fellow-slaves to be led away, and in order that his punishment might be witnessed by all, directed them to drag him through the Forum and every other conspicuous part of the city as they whipped him, and that he should go ahead of the procession which the Romans were at that time conducting in honour of the god. The men ordered to lead the slave to his punishment, having stretched out both his arms and fastened them to a piece of wood which extended across his breast and shoulders as far as his wrists, followed him, tearing his naked body with whips.</blockquote>-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus">Dionysius of Halicarnassus</a> (ca. 60 BC-after 7 BC), <em>Roman Antiquities</em>, VII, 69:1-2<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I see crosses there, not just of one kind but made in many different ways: some have their victims with head down to the ground; some impale their private parts; others stretch out their arms on the gibbet (<em>patibulum</em>).</blockquote>-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger">Seneca the Younger</a> (ca. 1 BC-AD 65), <em>To Marcia on Consolation</em>, 20.3<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Such are his verbal offences against man; his offences in deed remain. Men weep, and bewail their lot, and curse Cadmus with many curses for introducing <i>Tau</i> (Τ) into the family of letters; they say it was his body that tyrants took for a model, his shape that they imitated, when they set up the erections on which men are crucified. Σταυρός (<em>stauros</em>) the vile engine is called, and it derives its vile name from him. Now, with all these crimes upon him, does he not deserve death, nay, many deaths? For my part I know none bad enough but that supplied by his own shape--that shape which he gave to the gibbet named σταυρός after him by men.</blockquote>-Pseudo-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Lucian">Lucian</a> (ca. 125-after 180), <em>Trial in the Court of Vowels</em><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<blockquote><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Learn fully then, children of love, concerning all things, for Abraham, who first circumcised, did so looking forward in the spirit to Jesus, and had received the doctrines of three letters. For it says, "<em>And Abraham circumcised from his household eighteen men and three hundred.</em>" What then was the knowledge that was given to him? Notice that he first mentions the eighteen, and after a pause the three hundred. The eighteen is <em>Ι</em> (=10) and <em>Η</em> (=8) - you have <em>Jesus</em> (<strong>ΙΗ</strong>ϹΟΥϹ) - and because the cross was destined to have grace in the <em>Τ</em> (=300) he says "<em>and three hundred.</em>" So he indicates Jesus in the two letters and the cross in the other.</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">=================================</div><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.jesuswalk.com/lamb/images/anchor_catacomb300x225.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" j8="true" src="http://www.jesuswalk.com/lamb/images/anchor_catacomb300x225.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Anchor and Fish, Catacombs of Domitilla, Rome. 3rd c.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Similarly, again, he describes the cross in another Prophet, who says, "<em>And when shall all these things be accomplished? saith the Lord. When the tree shall fall and rise, and when blood shall flow from the tree.</em>" Here again you have a reference to the cross, and to him who should he crucified. And he says again to Moses, when Israel was warred upon by strangers, and in order to remind those who were warred upon that they were delivered unto death by reason of their sins - the Spirit speaks to the heart of Moses to make a representation of the cross, and of him who should suffer, because, he says, unless they put their trust in him, they shall suffer war for ever. Moses therefore placed one shield upon another in the midst of the fight, and standing there raised above them all kept stretching out his hands, and so Israel again began to be victorious: then, whenever he let them drop they began to perish. Why? That they may know that they cannot be saved if they do not hope on him. And again he says in another Prophet, "<em>I stretched out my hands the whole day to a disobedient people and one that refuses my righteous way.</em>"</div></blockquote>-<i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas">Epistle of Barnabas</a></i> (late 1st-early 2nd century), 9:7-8; 12:1-4<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Since he is a criminal, he will be crucified in his height and in the extension of his hands.</blockquote>-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemidorus">Artemidorus</a> (2nd century), <em>Oneirocritica</em> 1:76<br />
<blockquote> I extended my hands and hallowed my Lord, <br />
For the expansion of my hands is His sign.<br />
And my extension is the upright cross.<br />
Hallelujah.</blockquote>-<em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odes_of_Solomon">Odes of Solomon</a></em> (1st-3rd century), 27<br />
<br />
<blockquote>That lamb which was commanded to be wholly roasted was a symbol of the suffering of the cross which Christ would undergo. For the lamb, which is roasted, is roasted and dressed up in the form of the cross. For one spit is transfixed right through from the lower parts up to the head, and one across the back, to which are attached the legs of the lamb.<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div>=================================<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/389/crucifixiongemtu6.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" j8="true" src="http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/389/crucifixiongemtu6.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Crucifixion (Gaza), Paris, jasper. (Late 2nd-early 3rd c.)</td></tr>
</tbody></table> <div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">"<em>Listen, therefore,</em>" say I, "<em>to what follows; for Moses first exhibited this seeming curse of Christ's by the signs which he made.</em>" </div>"<em>Of what [signs] do you speak?</em>" said he. <br />
"<em>When the people,</em>" replied I, "<em>waged war with Amalek, and the son of Nave (Nun) by name Jesus (Joshua), led the fight, Moses himself prayed to God, stretching out both hands, and Hur with Aaron supported them during the whole day, so that they might not hang down when he got wearied. For if he gave up any part of this sign, which was an imitation of the cross, the people were beaten, as is recorded in the writings of Moses; but if he remained in this form, Amalek was proportionally defeated, and he who prevailed prevailed by the cross. For it was not because Moses so prayed that the people were stronger, but because, while one who bore the name of Jesus (Joshua) was in the forefront of the battle, he himself made the sign of the cross. For who of you knows not that the prayer of one who accompanies it with lamentation and tears, with the body prostrate, or with bended knees, propitiates God most of all? But in such a manner neither he nor any other one, while sitting on a stone, prayed. Nor even the stone symbolized Christ, as I have shown.</em>"</blockquote>-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr">St. Justin Martyr</a>, <em>Dialogue with Trypho</em> 50; 90:4<br />
<br />
<blockquote> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/4012/37361658.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" j8="true" src="http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/4012/37361658.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Crucifixion, British Museum: carnelian. Mid 4th c.</td></tr>
</tbody></table> The sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Justus_Lipsius_De_cruce_istio.jpg">a <em>sail</em> abide safe in the ship</a> … And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross (σταυρός).<br />
<br />
But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. And this, as the prophet foretold, is the greatest symbol of His power and role; as is also proved by the things which fall under our observation. For consider all the things in the world, whether without this form they could be administered or have any community. For the sea is not traversed except that trophy which is called a sail abide safe in the ship; and the earth is not ploughed without it: diggers and mechanics do not their work, except with tools which have this shape. And the human form differs from that of the irrational animals in nothing else than in its being erect and having the hands extended, and having on the face extending from the forehead what is called the nose, through which there is respiration for the living creature; and this shows no other form than that of the cross. And so it was said by the prophet, "<em>The breath before our face is the Lord Christ.</em>" And the power of this form is shown by your own symbols <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjis8lwr1j8RauhDfy5EW8OI-Z5sJoUaxX_wvus86VWzR9c5pcTD_hBhr9tQJcWcFfMCGzI1LIqrgrxmFwSvYRkWYbVGtnkWUbARMGCMXMiKeFaCi-OH1uf78ZE7BtlqQkMhtsSIKSSiLaM/s800/Vexilla.jpg">on what are called “<i>vexilla</i>” [banners]</a> and trophies, with which all your state possessions are made, using these as the insignia of your power and government, even though you do so unwittingly.</blockquote>-St. Justin Martyr, <i>First Apology</i> 55<br />
<br />
<blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://ui.abimg.net/images/answers/6/9/9921296.jpg?1302998949a" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" j8="true" src="http://ui.abimg.net/images/answers/6/9/9921296.jpg?1302998949a" width="273" /></a></div>But that this point is true, that that number which is called five, which agrees in no respect with their argument, and does not harmonize with their system, nor is suitable for a typical manifestation of the things in the Pleroma, [yet has a wide prevalence,] will be proved as follows from the Scriptures. <i>Soter</i> (Savior) is a name of five letters; <em>Pater</em> (Father), too, contains five letters; <i>Agape</i> (love), too, consists of five letters; and our Lord, after blessing the five loaves, fed with them five thousand men. Five virgins were called wise by the Lord; and, in like manner, five were styled foolish. Again, five men are said to have been with the Lord when He obtained testimony from the Father—namely, Peter, and James, and John, and Moses, and Elias. The Lord also, as the fifth person, entered into the apartment of the dead maiden, and raised her up again; for, says [the Scripture], He suffered no man to go in, save Peter and James, and the father and mother of the maiden. The rich man in hell declared that he had five brothers, to whom he desired that one rising from the dead should go. The pool from which the Lord commanded the paralytic man to go into his house, had five porches. The very form of the cross, too, has five extremities, two in length, two in breadth, and one in the middle, on which [last] the person rests who is fixed by the nails.</blockquote>-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus">St. Irenaeus of Lugdunum</a> (Lyons) (d. ca. 202), <i>Adversus Haereses</i> 2.24.4<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The skins which were put upon his arms are the sins of both peoples, which Christ, when His hands were stretched forth on the cross, fastened to it along with Himself.</blockquote>-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolytus_of_Rome">Hippolytus of Rome</a> (ca. 170-ca. 236), as quoted in St. Jerome's Epist. 36, <em>Ad Damasum</em>, 28<br />
<br />
<blockquote> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8783/gemr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" j8="true" src="http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8783/gemr.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Crucifixion, Rome, Nott Collection: gem. 4th c.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table> <div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Crosses, moreover, we neither worship nor wish for. You, indeed, who consecrate gods of wood, adore wooden crosses perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners; and flags of your camp, what else are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it. We assuredly see the sign of a cross, naturally, in the ship when it is carried along with swelling sails, when it glides forward with expanded oars; and when the military yoke is lifted up, it is the sign of a cross; and when a man adores God with a pure mind, with hands outstretched. Thus the sign of the cross either is sustained by a natural reason, or your own religion is formed with respect to it.</div></blockquote>-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Minucius_Felix">Marcus Minucius Felix</a> (active ca. 150-270), <i>Octavius</i> 29<br />
<br />
<blockquote><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/EarlyCrucifixionRome.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="245" j8="true" src="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/EarlyCrucifixionRome.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ivory casket (ca. AD 420-430) from Rome (British Museum).</td></tr>
</tbody></table>As to the actual images, I regard them as simply pieces of matter akin to the vessels and utensils in common use among us, or even undergoing in their consecration a hapless change from these useful articles at the hands of reckless art, which in the transforming process treats them with utter contempt, nay, in the very act commits sacrilege; so that it might be no slight solace to us in all our punishments, suffering as we do because of these same gods, that in their making they suffer as we do themselves. You put Christians on crosses (<i>crucibus</i>) and stakes (<i>stipitibus</i>): what image is not formed from the clay in the first instance, set on cross and stake? The body of your god is first consecrated on the gibbet...</blockquote>-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian">Tertullian</a> (ca. 160-ca. 220), <i>Apologia</i> 12<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Premising, therefore, and likewise subjoining the fact that Christ suffered, He foretold that His just ones should suffer equally with Him— both the apostles and all the faithful in succession; and He signed them with that very seal of which Ezekiel spoke: "<i>The Lord said unto me, 'Go through the gate, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set the mark Tau upon the foreheads of the men.'</i>" Now the Greek letter <i>Tau</i> and our own letter <i>T</i> is the very form of the cross, which He predicted would be the sign on our foreheads in the true Catholic Jerusalem, in which, according to the twenty-first Psalm, the brethren of Christ or children of God would ascribe glory to God the Father, in the person of Christ Himself addressing His Father; "<i>I will declare Your name unto my brethren; in the midst of the congregation will I sing praise to You.</i>" For that which had to come to pass in our day in His name, and by His Spirit, He rightly foretold would be of Him.</blockquote>-Tertullian, <i>Against Marcion</i>, 3.22<br />
<br />
<blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.churchyear.net/orans.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="187" j8="true" src="http://www.churchyear.net/orans.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Under the armour of prayer let us guard the standard of our commander, let us in prayer await the angel's trump. All the angels likewise pray, and every creature, beasts of the field and wild beasts pray and bend the knee, and as they leave the stable or the cave, look up to heaven with no vain utterance, stirring their breath after their own manner. Even the birds as they rise in the morning, wing their way up to heaven, and make an outstretched cross with their wings in place of hands, and utter something that seems a prayer. What more, then, is there to say on the duty of prayer? Even the Lord Himself prayed, to whom be honour and power for ever and ever.</blockquote>-Tertullian, <i>On Prayer</i>, 29<br />
<br />
<blockquote>As then in astronomy we have Abraham as an instance, so also in arithmetic we have the same Abraham. "<i>For, hearing that Lot was taken captive, and having numbered his own servants, born in his house, 318</i> (<strong>ΤΙΗ</strong>)," he defeats a very great number of the enemy. They say, then, that the character representing 300 (<strong>Τ</strong>) is, as to shape, the type of the Lord's sign, and that the <i>Iota</i> (<strong>Ι</strong>) and the <i>Eta</i> (<strong>Η</strong>) indicate the Saviour's name; that it was indicated, accordingly, that Abraham's domestics were in salvation, who having fled to the Sign and the Name became lords of the captives, and of the very many unbelieving nations that followed them.</blockquote>-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria">Clement of Alexandria</a> (ca.150-ca. 215), Stromata Book 6, 11Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-47271235308556353352011-05-04T02:29:00.000-07:002011-05-04T02:29:05.641-07:00The Minor, Trivial Biblical Stuff, Part 10: Joseph Caiaphas<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.billpetro.com/wp-content/uploads/caiaphas-705163.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" j8="true" src="http://www.billpetro.com/wp-content/uploads/caiaphas-705163.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Joseph Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest between AD 18-37, best known for his role during the trial of Jesus of Nazareth. Nothing is known about his early career, but we can assume that he was a member of a wealthy family, because he married a daughter of the high priest who is called Annas (or Ananus) son of Seth, high priest from AD 6-15 (John 18:13). Even when he was no longer in function, he was apparently extremely influential. According to Josephus, five of Ananus' sons became high priest (<em>Antiquities</em> 20.198); to this we may add Caiaphas, his son-in-law.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Both Annas and Caiaphas may have sympathized with the Sadducees, which found most of its members among the wealthy Jewish elite. Some scholars think it probable that Caiaphas was a member of the embassy that went to Rome in AD 17 to discuss fiscal matters (Tacitus, <em>Annals</em>, 2.42.5). <br />
<br />
In AD 18, the Roman governor Valerius Gratus (AD 15-26) appointed Caiaphas as high priest. The two men must have had an excellent working relation, because Caiaphas remained in office exceptionally long. Gratus had dismissed at least four high priests - Annas (Ananus), Ishmael ben-Fabus, Eleazar ben-Ananus, and Simon ben-Camithus - before appointing Caiaphas. Aside from Annas, the aforementioned high priests ruled for only a single year before being taken out of office. It is tempting to link this appointment to the Jewish embassy that in AD 17 had appealed to Tiberius for a reduction in the tribute of Judaea: was Caiaphas rewarded for his tactful behavior in Rome? In any case, Gratus' successor Pontius Pilate never changed the high priest, which can mean that he had found in Caiaphas a man who could be trusted.<br />
<br />
Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was goverened by the high priest and his council. This was a reversion to the system that had been followed in the Persian and Hellenistic periods before the Hasmonean revolt. The high priest, often in concert with the 'chief priests', sometimes with the 'elders' (influential, aristocratic laymen), was in charge of ordinary police and judicial procedures, and he - alone and in such combinations as just described - figures large in the Gospels, Acts and in Josephus.<br />
<br />
Priesthood was hereditary among the Jews; the priests traced their lineage to Aaron, brother of Moses and first high priest. During the Persian and Hellenistic periods, the high priests, who were rulers of the nation, were (or were thought to be) members of the family of Zadok (1 Kings 1:28-45). The Hasmoneans were hereditary priests, but they were not Zadokites. When they arose to power as a result of the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids, however, the natural consequence was that the leading member of the family was declared high priest.<br />
<br />
When Simon ascended to the high priesthood (1 Maccabees 14:41-49), the previously ruling Zadokite family was deposed, though the system of government remained the same. About a hundred years later, however, the revolt of Aristobulus II (66-63 BC) and his son led to Herod's appointment as King of Judaea, and this changed the system. Herod, himself a non-Jew, could not claim descent from a priestly family and had to appoint high priests during his reign. When Rome deposed Archelaus in AD 6 and sent a prefect to govern Judaea, it also began to appoint the high priest. Thereafter it sometimes granted the right to a member of Herod's family, but sometimes this right was retained by the prefect (later procurator), or by the legate of Syria.<br />
<br />
During a sixty-year period (AD 6-66), the high priests were always chosen from one of four families of aristocratic priests. The high priests as political appointees did not have quite the prestige and authority of the hereditary high priests of earlier periods, but nevertheless they had some prestige and a lot of authority. For the most part, they governed Jerusalem successfully.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://new.rejesus.co.uk/images/area_uploads/the_passion/st03_caiaphas.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" j8="true" src="http://new.rejesus.co.uk/images/area_uploads/the_passion/st03_caiaphas.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>In Jerusalem, then, even when Judaea was under 'direct' Roman control, Jewish leaders were in day-to-day control. The magistrates were Jews who ruled by Jewish law, the schools were Jewish and the religion was Jewish. The high priest and his council had a wide range of responsibilities: they were required to organize payment of tribute and to get the money and goods to the right person. Jerusalem was policed by the Temple guards, commanded by the high priest.<br />
<br />
The high priest was a suitable ruler because the office was traditional and thus was held with great reverence, and the prefect considered him the ideal spokesman for and to the population of Jerusalem. Granted, there were cases when people did not like a high priest (the mob hunted down and killed a former high priest when revolt broke out in AD 66), but whether the high priest was good or not, respect for the office was deep and genuine. First Herod and then Rome took control of the priestly vestments and released them only during special occasions. With them on, the high priest wielded too much power. Cases concerning control of the vestments, and with it the appointment of the high priest, more than once went directly to the emperor for decision.<br />
<br />
Who controlled the vestments and the office really mattered, because the man in the office was not only a mediator between Rome and her subjects, but also between God and man. He was the one who, on the Day of Atonement, would go into the Holy of Holies and make atonement for the sins of himself and all Israel. <br />
<br />
The Romans considered the high priest to be the reasonable official for them. If people wanted to deal with Rome, they went to the high priest. If Rome wanted to communicate with the people, the prefect summoned the high priest. If anything went wrong, the high priest held full responsibility. But he was only the first among equals: responsibility to prevent trouble fell, to some degree, on all the leading citizens.<br />
<br />
In short: Rome's rule over Judaea at our period was rather 'indirect': it governed through client (puppet) kings or resident governors, who in turn, utilized local aristocrats and magistrates down the food chain - be it the local village elder or the Temple high priest. The prefect's main duties are to maintain domestic peace and collect tribute: in Judaea - specifically in Jerusalem, both tasks are turned over to the priestly aristocrats, while the prefect would usually limit himself to monitoring for potential trouble and moving out only when things spiralled out of control, under normal circumstances.<br />
<br />
If the high priest did not preserve order, the prefect would intervene militarily, and the situation might get out of hand. As long as the Temple guards, acting as the police, carried out arrests, and as long as the high priest was involved in judging cases (though he usually did not execute anyone), there was little possibility of a direct clash between the Jews and the Romans. To keep his job, he had to remain in control, but any decent high priest - and Caiaphas, it seems, was pretty decent - had to care about the common populace as well. He had other obligations than just the need to prevent clashes with Roman troops. As the man in the middle, he should also represent the views of the people to the prefect, and should stand up for Jewish customs and traditions.<br />
<blockquote>But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.<br />
- John 11:49-52</blockquote>Around AD 36, Pilate's career in Judaea came to an end. The governor of Syria, Lucius Vitellius, intervened in the Jewish affairs during the Passover festival of AD 37 and removed Caiaphas from office. The man who had ruled the longest of the nineteen high priests of the first century was succeeded by his brother-in-law Jonathan, a son of Ananus, who himself ruled for only a year before being replaced by his brother, Theophilus (AD 37-41).<br />
<br />
<b>The Ossuary of Caiaphas?</b><br />
<br />
In November of 1990, a family tomb was discovered in Peace Forest in North Talpiot, Jerusalem. The crypt contained four loculi (burial niches), with twelve intact ossuaries (boxes containing human bones), as well as some coins. The coins, as well as the writing on the ossuaries, help date this tomb as being from around the 1st century AD.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.radioscribe.com/Caiaphas2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" j8="true" src="http://www.radioscribe.com/Caiaphas2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>On one of the ornate ossuaries (left), measuring 74 cm long, 29 wide, and 38 high, two inscriptions were found: on the side was written <i>Yehosef bar-QYF'</i>, with <i>Yehosef bar-QF'</i> written on one end. This ossuary contained the bones of two babies, a young child, a teenage boy, an adult woman, and a man about 60 years of age. Another ossuary from the same tomb also bore the inscription <i>QF'</i>. After some study, the bones were buried again back on the Mount of Olives - because burial is so central to the Jewish faith, there has in fact been some recent controversy between archaeologists and ultra-Orthodox Jews over human remains uncovered in digs: it is now a rule that uncovered remains are to be promptly turned over to the <i>Ministry of Religious Affairs</i> (presently the <i>Ministry of Religious Services</i>) for reburial - while the ossuary is currently located in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.<br />
<br />
Those who favor the Caiaphas interpretation (based on Josephus, who mentions his name as <i>Joseph Caiaphas</i>) propose that <i>QYF'</i>/<i>QF'</i> should be read as <i>Qa[ya]fa'</i>, while those questioning it think that it should be vocalized as <i>Qofa'</i> or <i>Qufa'</i> instead.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-76036686654592461512011-05-03T01:24:00.000-07:002011-05-03T01:25:47.329-07:00Ἔλεον εἰρήνης, Sacrificium LaudisAs you can see, I've slightly retitled my blog to <em>Ἔλεον Εἰρήνης, Sacrificium Laudis</em>. This is a slight reference to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, where before the <em>Anaphora</em> proper begins there is the usual dialogue between the deacon (or priest) and the congregation common in all liturgies. One of the responses happen to be (in Greek) Ἔλεον εἰρήνης, θυσίαν αἰνέσεως. That is, "<em>mercy of peace, sacrifice of praise.</em>" <br />
<br />
The term 'sacrifice of praise' which is used in Psalm 49/50:14 and also in Hebrews 13:15 ("<em>Through [Jesus] then let us continually offer up <strong>a sacrifice of praise</strong> to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name</em>"), has since from early on apparently been applied to the Eucharist. To quote the Catechism, paragraph 1359: "<em>The Eucharist, the sacrament of our salvation accomplished by Christ on the cross, is also a sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for the work of creation. In the Eucharistic sacrifice the whole of creation loved by God is presented to the Father through the death and the Resurrection of Christ. Through Christ the Church can offer the sacrifice of praise in thanksgiving for all that God has made good, beautiful, and just in creation and in humanity.</em>"<br />
<br />
Aside from the Byzantine liturgy, we can see it referenced within the Roman Canon at the commemoration of the living - which is what I was also thinking of when trying to come up with a title for this blog:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><em>Memento, Domine, famulorum, famularumque tuarum N. et N. et omnium circumstantium, quorum tibi fides cognita est, et nota devotio, pro quibus tibi offerimus: vel qui tibi offerunt <strong>hoc sacrificium laudis</strong>, pro se, suisque omnibus: pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et incolumitatis suae: tibique reddunt vota sua aeterno Deo, vivo et vero.</em><br />
<br />
Remember, Lord, your servant men and women (Names) and all here present. You are aware of their faith and know their devotedness. We offer for them, or they offer, <strong>this sacrifice of praise</strong> for themselves and all who are theirs, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their health/salvation and safety; and they present their prayers to you, the eternal, living, and true God.</blockquote>We go to <em>Ἔλεον εἰρήνης</em>. As we have noted, this phrase literally translates to "<em>mercy of peace,</em>" which admittedly does not make much sense, to the point that some who use an English translation of the Divine Liturgy soften it into more comprehensible forms like "<em>Offering of peace</em>" or "<em>mercy <strong>and</strong> peace</em>". <a href="http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/304059/all/Diaconal%20admonition%20and%20its%20re">There have been various attempts</a> to explain what the original wording could have been (there are have apparently quite a number of variants throughout history). For all intents and purposes, I chose to preserve the <em>textus receptus</em> version here. After all, <em>εἰρήνης </em>(pronounced as <em>irinis </em>in Byzantine Greek) is a good rhyme to <em>laudis</em>. ;)Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-21250604196947375202011-05-03T00:25:00.000-07:002011-05-03T17:05:23.071-07:00Old Roman Chant<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.propheticwitness.org/gregory-the-great.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" j8="true" src="http://www.propheticwitness.org/gregory-the-great.gif" width="273" /></a></div>Ever heard the claim: "<em>Pope Gregory the Great came up with Gregorian chant</em>"?<br />
<br />
For centuries, it has become common wisdom that the venerable pope was the source of what we now know of as Gregorian chant, and the assumption that it was the chant tradition of the Roman Church - apparently the sole one - was a given. Many - scholars and laymen alike - repeat this attribution, often without question. However, certain discoveries in the 19th century (which were not given proper attention until the 20th century!) has shook the foundations of centuries of pious retelling.</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"></div><a name='more'></a>Before 1890, no serious enquiry had been made into the direct origins of Roman Chant or its forerunners. It was in that year when a monk from the famous Benedictine <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solesmes_Abbey">abbey of Solesmes</a>, Dom André Mocquereau (1849-1930), as part of his research into the manuscript tradition of Gregorian chant, published an account of three books he discovered in the Vatican Library: two Graduals (Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Archivio di San Pietro, MS lat. 5319 and MS F. 22) and an Antiphonary (MS B.79), all dating from somewhere between the 11th and the 13th century.<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Now what intrigued Dom Mocquereau about these manuscripts was that although the material in these sources covered the same liturgical feasts as did the Gregorian books (showing that they were related to each other in that they were both Roman chants), it was melodically distinct from both it, as well as with Ambrosian chant. He wrote a letter to his abbot:</div></div><br />
<blockquote><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">I must tell you of a discovery we made at the Vatican, and that continues to astonish us. Perhaps Dom Pothier will be able to explain what I am going to say? It is a 12th-century <em>Gradual</em>, certainly of the Roman liturgy, with the exception of some slight peculiarities, but in which <em>the chant is not the one used in all manuscripts in all countries</em>. This is a singular exception that intrigues me. For a time, I had thought that the <em>Ambrosian</em> chant had replaced the <em>Gregorian</em> chant; but this is not the case, because in this new chant the universal Gregorian chant is easy to recognize, but with constant variations that give it a very special character. This is surely an Italian manuscript, as proven by the notation. One note that I found, I no longer know where, advances the unsubstantiated notion that it belonged to St. John Lateran. We have yet to see the Archives at that Basilica; are surprises of this kind awaiting us there, perhaps? I have no idea. I would be most interested to know what the Reverend Father Dom Joseph Pothier thinks about all this. I have not yet studied this curious manuscript in detail, because I had hoped to manage to get it to Solesmes.</div></blockquote>Dom Pothier wrote a reply dated the 8th of April:<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><blockquote>... bring us as many details as possible. What do the variations in the chant or the text consist of? ... we must have a good analysis of it; it is on that analysis that we will base the research needed to understand the nature of the variations, their origins and their cause ... the more numerous and the more accurate the details, the narrower the scope of the guesswork will be. ... Traditions thrived in prior times; at St. Peter's they still use not only ancient hymns, but even a special Psalter that dates from far back.</blockquote><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2JjhJnszcQrEWIdJ9JSuad2CZKR5JBPTeYfbNOcYSIx8ak44aHDA_LT41K5TAiAVdfTcmYknCWsrbguxtdxZ1LM6_sG1lOf8IdWaSc3klWrozYoyy9OSUlV6cNQjCj2SEAw_dXdY5-Hk/s320/dommocquereau.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" q6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2JjhJnszcQrEWIdJ9JSuad2CZKR5JBPTeYfbNOcYSIx8ak44aHDA_LT41K5TAiAVdfTcmYknCWsrbguxtdxZ1LM6_sG1lOf8IdWaSc3klWrozYoyy9OSUlV6cNQjCj2SEAw_dXdY5-Hk/s320/dommocquereau.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Dom André Mocquereau (1849-1930)</td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">Eventually publishing the results of his study of the manuscripts, Dom Mocquereau then concluded that this repertory, which he recognized as distinct from Ambrosian and Gregorian chant, seems to date from a "<em>relatively recent period, when the rules of Gregorian composition were beginning to fall into disuse.</em>" (<em>Ces mélodies semblent dater d'une époque relativement récente, dans laquelle les régles de composition grégorienne commençaient à tomber en désuétude</em>; <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/palographiemus1891gaja"><em>Paléographie Musicale</em>, volume II</a>, pp. 4-5, footnote 1) In short, it was a later corruption of Gregorian chant.</div><br />
Contrary to this view, fellow Benedictine Dom Raphael Andoyer, who after analysing the same sources, expressed the opinion in 1911-12 that they actually represented an earlier stage of musical development than that of Gregorian - a stage he defined as 'pre-Gregorian' (<em>ante-grégorien</em>). For Dom Andoyer, these melodies are the ones which Pope Gregory the Great organized and revised (thus he views Gregory's 'authorship' of plainchant, rather than composing it outright, in the strict sense) into what would become known as Gregorian chant.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Graduale_Aboense_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" j8="true" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Graduale_Aboense_2.jpg" width="211" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The introit <em>Gaudeamus omnes</em> for the<br />
feast of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_(Bishop_of_Uppsala)">St. Henry of Finland</a>, <br />
from the <em>Graduale Aboense</em> (14th-15th c.)</td></tr>
</tbody></table> After this, the subject was abandoned and no new or authoritative conclusions were reached until 1950, when German musicologist <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/562274/Bruno-Stablein">Bruno Stäblein</a> published several articles dedicated on the subject, declaring these manuscripts to be prime examples of a chant tradition he called <em>Altrömisch</em>, or <em>Old Roman</em>. From his time on the problem of Old Roman chant became the object of wide-ranging investigation, and even today it claims the close attention of many experts.<br />
<br />
We must note here a couple of interesting and inescapable questions, for which an explanation was needed: among the hundreds of medieval manuscripts of Gregorian chant, there is not one which is known to have been used or written at Rome before the mid-13th century, and the very few sources of definite Roman origin which date from before that period contain similar material to that of Gregorian books, but are different from a melodic point of view - and these manuscripts happen to be the ones which Dom Mocquereau discovered (and dismissed as late corruptions)!<br />
<br />
In Stäblein's view, both the 'Old Roman', which he takes to be the one edited by Gregory the Great, and the newer 'Gregorian' - a later revision which he dated from the reign of Pope Vitalian (657-672) - coexisted and were being used simultaneously in Rome. Basing his argument on the evidence of an <em>Ordo Romanus</em> which ascribes an active interest in the revision of chant to eight Popes - from Damasus (366-384) to Martin (649-653) - and to three abbots of the Roman monastery of St. Peter (Catolenus, Marianus and Virbonus), Stäblein held that the three abbots are to be credited for the reformation of Roman chant. <br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
The transformation, according to him, would have taken place before 680, when John the <em>archicantor</em> of St. Peter's was sent by Pope Agatho (reign 678-681) to England, ostensibly to teach singing there. This dating, in Stäblein's opinion, is confirmed by what certain sources relate about the work of Vitalian, during whose pontificate the chant in the Papal liturgy was apparently performed by the group of cantors named Vitaliani after their founder. By the 11th to the 13th centuries, Stäblein continues, the situation was such that the Old Roman style of plainchant continued to be employed in the monasteries of the Lateran, while the Papal palace used the 'Gregorian'. The substance of his argument went largely unchanged as time went on, though Stäblein was compelled to make slight adjustments due to the criticism of other scholars (for example, about the mission of the cantors to England). In brief, he hypothesizes the idea of a transformation at Rome of Old Roman into Gregorian, and the coexistence of the two traditions (respectively, as the chant of the Papal liturgy and the chant of the other Roman churches) until the 13th century.</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1036/1000302976_572d2c6cd6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: left; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="245" j8="true" src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1036/1000302976_572d2c6cd6.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">A similar position was taken up by Joseph Smits van Waesberghe, who believed however that the monastic institutions of Rome used Gregorian chant, while the secular clergy kept using the Old Roman style of plainchant. His idea was criticized, however, by other scholars due to his excessive dependence on the <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Pontificalis">Liber Pontificalis</a></em> (which has undergone intense modern scholarly scrutiny) and for making an over-strict and historically unfounded distinction between Roman monks and secular clergymen. His critics also raised an objection used against Stäblein's thesis: that there is no incontrovertible proof either that a reform of chant took place in 7th-century Rome or that the two repertories existed side-by-side there until the mid-13th century.</div><br />
Allowing for more or less personal emphases, other scholars (such as Fr. Stephen J.P. Van Dijk O.F.M., and Ewald Stammers) accepted Stäblein's idea of the coexistence of the two repertories, and also took into account a fact confirmed by liturgical historians, according to whom Rome had witnessed over a long period the coexistence of the Papal liturgy (which was undergoing a continual, yet gradual, process of reform) and the liturgy of the presbytal tituli, i.e. the parish churches served by non-Curial clergy.<br />
<br />
In 1954, Michel Huglo published an exhaustive directory (<em>Le chant 'vieux-romain': liste des manuscrits et temoins indirects</em>, <em>Sacris Erudiri</em> 6) of Old Roman sources both direct - that is, Graduals and Antiphonaries - and indirect, demonstrating thereby that this chant was the official repertory at Rome towards the mid-8th century, in about 1140, and in the 13th century. Old Roman was thus to be seen as a local repertory of specifically Roman origin (like the Ambrosian chant of Milan or Beneventan chant) which had nonetheless spread into central Italy and had even left traces in the monastic centers of the Carolingian Empire (Stäblein has shown that it was in use as far away as St. Gall in present-day Switzerland in the 9th century) before Gregorian chant had gained the upper hand. Although he came to no conclusion regarding the origins of Gregorian chant, Huglo was prepared to state that Old Roman was the only form of chant familiar to the entire Roman clergy of the period; and this was a clear enough indication that the origins of Gregorian should be looked for <strong>outside</strong> Rome.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilNK3tNaabdFZdTwg8u4KXa0DNNA7lHT3ho3oV18ImLJ-ARk60Bo-M6ozG1Cv_F8-M4ON7khulQMbwW4sLfpvUJ2KKN0IO-8vcaL5jmHLoPFH70ACJZsZpWH76Iv3c23QjeTGvV-RrKPo/s1600/num%C3%A9risation0003.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" j8="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilNK3tNaabdFZdTwg8u4KXa0DNNA7lHT3ho3oV18ImLJ-ARk60Bo-M6ozG1Cv_F8-M4ON7khulQMbwW4sLfpvUJ2KKN0IO-8vcaL5jmHLoPFH70ACJZsZpWH76Iv3c23QjeTGvV-RrKPo/s320/num%C3%A9risation0003.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Old Roman Chant: <em>Tecum principium</em><br />
(courtesy of <em><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilNK3tNaabdFZdTwg8u4KXa0DNNA7lHT3ho3oV18ImLJ-ARk60Bo-M6ozG1Cv_F8-M4ON7khulQMbwW4sLfpvUJ2KKN0IO-8vcaL5jmHLoPFH70ACJZsZpWH76Iv3c23QjeTGvV-RrKPo/s1600/num%C3%A9risation0003.jpg">New Liturgical Movement</a></em>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table> <br />
Musicologist Helmut Hucke took up the challenge, when developing an alternative line of argument to that of Stäblein. In Hucke's view, the point of departure of Gregorian is Old Roman, which underwent a transformation in Frankish territory during the Carolingian era. <br />
<br />
As everyone who has studied the history of the Roman Rite pretty much knows, the Roman liturgy starting from the Middle Ages is actually a hybrid between the Gallican family of rites and the original liturgy in use at Rome. It all started in 754, when the first King of the Franks, Pepin the Short decreed the adoption of the Papal liturgy in his kingdom. It was the time when the Roman liturgy, which until then, apart from the Anglo-Saxon mission Church, had possessed and laid claim to recognition only for Rome and its environs, advanced in a short time to becoming the liturgy of a great empire. <br />
<br />
Of course, as soon as the Roman way of worship was introduced in Frankish territory, its started to absorb local elements. It is often related that Charlemagne, Pepin's son, once asked Pope Hadrian I to provide an authentic Roman sacramentary for use throughout the empire, which the latter sent to the court at Aachen around in the year 785-786. The intention was to preserve it as the authentic "standard" of the text attributed to Pope St. Gregory the Great and to disseminate it throughout all of Charlemagne's domain through copies, thereby unifying the whole empire under one liturgy - that of Rome. However, the sacramentary the Pope sent soon proved to be ill-suited to the Emperor's plan: it only contained the liturgy for certain feasts, which would make it ill-adapted to the daily liturgical needs of a parish! When complaints reached the ear of the Pope, his excuse was saying that he merely picked from the Lateran library what seemed to him to be the best sacramentary he had! Recognizing the obvious unsuitability of the book, the court liturgists decided to correct the text (especially its rather mediocre Latin) and then to augment it with a supplement - derived from the local traditions - so that it could serve for the daily liturgy. The result of this work is the <em>Hadrianum</em>, aka the Hadrian Sacramentary.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/qepWS3yU2Lg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
(above: <em><span dir="ltr" id="eow-title" title="Introit: Resurrrexi">Introit: Resurrrexi</span>,</em> sung by Ensemble Organum, from their album <em>Chants de L'Eglise de Rome: Période Byzantine</em>)<br />
<br />
Eventually, this hybrid Roman-Frankish liturgy started creeping its way into the Eternal City itself, eventually supplanting its own parent altogether. Church life in Rome was stagnant during the <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum">saeculum obscurum</a></em> of the first half of the 10th century; there was a liturgical vacuum, which the Gallo-Roman liturgy refilled. This took place both through the direct intervention of the Holy Roman Empire and by the settlement of the Cluniacs in monasteries of Rome or its neighborhood.<br />
<br />
Hucke's idea was that Old Roman chant would have shared the same fate as that of the Roman liturgy, to which it is tagged: it would have encountered the Gallic repertories and would have been transformed into what would be known into later ages as 'Gregorian' not only by an inevitable process of 'contamination' but above all by being deliberately adapted for aesthetic reasons. Whatever the value of the latter motive, it should not be forgotten that musical notation did not exist yet, and the repertory would have been handed on by memory.<br />
<br />
Hucke's idea received support from writers such as Willi Apel and Robert J. Snow, while Walther Lipphardt, although claiming that Gregorian chant was the Frankish version of a Roman original, maintained that the melodic material exported from Rome was accepted in Frankish domains without any modification; thus Gregorian would be nothing more than the Roman chant of the 9th century. Apart from this detail, these are the broad lines of the second hypothesis: the birth of Gregorian in what is now France as a result of the impact of Roman chant on the local Gallican traditions.<br />
<br />
Part of the reason why Gregorian chant succeeded in gaining the upper hand, it seems, was facilitated by two factors: the invention of a process of writing the melody, which represents a turn in musical history, and its being attributed to one of the most famous characters in Christendom - Pope St. Gregory the Great.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://cyberbrethren.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/St.-Gregory-the-Great.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: left; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" j8="true" src="http://cyberbrethren.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/St.-Gregory-the-Great.jpg" /></a></div>There are now various alternative theories as to how <em>Gregorian chant</em> got its name, aside from the standard interpretation that it was named after Gregory the Great, and not without their own critics. One proposes that the name actually refers to a different Gregory (one popular candidate here is the 8th-century pope Gregory II) - a theory that already existed even before Old Roman chant was actually discovered - while another says that the name was actually the result of (Carolingian?) propaganda by appealing to higher authority to give vindication for the abandonment of local chant traditions in favor of the (Frankish-) Roman style of chanting.<br />
<br />
After all, who could go wrong with Gregory's music? ;)Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-31674185540832960742011-05-03T00:07:00.000-07:002011-05-03T00:09:32.086-07:00Holy Week in the City of Rome: Palm Sunday<center><strong>Dominica in Palmis (<em>De Passione Domini</em>)</strong></center><br />
<a href="http://lib.haifa.ac.il/collections/art/med/8_5e_rossano_entry_jeru.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="167" j8="true" src="http://lib.haifa.ac.il/collections/art/med/8_5e_rossano_entry_jeru.gif" width="320" /></a><br />
Three of the earliest Roman liturgical books, the <em>Gelasian Sacramentary</em> (7th c.), and both the Paduan (7th c.) and the Hadrian (8th c.) editions of the <em><a href="http://www.blogger.com/"><span id="goog_1413007007"></span>Gregorian Sacramentary<span id="goog_1413007008"></span></a></em> already call the Sunday before Easter <em>Dominica in Palmis</em> ("Sunday for Palms") or <em>Die dominico ad Palmas</em>. Even so, none of these documents explicitly mention any observances of palm rites, which were by the time already being performed in various parts of Christendom. The references to palms is absent in the propers, and in all the Roman <em>Epistolari</em> and <em>Evangeliari</em> of the period - in fact, the original title for the day probably did not mention palms at all, since the rite did not probably reach Rome until about the tenth century. In Rome, Palm Sunday was simply <em>Passion Sunday</em>, due to the fact that the Passion account from Matthew's Gospel (chapters 26-27) was read on this day. After the Gospel is read, the pope then usually gave a sermon on the first half of the account, postponing his explanation of the remainder to the following Wednesday.<br />
<a name='more'></a>Such a ceremony had already existed in Jerusalem as early as the 4th century, as testified to by the pilgrim <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egeria_(pilgrim)">Egeria</a>: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Accordingly at the seventh hour all the people go up to the Mount of Olives, that is, to <i>Eleona</i>, and the bishop with them, to the church, where hymns and antiphons suitable to the day and to the place are said, and lessons in like manner. And when the ninth hour approaches they go up with hymns to the <i>Imbomon</i>, that is, to the place whence the Lord ascended into heaven, and there they sit down, for all the people are always bidden to sit when the bishop is present; the deacons alone always stand. Hymns and antiphons suitable to the day and to the place are said, interspersed with lections and prayers. And as the eleventh hour approaches, the passage from the Gospel is read, where the children, carrying branches and palms, met the Lord, saying; <i>Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord</i> (Matthew 21:9), and the bishop immediately rises, and all the people with him, and they all go on foot from the top of the Mount of Olives, all the people going before him with hymns and antiphons, answering one to another: <i>Blessed is He that cometh in the Name of the Lord.</i> And all the children in the neighbourhood, even those who are too young to walk, are carried by their parents on their shoulders, all of them bearing branches, some of palms and some of olives, and thus the bishop is escorted in the same manner as the Lord was of old. For all, even those of rank, both matrons and men, accompany the bishop all the way on foot in this manner, making these responses, from the top of the mount to the city, and thence through the whole city to the Anastasis, going very slowly lest the poeple should be wearied; and thus they arrive at the Anastasis at a late hour. And on arriving, although it is late, <i>lucernare</i> takes place, with prayer at the Cross; after which the people are dismissed.</blockquote>In the West, it appears for the first time in the <em>Liber Ordinum</em>, a liturgical book of the Mozarabic Rite containing practices of the fifth to seventh centuries; both the blessing of palms at the altar and a subsequent procession with palms are mentioned. In the North Italian-Celtic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Rite#The_Bobbio_Missal">Bobbio Missal</a> (7th-8th century) a prayer for "<em>the Blessing of Palms and Olives on the altar</em>" is provided, but it says nothing about a procession afterwards; it does, however, indicate that the laity took palms home with them "<em>piously with devotion.</em>" In the next century, the liturgist Amalarius of Metz apparently described the custom in his native Gaul: "<em>In memory of this [our Lord's entry into Jerusalem] we are accustomed throughout our churches to carry branches and to cry Hosanna.</em>" It was during this same period that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodulf_of_Orl%C3%A9ans">Theodulf, Bishop of Orléans</a> (ca. 750/60-821) composed the hymn <em><a href="http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Hymni/GloriaLaus.html">Gloria, Laus et Honor.</a></em> A procession is described in the tenth-century <em>Regularis Concordia</em>, a document produced in Winchester detailing the practices of English Benedictine monasteries:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>...the gospel <em>Turba multa</em> [John 12:12-19] shall be read by the deacon as far as the words "<em>Behold, the whole world is gone after him</em>": the blessing of the palms shall follow. After the blessing the palms shall be sprinkled with holy water and incensed. While the children begin the antiphons <em><a href="http://www.canticanova.com/planning/year-b/plnpsb_l.htm">Pueri Hebraeorum</a></em> the palms shall be distributed. Then the greater antiphons shall be intoned and the procession shall go forth. As soon as the mother church is reached the procession shall wait while the children, who shall have gone on before, sing <em>Gloria laus</em> with its verses, to which all shall answer <em>Gloria laus,</em> as the custom is. When this is finished the cantor shall intone the respond <em><a href="http://www.canticanova.com/planning/year-b/plnpsb_l.htm">Ingrediente Domino</a></em> and the doors shall be opened.</blockquote>It is more likely that the arrival in Rome of the <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romano-German_Pontifical">Romano-Germanic Pontifical</a></em> compiled in in St. Alban's Abbey, Mainz, under the reign of William, Archbishop of Mainz, in the mid-tenth century, would have led to the introduction of the Procession of Palms into the Roman liturgy, for just such a ceremony is described at great length in this work (<em>Ordo de die Palmarum</em>). The pontifical itself had a decisive influence over the Roman liturgical books of the twelfth-thirteenth centuries - such ceremonies already appear in the <a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Ordines_Romani">Roman <em>Ordines</em> 11 and 12</a>.<br />
<br />
The propers of the day from the <em>Gelasian Sacramentary</em>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><strong>DOMINICA IN PALMIS<br />
<i>De Passione Domini.</i></strong><br />
<br />
(Omnipotens sempiterne) Deus, qui humano generi ad imitandum humilitatis exemplum, Salvatorem nostrum et carnem sumere et crucem subire fecisti, concede (nobis) propitius ut et patientiae eius habere documentum et resurrectionis eius consortia mereamur, Christi Domini nostri. Qui tecum vivit et regnat Deus in unitate Spiritus sancti, per.<br />
<br />
Deus, quem diligere et amare iustitia est, ineffabilis gratiae tuae in nobis dona multiplica: et [ut] qui fecisti nos morte Filii tui sperare quod credimus, fac nos, eodem resurgente, pervenire quo tendimus. Per.<br />
<br />
<strong>Secreta.</strong><br />
Ipsa maiestati tuae, Domine, fidelis populus commendet oblatio, qui per Filium tuum reconciliavit inimicos, Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum. Qui tecum uiuit et regnat Deus in unitate Spiritus sancti, per omnia saecula saeculorum.<br />
<br />
<strong>Postcommunio.</strong><br />
Sacro munere satiati, supplices te, Domine, deprecamur, ut qui debite servitutis celebramus officio, salvationis tuae suscipiamus augmentum. Per.<br />
<br />
<strong>Ad Populum.</strong><br />
Purifica, quaesumus, Domine, familiam tuam, et ab omnibus contagiis pravitatis emunda, ut redempta vasa sui Domini passione, non spiritus immundus rursus inficiat, sed salvatio sempiterna possideat. Per.</blockquote>From the Hadrian Sacramentary:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><b>DIE DOMINICO IN PALMAS<br />
<i>Ad Sanctum Iohannem in Lateranis.</i></b><br />
<br />
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui humano generi ad imitandum humilitatis exemplum, Salvatorem nostrum carnem sumere et crucem subire fecisti, concede propitius ut et patientiae ipsius habere documenta et resurrectionis consortia mereamur, Per.<br />
<br />
<b>Super oblata.</b>Concede, quaesumus, Domine, ut oculis tuae maiestatis munus oblatum, et gratiam nobis devotionis obtineat, et effectum beatae perennitatis acquirat. Per.<br />
<br />
<b>Ad completa.</b><br />
Per huius, Domine, operationem mysterii: et vitia nostra purgentur, et iusta desideria compleantur. Per.</blockquote>Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-33913084962263468242011-05-02T23:54:00.000-07:002011-05-02T23:54:38.272-07:00The Minor, Trivial Biblical Stuff, Part 9: Pontius Pilate, Third Part and AppendixThe Jesus incident certainly was not the last event in Pilate's career.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bibleplaces.com/images/MT_GERIZIM_AND_MT_EBAL_FROM_EAST_TB_N011300_wr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" j8="true" src="http://www.bibleplaces.com/images/MT_GERIZIM_AND_MT_EBAL_FROM_EAST_TB_N011300_wr.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there.<br />
<br />
So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathana, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain. <br />
<br />
But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews.<br />
<br />
So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead. <br />
<br />
- Josephus, <em>Antiquities</em> 18.85-89</blockquote>This anonymous Samaritan may be called a Messiah in one sense (not on the original, as that is a Jewish concept), because he apparently announced the restoration of the cult in the Samarian temple, which was on Mount Gerizim - as implied by his claiming to be able to show Moses' sacred vessels. The Samaritan equivalent of the Jewish 'Messiah' is the <em>Taheb</em> ('Restorer'), which they interpret to be the prophet like unto Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15-18.<br />
<br />
With this, Pontius Pilate disappears from the records of history once more. We will never know what happened to him after his dismissal. Pilate had remained in office for more than ten years (AD 26-36).<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong>Appendix: the Physical Evidence of Pilate</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.theevidence.org.uk/library/arch4_15.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" j8="true" src="http://www.theevidence.org.uk/library/arch4_15.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>Aside from the literary testimonies, we have at least a couple of physical evidences for the existence of Pontius Pilate: <a href="http://www.numismalink.com/fontanille1.html">coins dating</a> <a href="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=932">from the period of his governorship</a> and a single stone discovered in 1961.<br />
<br />
The <em>Pilate Stone</em> (right) is a block of limestone with a carved inscription attributed to Pilate, found in 1961 by a team of Italian archeologists led by Dr. Antonio Frova in an ancient theater, built by decree of Herod the Great c. 30 BC, located in Caesarea Maritima (present-day <em>Qesarya</em>), the capital of Roman Judaea. On the partially damaged block is a dedication to Tiberius Caesar. As of now, this is the only known occurrence of the name Pontius Pilate in any ancient inscription. The stone is now located at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Museum">Israel Museum</a> in Jerusalem, with a replica left on the site at Caesarea.<br />
<br />
Since the text is so damaged - one can only make out the words <em>Tiberieum</em>, <em>[Po]ntius Pilatus</em> and <em>[Praef]ectus Iuda[ea]e</em> on it now - there are a number of proposals as to how the original text may have originally read. Here are some of them:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><strong>1.)</strong> <em>[dis augusti]S TIBERIEVM [po]NTIVS PILATVS [praef]ECTVS IVDA[ea]E [fecit d]E[dicavit]</em> "To the honorable gods (or To the Divine <em>Augusti</em> [i.e. Augustus and Livia]) the Tiberieum Pontius Pilatus, prefect of Iudaea, has made (and) dedicated."<br />
<br />
<strong>2.)</strong> <em>[caesarien(ibu)]S TIBERIEVM [po]NTIVS PILATVS [praef]ECTVS IVDA[ea]E [d]E[dit]</em> "The Caesareans' (i.e. people of Caesarea Maritima) <em>Tiberieum</em>, Pontius Pilatus, prefect of Iudaea, dedicates."<br />
<br />
<strong>3.)</strong> <em>[kal(endis) iulii]S TIBERIEVM [m (arcus) ? pon]NTIVS PILATVS [praef]ECTVS IVDA[ea]E [d]E[dicavit]</em> " "The <em>Tiberieum </em>of the kalends of July Marcus (?) Pontius Pilatus, prefect of Iudaea, has dedicated."<br />
<br />
<strong>4.)</strong> <em>[opu]S TIBERIEVM...</em> "The <em>Tiberieum</em> building..."<br />
<br />
5.) <em>[iudaei]S TIBERIEVM</em>... "The Judeans' (Jews') <em>Tiberieum</em>..."<br />
<br />
<strong>6.)</strong> [nemu]S TIBERIEVM... "The <em>Tiberieum</em> of the (sacred) grove..."<br />
<br />
<strong>7.)</strong> <em>[munu]S TIBERIEVM</em>... "The municipal <em>Tiberieum</em>..."<br />
<br />
<strong>8.)</strong> <em>[nauti]S TIBERIEVM [pon]NTIVS PILATVS [praef]ECTVS IVDA[ea]E [r]E[fecit]</em> "The seamen's Tiberieum Pontius Pilatus, Prefect of Iudaea, restores."</blockquote>This inscription caused some sensation among experts, because it proves that Pilate's title was praefectus, and not procurator, as the Roman historian Tacitus states in his Annals.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.romancoins.net/newsletter/122-Pontius-Pilate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" j8="true" src="http://www.romancoins.net/newsletter/122-Pontius-Pilate.jpg" /></a></div>The title used by the governors of the region varied depending on the period. When Samaria, Judaea proper and Idumea were first amalgamated into Judaea Province, from AD 6 to the outbreak of the First Jewish Revolt in AD 66, officials of the equestrian order governed. They held the Roman title of <em>praefectus</em> until Herod Agrippa I was named 'King of the Judaeans' by the emperor Claudius. After Herod Agrippa's death in AD 44, when Judaea reverted to direct Roman rule, the governor began to held the title procurator. When applied to governors, the title <em>procurator</em>, otherwise used for financial officers, connotes no difference in rank or function from the title known as prefect. Contemporary archaeological finds and documents such as the Pilate Stone attest to the governor's more accurate official title only for the years 6 through 44: <em>prefect.</em>Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-22530361646812037082011-05-02T23:47:00.000-07:002011-05-02T23:47:20.726-07:00The Minor, Trivial Biblical Stuff, Part 9: Pontius Pilate, Second Part<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5821/450pxmunkc3a1csychristb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" j8="true" src="http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/5821/450pxmunkc3a1csychristb.jpg" /></a></div>Later, on another occasion:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>After this he raised another disturbance, by expending that sacred treasure which is called <em>korbonas</em> upon aqueducts, whereby he brought water from the distance of four hundred furlongs. At this the multitude had indignation; and when Pilate was come to Jerusalem, they came about his tribunal, and made a clamor at it.<br />
<br />
Now when he was apprized aforehand of this disturbance, he mixed his own soldiers in their armor with the multitude, and ordered them to conceal themselves under the habits of private men, and not indeed to use their swords, but with their staves to beat those that made the clamor. He then gave the signal from his tribunal [to do as he had bidden them].<br />
<br />
Now the Jews were so sadly beaten, that many of them perished by the stripes they received, and many of them perished as trodden to death by themselves; by which means the multitude was astonished at the calamity of those that were slain, and held their peace.<br />
<br />
- Josephus, <em>Wars of the Jews</em> 2.175-177<br />
<br />
But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do.<br />
<br />
So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.<br />
<br />
- Josephus, <em>Antiquities</em> 18.60-62<br />
<br />
<em>Korbanas</em>: among the Jews the holy treasury. Pilate spent the holy treasury on an aqueduct and stirred up a riot. It brought in water from a distance of seventy-two kilometers. Bringing in his army, he killed many. <br />
<br />
- The <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suda">Souda</a></em>, 'Korbanas'</blockquote><a name='more'></a>The construction of the aquaduct - its length was twenty kilometers - had been ordered by Herod the Great. Pilate could not finish the building; it was inaugurated by Herod Agrippa, who reigned in Jerusalem from AD 41 to AD 44.<br />
<br />
The treasury Josephus describes as <em>korbonas</em> is known from Jewish sources as <em>qorban</em> (cf. Matthew 27:6 "<em>It is not lawful to put them to the korbanas</em>"), and Jewish law permitted the use of money from this treasury for social welfare and public works (Mishna, <em>Šeqalim</em> 4.2). Granted, the Mishna dates from a later period, but it could be possible that a similar law was in force in the 1st century. Of course the Temple authorities, whose duty it was to administer the money, had to cooperate, but their consent - whether voluntary or coerced we do not know - is implied in the story. Had they refused, Josephus would have told us that Pilate stole the money and expressed horror that a pagan had violated the Temple.<br />
<br />
It is unclear what Pilate did wrong, especially since the construction of an aqueduct was surely an undertaking that would have improved the inhabitants' standard of living enormously (and which it did, as Jerusalem's water supply was limited). It could be that he took the initiative, instead of allowing Caiaphas to take the credits. Or he could have completely drained the funds, which were primarily used for sacrificial purposes. Supposing that a law similar to that found in the Mishna did exist at that time, Pilate would have received surplus money from the treasury for use in the aqueduct's construction. Problem would have only arose when Pilate began to wantonly spend the money and demand more than the surplus for his venture from the priests. Building projects are after all notorious requiring more money than initially expected.<br />
<br />
The demonstration seems to have taken place at a feast, because Pilate was staying in Jerusalem (the governor usually stayed here during feastdays to monitor the crowds and to check for potential unrest). It may have been during this festival that the soldiers "<em>mingled the blood of the Galileans with their sacrifices</em>" (Luke 13:1). The fact that Pilate's soldiers could be hidden among the populace may suggest that they were not Italians, but belonged to a locally-recruited unit (say, the <em>Samaritan Ala I Sebastenorum</em> or <em>Cohors I Sebastenorum</em>).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/What-is-truth02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" j8="true" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/What-is-truth02.jpg" width="229" /></a></div>Not too later would come the most well-known incident in the life of Pilate, so familiar that I would step aside and let the authors do the talking.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>And immediately in early-morning the chief priests, having made counsel, with the elders and scribes and the whole Council, having bound Jesus, carried Him off and handed Him over to Pilate. And Pilate questioned Him: “<em>Are you the King of the Judaeans?</em>” Now He, answering, says to him, “<em>You say it.</em>” And the chief priests were accusing Him much. Now Pilate again questioned Him, [saying,] “<em>Do you not answer? See how many things they are accusing you of.</em>” But Jesus no more answered anything, so that Pilate wondered.<br />
<br />
Now at every feast he was releasing for them one prisoner whom they were asking. Now there was the one called ‘Barabbas’, bound with fellow-insurrectionists who had in the insurrection committed murder; and the crowd, having went up, began asking him to do as he was always doing for them. And Pilate answered them, saying, “<em>Do you want that I should release for you ‘the King of the Judaeans’?</em>” (For he knew that because of envy the chief priests had handed Him over.)<br />
<br />
But the chief priests stirred up the crowd that he should rather release Barabbas for them; and Pilate answering, again said to them, “<em>What, then [do you want] me to do with [the one you call] ‘the King of the Judaeans’?</em>” Now again they cried out, “<em>Crucify Him!</em>” Now Pilate said to them, “<em>Why? What evil did He?</em>” But they more exceedingly cried out, “<em>Crucify Him!</em>” Now Pilate, wanting to satisfy the crowd, released to them Barabbas, and handing over Jesus – having Him flagellated – that He might be crucified.<br />
<br />
- Mark 15:1-15<br />
<br />
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, (<em>if it be lawful to call him a man;</em>) for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews (<em>and many of the Greeks.</em> ?) (<em>He was [the] Christ.</em> = 'He was believed to be the Christ.' ?) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; (<em>for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.</em>) And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.<br />
<br />
- Josephus, <em>Antiquities</em> 18.63-64<br />
<br />
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite punishments on a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called <em>Chrestians</em> (sic) by the populace. <em>Christus</em>, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular.<br />
<br />
- Tacitus, <em>Annals</em> 15.44</blockquote>Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-7301351343081484272011-05-02T23:40:00.000-07:002011-05-02T23:40:35.721-07:00The Minor, Trivial Biblical Stuff, Part 9: Pontius Pilate, First PartA belated <em>Happy Easter</em> to one and all! Christ is Risen!<br />
Sorry again for the (usual) silence here in this blog. To make some amends: we'll have a bit of look on the man whose name is known to most Christians all over the world in a daily basis solely because he has some involvement in the death of Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
Pontius Pilate (<em>Pontius Pilatus</em>; Greek Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος, <em>Pontios Pilatos</em>) was the fifth prefect of the Roman province of Judaea, from AD 26-36. He is probably famous as the man who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus. We do not know much about him, save for the scraps that men of former ages have left down for us. Pilate's name has become famous only because of his association with Jesus Christ: "<em>He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate.</em>" Indeed, we can say that if he did not have any involvement with Jesus' death at all, he would only be yet another of those minor footnotes in the history of the Roman Empire.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.joyfulheart.com/easter/images-tissot/tissot-portrait-of-pontius-pilate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" j8="true" src="http://www.joyfulheart.com/easter/images-tissot/tissot-portrait-of-pontius-pilate.jpg" width="295" /></a></div>Most of the governors (<em>praeses (provinciae)</em>, <em>rector provinciae</em>) who ruled the forty-something provinces of the Roman Empire are actually virtually unknown to historians, who consider themselves lucky when they happen to know who was responsible for a province at a certain moment. There are, however, some exceptions to this.<br />
<br />
Now the governor of any given Roman province had four tasks.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><strong>1.)</strong> He was responsible for taxation and financial management. Depending on the basis of his appointment, he was either the Emperor's personal agent, or the Roman Senate’s financial agent, and had to supervise the local authorities, the private toll collectors, and levy taxes. A governor could mint coins and negotiate with wealthy institutions such as temples and private money-lenders that could advance money.<br />
<br />
<strong>2.)</strong> He was the province's chief accountant: meaning, he inspected the books of major cities and various operations as well as supervising large-scale building projects throughout the province.<br />
<br />
<strong>3.)</strong> The governor was the province's supreme judge. The governor had the sole right to impose capital punishment, and capital cases were normally tried before him. To appeal a governor's decision necessitated travelling to Rome and presenting one's case before either the <em>Praetor urbanus</em>, or even the Emperor himself, an expensive, and thus rare, process. The governor was also supposed to travel across his province - in the case of the governor of Judaea, this necessitated travel through the districts of Samaria, Judaea and Perea - to administer justice in the major towns where his attention was required.<br />
<br />
<strong>4.)</strong> He commanded the military forces within the province. In the more important provinces, this could consist of legions, but elsewhere, there were only auxiliaries, as was the case in Judaea. As a part of his standing orders the governor had the authority to use his legions to stamp out organized criminal gangs or rebels in the area without need for the Emperor's or Senate's approval. Two cohorts had their barracks in Jerusalem (at the old palace and at the Antonia fortress); a third cohort guarded the capital, Caesarea Maritima; and two cohorts of infantry and one cavalry regiment were on duty throughout the province. Taken together, the prefect of Judaea commanded 6×500 men: a force to be reckoned with, but not enough when things went seriously wrong. In that case, his superior, the legate of Syria, would have to send a legion to his aid.<br />
<br />
</blockquote><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.ritmeyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/antsw.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="206" j8="true" src="http://www.ritmeyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/antsw.gif" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Fortress Antonia (reconstruction <a href="http://www.ritmeyer.com/2009/02/02/the-antonia-herods-temple-mount-fortress/">by Leen Ritmeyer</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>Pilate's tenure of office - at least at first - was not typical, however, because the Syrian governor Lucius Aelius Lamia was absent. Lucius Aelius Lamia the younger, the scion of an illustrious family of cavalry officers that Augustus elevated to senatorial status and himself (or his father) reportedly a personal friend of the poet Horace and Cicero Minor, has had a prestigious career: he was consul of Rome in AD 3 and afterwards served as governor of Germania, Pannonia and Africa. He was assigned the post of legate of Syria in AD 22, but the title was purely nominal: for reasons entirely unclear, Tiberius requested the popular senator to stay in Rome. There, he was elevated to the status of prefect of Rome in AD 32. The aging military bureaucrat died after only a year in office and was honored with a state funeral. <br />
<br />
The absence of an imperial legate for a decade gave Pilate much greater autonomy than was usual for a military prefect, as he could not rely on the Syrian governor and his troops to give him aid. In case of an emergency, he and his auxiliaries were alone. <br />
<br />
Judaea was so unimportant a province, that no senator would have deigned to become its governor. Consequently, its governors belonged to the second class of the Roman elite, the equestrian order (<em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_order">ordo equester</a></em>). These men were not entitled to become legates or proconsuls, but had to content themselves with the title of <em><a href="http://www.livius.org/pp-pr/procurator/procurator.html">prefect</a></em> (after AD 41, <em>procurator</em>).<br />
<br />
Pilate, along with his wife, arrived at Caesarea in AD 26. Trouble started almost immediately at the beginning of his term as a prelude to his quite-stormy career: soldiers had brought army standards or inscribed shields, and almost the entire population of Jerusalem marched to Caesarea, imploring the new governor to remove the effigies, which were in violation of the Law.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Moreover, I have it in my power to relate one act of ambition on his part, though I suffered an infinite number of evils when he was alive; but nevertheless the truth is considered dear, and much to be honoured by you. Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod, in the holy city; which had no form nor any other forbidden thing represented on them except some necessary inscription, which mentioned these two facts, the name of the person who had placed them there, and the person in whose honour they were so placed there.<br />
<br />
But when the multitude heard what had been done, and when the circumstance became notorious, then the people, putting forward the four sons of the king, who were in no respect inferior to the kings themselves, in fortune or in rank, and his other descendants, and those magistrates who were among them at the time, entreated him to alter and to rectify the innovation which he had committed in respect of the shields; and not to make any alteration in their national customs, which had hitherto been preserved without any interruption, without being in the least degree changed by any king of emperor.<br />
<br />
But when he steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: "<i>Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation. Tiberius is not desirous that any of our laws or customs shall be destroyed. And if you yourself say that he is, show us either some command from him, or some letter, or something of the kind, that we, who have been sent to you as ambassadors, may cease to trouble you, and may address our supplications to your master.'</i>"<br />
<br />
But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity.<br />
<br />
Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points. And those who were in power in our nation, seeing this, and perceiving that he was inclined to change his mind as to what he had done, but that he was not willing to be thought to do so, wrote a most supplicatory letter to Tiberius.<br />
<br />
And he, when he had read it, what did he say of Pilate, and what threats did he utter against him! But it is beside our purpose at present to relate to you how very angry he was, although he was not very liable to sudden anger; since the facts speak for themselves; for immediately, without putting any thing off till the next day, he wrote a letter, reproaching and reviling him in the most bitter manner for his act of unprecedented audacity and wickedness, and commanding him immediately to take down the shields and to convey them away from the metropolis of Judaea to Caesarea, on the sea which had been named Caesarea Augusta, after his grandfather, in order that they might be set up in the temple of Augustus. And accordingly, they were set up in that edifice. And in this way he provided for two matters: both for the honour due to the emperor, and for the preservation of the ancient customs of the city.<br />
<br />
- Philo, <em>On the Embassy to Gaius</em> (38) 299-305<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/standardrelief2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" j8="true" src="http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/standardrelief2.jpg" width="170" /></a></div>Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius, sent by night those images of Caesar that are called ensigns into Jerusalem. This excited a very among great tumult among the Jews when it was day; for those that were near them were astonished at the sight of them, as indications that their laws were trodden under foot; for those laws do not permit any sort of image to be brought into the city. Nay, besides the indignation which the citizens had themselves at this procedure, a vast number of people came running out of the country.<br />
<br />
These came zealously to Pilate to Cesarea, and besought him to carry those ensigns out of Jerusalem, and to preserve them their ancient laws inviolable; but upon Pilate's denial of their request, they fell down prostrate upon the ground, and continued immovable in that posture for five days and as many nights.<br />
<br />
On the next day Pilate sat upon his tribunal, in the open market-place, and called to him the multitude, as desirous to give them an answer; and then gave a signal to the soldiers, that they should all by agreement at once encompass the Jews with their weapons; so the band of soldiers stood round about the Jews in three ranks. The Jews were under the utmost consternation at that unexpected sight. Pilate also said to them that they should be cut in pieces, unless they would admit of Caesar's images, and gave intimation to the soldiers to draw their naked swords.<br />
<br />
Hereupon the Jews, as it were at one signal, fell down in vast numbers together, and exposed their necks bare, and cried out that they were sooner ready to be slain, than that their law should be transgressed. Hereupon Pilate was greatly surprised at their prodigious superstition, and gave order that the ensigns should be presently carried out of Jerusalem.<br />
<br />
- Josephus,<em> Wars of the Jews</em> 2.169-174<br />
<br />
BUT now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments.<br />
<br />
Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home.<br />
<br />
But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea. <br />
<br />
- Josephus, <em>Antiquities of the Jews</em> 18.55-59 (18.3.1)</blockquote>There are two striking differences between these three stories. To start with, Philo knows about a petition by four sons of Herod and tells us nothing about the sit down action that Josephus describes with much gusto. The other difference is that Josephus thinks that army standards were involved, whereas Philo mentions gilded shields with an inscription. But whatever their differences, Philo and Josephus have one thing in common: they do not tell the story from Pilate's point of view, but tell it from a Jewish perspective, which is extremely hostile to the governor. Some debate still goes on as to whether Pilate deliberately did this to provoke the Jews or whether these were accidental <em>faux pas</em> on his part.<br />
<br />
After the incident, Pilate may have written a letter to the emperor, to which was attached the request by the four Jewish leaders. It was common practice that a governor reported incidents and asked guidance from the monarch; the letters written by the 2nd-century governor of Bithynia-Pontus, Pliny the Younger, to Trajan are known to us and show us that the emperor was consulted frequently, and for matters of far less importance than the incident with the gilded shields (or the iconic standards). Philo must have known about this letter to Tiberius, but he can never have read it. He - and also we - certainly did not know the answer, which must have been friendly: Pilate was to be governor for another ten years.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4833279268139963024.post-89311860260446900162011-03-13T16:00:00.000-07:002011-03-13T16:00:55.084-07:00We need your prayersAs you probably have heard, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Sendai_earthquake_and_tsunami">a magnitude 9.0 earthquake</a> has hit Japan. Thankfully no one in my family got injured, though we really need all your prayers now and in the days to come.Patrickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05958467246648332083noreply@blogger.com0